Diversity of Students' Beliefs about Biological Evolution

Clores, Michael A.; Limjap, Auxencia A.

doi:10.1080/02188790600607960

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, although the reasoning of learners can be categorized based on whether they meet phylogenetic considerations, and are therefore suitable or appropriate (Halverson et al, 2011), the relatively large number of types of reasoning (8) found in the same study comprising only 35 respondents suggests that students might not necessarily be applying "theory-like" understandings to explain phylogenetic trees. Other studies on how learners understand evolution have also confirmed such diversity (Clores & Limjap, 2006). Learners often alter their explanations to different content quite differently, suggesting that something more rudimentary is influencing their explanations of scientific phenomena (Kampourakis & Zogza, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

How humans evolved according to grade 12 students in Singapore

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tree thinking, the understanding of the evolutionary relationships between organisms depicted in different types of tree diagrams, is an integral part of understanding evolution. Novice learners often read tree diagrams differently from specialists, resulting in diverse interpretations of the relationships depicted. The aim of this study is to understand how learners construct the picture of human phylogeny, focusing particularly on their views of the last common ancestor of two sister species, humans, and chimpanzees. A theoretical framework based primarily on the schema theory is used to interpret these views. The primary study gathered responses to an open-ended question about human ancestry at various time points in our evolutionary history. The data were coded into categories consisting of lineage, trait description, trait gain, trait loss, and others. The lineage responses were further categorized and examined in the secondary study, with the provision of a simplified phylogenetic tree and the main lineage responses obtained in the primary study. Thirteen students were also selected for interviews. Diverse interpretations, including those that consider humans as direct descendants of extant apes (transmutation) or products of hybridization between extant apes, were found to be affected by respondents' alternative schemata related to the last common ancestor and deep time. We also discuss the potential influence of religious and cultural worldviews on some of these interpretations and present nine alternative models of how learners visualize the last common ancestor that humans shared with the chimpanzee. Findings suggest that complex interactions between different sets of schemata (consilience) may result in diverse interpretations of simple phylogenetic trees. Implications for the teaching of tree thinking are provided.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 90%

How humans evolved according to grade 12 students in Singapore

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clores and Limjap (2006) report that one of their student participants believed that humans evolved from monkeys. This is also the case in Yasri and Mancy (2014)'s study.…”

Section: Content-based Misconceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic classification of student misconceptions in biological evolution

Yasri¹

2014

IJOBED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper considers student understandings of particular aspects of biological evolution from the perspective of misconceptions. Although lists of misconceptions and possible categories have been proposed in educational research studies, individual misconceptions have not been categorised systematically. This paper therefore explores student misconceptions in biological evolution in greater detail. It synthesises existing categorisation schemes for misconceptions and categorise each misconception within a synthesised scheme. According of this new scheme, student misconceptions in biological evolution can be systematically classified into five groups: common sense, content-based, NOS-based (misconceptions related to the nature of science), non-scientific and vernacular misconceptions. This categorisation serves as an organisational scheme for future research on student misconceptions in evolutionary theory, providing both fundamental and analytical frameworks for researchers interested in biology education.Key words: misconceptions, evolution, classification, biology education Misconception in evolution 32 Fundamental scientific concepts of biological evolutionThis section reviews fundamental concepts of biological evolution as explained by scientists and science educators. The review aims to present a standard understanding of the theory of biological evolution which is later used to compare with student misconceptions in biological evolution. To begin with the definition of evolution, Scott (2004, p. 23) defines the term evolution broadly as "a cumulative change through time", pointing out that there are various meanings of evolution including astronomical, geological, chemical and biological evolution. However, in this paper, the term evolution is limited only to the strand of biological evolution. Wiles (2010, p. 18) defines this as the explanation for "the diversity of life on Earth [which] has arisen via descent with modification from a common ancestry" (p. 18). Scott (2004, p. 27) specifically explains that biological evolution is not the explanation of the origin of life itself but "the descent of living things from ancestors from which they differ" (p. 27). Taking her broad and specific definitions together, Scott (2004, p. 27) comments that "descent with modification through time" is an effective explanation of biological evolution.Instead of focusing on defining the term evolution, Alexander (2009) distinguishes between three main aspects of biological evolution: evolutionary devices (i.e. DNA and genes), evolutionary mechanisms (i.e. natural selection and reproductive success) and the result of their combination in the form of macroevolution (i.e. speciation and fossils). These aspects are relevant to five core aspects of biological evolution guided by Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (2005) which are suggested as important to introduce to high school students in the US, consisting of how species evolve over periods of time, how species evolve from common ancestors, how new forms of ...

show abstract

“…A wider range of reasons for forming an opinion on the acceptability of evolutionary theory are reported in the study of Clores and Limjap (2006) whose work adopts a different research approach (in-depth interviews together with written responses) focusing in a different educational context (university students in the Philippines). Their data analysis adopts an inductive approach.…”

Section: Student Justification For or Against Evolutionarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When they reach school age, their perceptions are likely to be influenced by teachers, peers, as well as learning materials (Anderson, 2007, Clores and Limjap, 2006, Donnelly et al, 2009, Martin-Hansen, 2008, Taber et al, 2011, Winslow et al, 2011, Yasri and Mancy, 2012. These different sources of knowledge that individuals consider sufficiently reliable, trustworthy or compelling to influence their justification for accepting or rejecting evolutionary theory are considered as cognitive authority.…”

Section: Cognitive Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, understanding and acceptance of evolutionary biology are found to be closely related to understanding of the nature of science in regard to what science is and how it works (Lombrozo, Thanukos, & Weisberg, 2008). Previous empirical studies in science education research demonstrate that there are various factors which influence different levels of student acceptance of the theory of evolution including understanding evolutionary evidence (Clores & Limjap, 2006;Downie & Barron, 2000), religious perspectives (Clores & Limjap, 2006;Downie & Barron, 2000;Francis & Greer, 1999;Francis, Gibson, & Fulljames, 1990;Fulljames, Gibson, & Francis, 1991;Yasri & Mancy, 2014), and the status of evolutionary theory within the scientific community i.e. the degree to which scientists and science teachers accept it (Rutledge & Sadler, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation