Does integrating natural selection throughout upper secondary biology education result in a better understanding? A cross-national comparison between Flanders, Belgium and the Netherlands

Abstract

Secondary school teaching of evolution through natural selection is very important because for most people, it is the only formal introduction to the scientific understanding of this theory. However, there are major concerns over its unsatisfactory teaching. In several European countries, including the Flanders region in Belgium, natural selection is treated as a side-topic that is referred to only after all other biological content has been covered. It has been suggested that improved understanding can be achieved by teaching it in a more integrated manner throughout the biology curriculum, as is largely the case in the Netherlands. We tested this hypothesis by a standardized comparison of the understanding of natural selection between university freshmen who had completed high level biology secondary education in Flanders or the Netherlands. We used the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS), designed to measure the understanding of 10 underlying key concepts (KC), including four core concepts (CC), and the magnitude of alternative conceptions. Regression analysis was used to control for potentially confounding student parameters. Dutch graduates indeed obtained a significantly higher CINS-score than Flemish graduates. They also scored significantly higher on eight key concepts. The 10 KC were employed to varying degrees, with the relative rank being highly comparable between both student populations, and the CC origin of variation and variation inheritable, both linked to genetics, being more challenging than the CC existence of variation and differential survival. The relative frequency of alternative conceptions elicited by the CINS was almost identical in both student populations.

Towards common ground in measuring acceptance of evolution and knowledge about evolution across Europe: a systematic review of the state of research

“…Many studies have been conducted in few countries, while in the majority of countries only two or less studies have been published. Only six of these publications are cross-country comparisons (Clément 2015a;Göransson et al 2020;Graf and Soran 2010;Kralj et al 2018;Pinxten et al 2020;Šorgo et al 2014). Eight studies compared several different subgroups in the field of education ( Kampourakis et al 2012a, b;Stanisavljevic et al 2013;Tekkaya et al 2012).…”

“…A major cause of these misconceptions could be that evolution-or some major aspects of it as human evolution for example-is given little importance in some European countries' school syllabi/curricula (German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina 2017; Pinxten et al 2020;Quessada and Clément 2011;Reiss 2018) or is presented in an inappropriate way (Sanders and Makotsa 2016). However, although such reviews rate European curricula often as insufficient and/or inappropriate in terms of evolutionary contents, huge differences between countries are visible: For example, in Turkey, which is ranking in the lowest positions regarding the acceptance of evolution (Miller et al 2006), Evolution was reasonably taught in schools in the early years of the Republic of Turkey (Peker et al 2010).…”

“…The situation in Europe is much more diverse, as the more fragmented education research communities, different educational systems and languages make it challenging to gather comparable data for different European countries. Comparable data sets of European countries are very rare (but see e.g., Clément 2015a;Pinxten et al 2020;Šorgo et al 2014). Furthermore, a diverse science education research community may more often use national measuring instruments.…”

“…Based on the results of seven of Comparisons between university student groups revealed that knowledge about evolution increased significantly with the biology education level in biology majors (M 1st -3rd year = 11.6, M postgraduate in biology education = 14.2, and M 4th year = 15.1), compared to biology non-majors with and without biology classes (M no biology = 2.9 and M biology = 9.6) in Greece (Athanasiou and Mavrikaki 2014), biology majors compared to early childhood education and primary education pre-service teachers (M biology majors (all years) = 13.4, M early childhood = 9.7; Lazaridis et al 2011) and different groups of pre-service teachers in Germany (M primary = 11.75, and M upper secondary = 14.74; Großschedl et al 2018). Pinxten et al (2020) compared CINS scores between Veterinary Sciences and Biomedical Sciences university freshmen in Belgium, having completed high level biology secondary education either in Flanders, Belgium or the Netherlands and reported that Dutch students obtained a significantly higher score (M Dutch = 14.4, M Flanders = 12.5).…”

“…A variety of misconceptions has been observed for university students in Greece (Athanasiou and Mavrikaki 2014), Flanders, Belgium (Pinxten et al 2020), and Turkey (Tekkaya et al 2011). Novice university students held more teleological misconceptions than advanced university students in Greece (Athanasiou and Mavrikaki 2014).…”