Educators of Prospective Teachers Hesitate to Embrace Evolution Due to Deficient Understanding of Science/Evolution and High Religiosity

Acceptance of evolution by educators of prospective teachers remains superficially studied despite their role in having mentored schoolteachers whose weak support of evolution is known. Here, we contrast the views of New England educators of prospective teachers (n = 62; 87% Ph.D./doctorate holders in 32 specializations) with those of the general faculty (n = 244; 93% Ph.D./doctorate holders in 40 disciplines), both members of 35 colleges and universities, and with college students (n = 827; subsample of the 35 institutions) who were polled on: (1) the controversy evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design (ID), (2) their understanding of how science/evolution works, and (3) their religiosity. The educators held intermediate positions in respect to the general faculty and the students: 94% of the general faculty, 75% of the educators, and 63% of the students said they accepted evolution openly; and 82% of the general faculty, 71% of the educators, and 58% of the students thought that evolution is definitely true. Only 3% of the general faculty in comparison to 19% of the educators and 24% of the students thought that evolution and creationism are in harmony. Although 93% of the general faculty, educators, and students knew that evolution relies on common ancestry, 26% of the general faculty, 45% of the educators, and 35% of the students did not know that humans are apes. Remarkably, 15% of the general faculty, 32% of the educators, and 35% of the students believed, incorrectly, that the origin of the human mind cannot be explained by evolution; and 30% of the general faculty, 59% of the educators, and 75% of the students were Lamarckian (=believed in inheritance of acquired traits). For science education: 96% of the general faculty, 86% of the educators, and 71% of the students supported the exclusive teaching of evolution, while 4% of the general faculty, 14% of the educators, and 29% of the students favored equal time to evolution, creationism and ID; note that 92% of the general faculty, 82% of the educators, and 50% of the students perceived ID as either not scientific and proposed to counter evolution based on false claims or as religious doctrine consistent with creationism. The general faculty was the most knowledgeable about science/evolution and the least religious (science index, SI = 2.49; evolution index, EI = 2.49; and religiosity index, RI = 0.49); the educators reached lower science/evolution but higher religiosity indexes than the general faculty (SI = 1.96, EI = 1.96, and RI = 0.83); and the students were the least knowledgeable about science/evolution and the most religious (SI = 1.80, EI = 1.60, and RI = 0.89). Understanding of science and evolution were inversely correlated with level of religiosity, and understanding of evolution increased with increasing science literacy. Interestingly, ≈36% of the general faculty, educators and students considered religion to be very important in their lives, and 17% of the general faculty, 34% of the educators, and 28% of the students said they prayed daily. Assessing the perception of evolution by educators of prospective teachers vs. the general faculty and the students of New England, one of the historically most progressive regions in the U.S., is crucial for determining the magnitude of the impact of creationism and ID on attitudes toward science, reason, and education in science.     

The Importance of Understanding the Nature of Science for Accepting Evolution

Many students reject evolutionary theory, whether or not they adequately understand basic evolutionary concepts. We explore the hypothesis that accepting evolution is related to understanding the nature of science. In particular, students may be more likely to accept evolution if they understand that a scientific theory is provisional but reliable, that scientists employ diverse methods for testing scientific claims, and that relating data to theory can require inference and interpretation. In a study with university undergraduates, we find that accepting evolution is significantly correlated with understanding the nature of science, even when controlling for the effects of general interest in science and past science education. These results highlight the importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. We conclude with a discussion of key characteristics of science that challenge a simple portrayal of the scientific method and that we believe should be emphasized in classrooms.     

Apprehension and Pedagogy in Evolution Education

Instructors’ apprehensions and the decisions instructors make about pedagogy are often linked when it comes to teaching evolution. Whether it is the reticence of K-12 teachers that their instruction may affect their students’ religious beliefs detrimentally or that they may become caught up in some administrative, media, parental, or school political turmoil or whether it is the apprehension of college students who perceive that their religious beliefs are being explicitly challenged, such fears can be reduced by understanding their roots and by honing pedagogy in ways that reduce perceived threats. This article describes why it is prudent to address these often secretly held apprehensions and how to help instructors feel free to employ their best pedagogical methods to teach evolution without lingering fear. Some suggestions are given for pre-college and college instructors interested in combining effective pedagogy with as little perceived threat as possible. Methods are offered that allow instructors to focus on underlying scientific misconceptions even if those misconceptions are ultimately facilitated by non-scientific sources, while giving creationist or creationist-leaning students a chance to learn the appropriate scientific conceptions without their religious beliefs being explicitly threatened in a science course.     

Attitudes of Students at a Private Christian Liberal Arts University Toward the Teaching of Evolution

Students at private Christian colleges tend to have a viewpoint that incorporates faith and belief in God. Whether due to misconceptions about evolution, lack of knowledge of the nature of science, or belief that their faith cannot allow them to accept evolution, there tends to be a great deal of confusion about evolution. This study investigates the attitudes toward evolution of students at a small Christian liberal arts university located in east Texas (East Texas Baptist University, ETBU) and how they would feel most comfortable being approached about evolution in the college science classroom. The majority of students at ETBU are from either Texas or Louisiana. In high school, both states require at least one science course to be taken and evolution to be taught at some level of understanding. Students show a fair understanding that science includes only naturalistic explanations . However, a greater number of science courses and maturity level of the student resulted in significant differences (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.002, respectively) in the understanding of science. Nevertheless, there was a general assertion that God should be included in the definition of science by the majority of students (64.4%), indicating a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Students responded that they would be most comfortable with being approached in the classroom about evolution through the presentation of the science supporting evolution (19.6%), and being shown how creationism and intelligent design are not science (29.8%). A number of students responded that the professor should accept creationism and intelligent design as science and teach them as such (38.2%). This paper will present methods to address students that respond to evolution in this manner.     

Still More “Fancy” and “Myth” than “Fact” in Students’ Conceptions of Evolution

College students do not come to biological sciences classes, including biological anthropology, as “blank slates.” Rather, these students have complex and strongly held scientific misconceptions that often interfere with their ability to understand accurate explanations that are presented in class. Research indicates that a scientific misconception cannot be corrected by simply presenting accurate information; the misconception must be made explicit, and the student must decide for him or herself that it is inaccurate. The first step in helping to facilitate such conceptual change among college students is to understand the nature of the scientific misconceptions. We surveyed 547 undergraduate students at the University of Missouri-Columbia on their understanding of the nature and language of science, the mechanisms of evolution, and their support for both Lamarckian inheritance and teleological evolution. We found few significant sex differences among the respondents and identified some common themes in the students’ misconceptions. Our survey results show that student understanding of evolutionary processes is limited, even among students who accept the validity of biological evolution. We also found that confidence in one’s knowledge of science is not related to actual understanding. We advise instructors in biological anthropology courses to survey their students in order to identify the class-specific scientific misconceptions, and we urge faculty members to incorporate active learning strategies in their courses in order to facilitate conceptual change among the students.     

Science Classroom Inquiry (SCI) Simulations: A Novel Method to Scaffold Science Learning

Science education is progressively more focused on employing inquiry-based learning methods in the classroom and increasing scientific literacy among students. However, due to time and resource constraints, many classroom science activities and laboratory experiments focus on simple inquiry, with a step-by-step approach to reach predetermined outcomes. The science classroom inquiry (SCI) simulations were designed to give students real life, authentic science experiences within the confines of a typical classroom. The SCI simulations allow students to engage with a science problem in a meaningful, inquiry-based manner. Three discrete SCI simulations were created as website applications for use with middle school and high school students. For each simulation, students were tasked with solving a scientific problem through investigation and hypothesis testing. After completion of the simulation, 67% of students reported a change in how they perceived authentic science practices, specifically related to the complex and dynamic nature of scientific research and how scientists approach problems. Moreover, 80% of the students who did not report a change in how they viewed the practice of science indicated that the simulation confirmed or strengthened their prior understanding. Additionally, we found a statistically significant positive correlation between students’ self-reported changes in understanding of authentic science practices and the degree to which each simulation benefitted learning. Since SCI simulations were effective in promoting both student learning and student understanding of authentic science practices with both middle and high school students, we propose that SCI simulations are a valuable and versatile technology that can be used to educate and inspire a wide range of science students on the real-world complexities inherent in scientific study.     

Can Willingness and Hands-on Work Together? Teaching Biological Evolution and Dealing with Barriers

This qualitative research aims at first defining how pre-service science teachers think regarding the theory of evolution (TOE) with a particular hands-on and minds-on activity (The article by O’Brien (Am Biol Teach 62(8):578–582, 2000) entitled A toilet paper timeline of evolution: 5 E cycle on the concept of scale is modified and applied in the present research as an intervention process.) Finally, specific suggestions in instructional techniques are offered based on a geological time scale. At the end of intervention, the research follows how participants respond to what they found out or came across. If participants had common misconceptions regarding the TOE, these are revealed. The present research was conducted in two spring semesters of 2009 and 2010 in a geology course. The participant number of the study was 129. The research lasted three weeks. Research results showed that participants were generally misinformed regarding conceptual knowledge of the TOE. Approximately half of the participants did not believe (the term believing in or acceptance of the TOE does not affect research findings) in the TOE. Mostly, they thought that there is no place for human evolution in Islam. Few of them could reconcile scientific information with their own Islamic point of view. Even though they did not believe in the TOE, most of them accepted that they did not have adequate knowledge regarding the TOE. They mostly said they were shocked about the first appearance of human beings in the geological time scale, which is the main issue in the present research. After intervention, conceptual change was considerable, though this is a secondary concern. The results also show that even though students were quite prejudiced regarding the TOE, they were ready to explore it deeply. Such concrete activities might be helpful to push students to think over the TOE. However, there are numerous barriers such as ill-prepared science textbooks and websites, unwillingness of instructors, and official policy of the Ministry of National Education.     

Overcoming Obstacles to Evolution Education: The OOPSIE Compromise—A Big Mistake

Opt-out policies are typically invoked to excuse students from activities to which they or their parents may have religious objections, such as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, dissecting animals in a laboratory, or attending sex education classes. Occasionally, however, a school or school district allows students to opt out of academic topics, including, sometimes, evolution. Opt-out policies specifically including evolution are a big mistake—for the students who opt out, for their classmates whose studies are disrupted, and especially for their teachers, who cannot fulfill their duty to instruct their charges about biology without emphasizing evolution.     

Relationships among Teachers’ Knowledge and Beliefs Regarding the Teaching of Evolution: A Case for Turkey

The research study investigated the possible associations among science and biology teachers?? knowledge and belief variables concerning teaching evolution in science and biology classes. Specifically, this study examined how a set of variables including teachers?? understanding of evolution and nature of science (NOS) is related to the set of variables including teachers?? acceptance of evolution and perceptions of teaching evolution (i.e., perceptions of the necessity of addressing evolution in their classrooms, perceptions of the factors that impede addressing evolution in their classrooms, and personal science teaching efficacy beliefs regarding evolution). Data were collected from science and biology teachers through administration of Evolution Content Knowledge Test, Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, Nature of Science as Argument Questionnaire and Teachers?? Perceptions of Teaching Evolution Scale. Canonical correlation analysis findings suggested that teachers who had thorough understanding of evolution and NOS were likely to both accept the scientific validity of evolution and believe the necessity of addressing evolution in the classrooms. On the other hand, teachers with thorough understanding of evolution and NOS did not necessarily believe that they have a stronger sense of self-efficacy beliefs regarding teaching evolution and that there are fewer obstacles to addressing evolution in the classroom. The research is significant in that it provides empirical evidence clarifying the interactions between teachers?? understanding and beliefs in teaching evolution. Implications for science teacher education are discussed.     

To Believe or not to Believe? A College Student Explores Knowledge and Attitudes about Evolution at her School

After interviewing 17 students and four teachers at Drew University, a college of 1,400 undergraduates which I attend, I found that whereas most express a belief in evolution, many display a hesitancy to embrace the theory entirely. Instead, most students choose to believe only in evolution within lineages and not on a larger scale, specifically in the creation of new species. Teachers at the school explain that their experiences at Drew are similar to those they have experienced at other colleges they have taught at and discuss their methods for introducing the subject in the classroom and the significance of learning evolution. Furthermore, whereas it is easy for students to avoid taking biology classes that would expose them to the theory, I discuss what students look for when taking biology courses and preconceptions teachers must help students overcome when exposing them to evolution.     

Oaths for physicians--necessary protection or elaborate hoax?

The ritual of taking an oath upon graduating from medical school is, with a few exceptions, a routine requirement for graduation. Albeit that many students believe that they have taken the Hippocratic Oath, this is virtually never the case. Very often students themselves write many of these oaths, and taking such an oath impresses the student as well as the public, who are potential patients. It sketches the ethically proper way for physicians to treat their patients. Such an oath is meaningful only when it is not coerced but in reality sketches the physicians' obligations toward patients, society, and each other. The question and problem of a coerced oath are discussed. It is concluded that students when first entering medical school know that such an oath will be a requirement for graduation, and because much of the time the persons taking the oath are writing it, I believe that coercion is not a factor. It is an unfortunate fact that throughout the nation students who are known to behave in ethically inappropriate ways are nevertheless allowed to graduate. Possible ways of addressing this troubling situation are discussed. Equally troublesome is the fact that we who administer the oath as well as the students who swear to it are aware that the system of medical care makes it extremely difficult and at times impossible to truly adhere to the full implications of this oath. According to the oath, physicians (in virtually all formulations) swear that social standing (and by implication economic factors) will not change the way in which patients are treated. This becomes impossible when uninsured patients are sent away at the front desk long before the physician can interact with them. Furthermore, the current fact that physicians often are confronted with not doing what they consider a necessary test (or prescribe what they think would be the best medication) raises the problem of either lying or suggesting to the patient that he/she do so--a fact that in the long run cannot help but damage the physician's veracity and the trust which patients put in their physicians. That virtually all codes of the American Medical Association (AMA) as well as the various specialties insist that physicians work toward universal access is stressed.     

Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education

Abstract.— In the past decade, the academic community has increased considerably its activity concerning the teaching and learning of evolution. Despite such beneficial activity, the state of public understanding of evolution is considered woefully lacking by most researchers and educators. This lack of understanding affects evolution/science literacy, research, and academia in general. Not only does the general public lack an understanding of evolution but so does a considerable proportion of college graduates. However, it is not just evolutionary concepts that students do not retain. In general, college students retain little of what they supposedly have learned. Worse yet, it is not just students who have avoided science and math who fail to retain fundamental science concepts. Students who have had extensive secondary-level and college courses in science have similar deficits. We examine these issues and explore what distinguishes effective pedagogy from ineffective pedagogy in higher education in general and evolution education in particular. The fundamental problem of students' prior conceptions is considered and why prior conceptions often underpin students' misunderstanding of the evolutionary concepts being taught. These conceptions can often be discovered and addressed. We also attend to concerns about coverage of course content and the influence of religious beliefs, and provide helpful strategies to improve college-level teaching of evolution.     

Preservice elementary teachers’ willingness to specialize in science and views on evolution

Background

Acceptance and understanding of evolutionary ideas remains low in the United States despite renewed science education standards, nearly unanimous acceptance among scientists, and decades of research on the teaching and learning of evolution. Early exposure to evolutionary concepts may be one way to reduce resistance to learning and accepting evolution. While there is emerging evidence that elementary students can learn and retain evolutionary ideas, there is also emerging evidence that elementary teachers may be unprepared to teach evolution. It may not be possible to train elementary teachers like their secondary counterparts who receive specialized training in science. This exploratory study was designed to determine if the 147 surveyed preservice elementary teachers (PETs) who are most willing to specialize in science maintain a greater understanding and acceptance of evolution. Such a relationship could have implications for teacher training and science instruction at elementary schools.

Results

As willingness to specialize in science increases so too does acceptance of evolution. For both measures, there was a monotonic increase with increasing willingness to specialize in science. There was a significant correlation (p?=?.047) between willingness to specialize in science and acceptance of evolution as measured by the MATE. There was not a significant correlation between willingness to specialize in science and understanding of evolution as measured by the CINS (p?=?.21). The thirty-two PETs who are enthusiastically willing to specialize in science had the highest understanding and acceptance of evolution.

Conclusions

It may be possible to identify prospective elementary teachers that could assume roles as specialists simply by identifying PETs’ willingness to specialize. Such students appear to enter elementary teacher preparation programs with the science background and enthusiasm for science required to be specialists without the need for much additional training. Thus, science teacher educators could help local elementary school principals identify graduating, and recently graduated, elementary teachers who are willing to specialize in science. Identified teachers could serve as specialists to work with their building and district colleagues to develop, among other topics, evolution related curricular materials and facilitate the implementation of those materials through co-teaching and peer coaching.

     

Belief versus acceptance: Why do people not believe in evolution?

Despite being an established and accepted scientific theory for 150 years, repeated public polls show that evolution is not believed by large numbers of people. This essay examines why people do not accept evolution and argues that its poor representation in some science textbooks allows misconceptions, established and reinforced in early childhood, to take hold. There is also a lack of up‐to‐date examples of evidence for evolution in school textbooks. Poor understanding by science graduates and teachers of the nature of science and incorrect definitions by them of key terminology, serve only to undermine efforts to improve public understanding of evolution. This paper has several recommendations, including the introduction of evolution to primary age children and a call to bring evolution back as the central tenet of biology.     

Career counseling: 101+ things you can do with a degree in biology

Biology is the science of life and of how living things work. Our students choose to major in biology in college because of a fascination with understanding how living things function, but often they have difficulty in identifying a career that uses their foundation in biology despite the variety of biology-based careers available. The purpose of this discussion is to assist biology students and the career counselors who work with them in identifying satisfying careers that build upon their interest and foundation in biology. The categories of career options include research, healthcare, teaching, science writing, administration/management, government, industry, and miscellaneous careers that do not fit into the other categories.     

Compatibility of Major U.S. Christian Denominations with Evolution

Public school teachers sometimes encounter the sentiment that the study and acceptance of evolutionary theory is contrary to the Christian faith. This perception can pose a significant barrier to the teaching of evolution and other sciences if students assume beforehand that the topic contradicts what they are supposed to believe from a religious standpoint. An informal survey of major Christian organizations and denominations in the United States, based mostly on publicly available statements, indicates that in fact most Christians, as represented by their governing bodies, view evolution as being compatible with their faith. Although on a worldwide basis this is largely a result of the high number (estimated at 1.2 billion) of adherents to Catholicism, even in the United States, where Protestants outnumber Catholics and where anti-evolution sentiment runs high, there is more acceptance than non-acceptance of evolution among Christians, based on statements from their organizing bodies or spokespersons. Protestant groups are divided on the issue, with more “mainstream” denominations (e.g., Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian) accepting evolutionary biology as being compatible with their faith, and more fundamentalist or Pentecostal groups denying compatibility or rejecting evolution. Relevant statements from denominations or organizations both pro and con are included.     

Human Evolution and Education in Slovene Schools

This article discusses the importance and benefits of providing lower secondary school students with some knowledge of human evolution and its educational context. The author surveyed science teaching in secondary and upper secondary schools in Slovenia and concluded that evolution in general, and human evolution in particular, do not feature prominently in the curriculum and so are not represented by many teaching contact hours. Neither are popular, well-designed, and up-to-date books on the subject--whether by Slovene authors or in translation--readily available to interested students. And yet, paleoanthropology??the study of human evolution in its wider context??is a rapidly developing, high-profile branch of science with major popular appeal. Recent discoveries??many of them spectacular??have provided a much more detailed picture of human evolutionary history, significantly modifying earlier ideas about our ancestry. The subject not only attracts much public interest but also has major educational benefits: human evolution exemplifies many general evolutionary principles, illustrates the synergy of focused multidisciplinary approaches in the life sciences, and reinforces teaching of environmental conservation, human relations, and social responsibility. Because of the subject??s importance, the author provides some suggestions on how the teaching of human evolution might be incorporated into the school curriculum and considers some of the educational resources available to support its teaching.     

The Inability of Primary School to Introduce Children to the Theory of Biological Evolution

A great number of research papers in the English literature of science education present difficulties pupils have in understanding natural selection. Studies show that children have essentialist and teleological intuitive ideas when dealing with organisms and that these biases hinder their ability to understand the theory of evolution by natural selection. Consequently, it is interesting to ascertain if and how the school education offered today deals with the problem, i.e., helps the children confront these biases. To that purpose, this study answered the two following research questions: (a) How is biological evolution presented—from the past to the present day—in the official documentation of primary school education, namely the science curricula and the textbooks of Greece? and (b) what are the conceptions held by Greek primary school teachers of the concepts of evolutionary theory and relevant issues that they have to teach? Our research found that not only are the intuitive ideas not “confronted” but they are also “affirmed” in Greek primary education. This phenomenon, as some other international studies have shown, must not be only a Greek one. A drastic change in the content and structure of primary school curricula and the training of educators is necessary in order to improve and facilitate the teaching of biological evolution.     

Influence of Sociocultural Factors and Acceptance of Creationism in the Comprehension of Evolutionary Biology in Freshman Brazilian Students

The creationist movements in Brazil, although considered weak, are on the increase. The Brazilian legislation neither imposes any objection in teaching evolution nor obliges the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in science classes. Furthermore, it allows the optional teaching of religion at schools. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the knowledge regarding biological evolution in freshman students from a Brazilian university. Such knowledge was related to sociocultural factors such as their parental education level, the type of high school the student graduated from (private or public school), their philosophical/religious position as well as the acceptance of creationism as an alternative to evolution. Among those factors, the latter two showed significant differences, in which the higher averages belonged both to the atheistic students and to those who do not accept creationism as an alternative to evolution.     

New England Faculty and College Students Differ in Their Views About Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Religiosity

Public acceptance of evolution in Northeastern U.S. is the highest nationwide, only 59%. Here, we compare perspectives about evolution, creationism, intelligent design (ID), and religiosity between highly educated New England faculty (n = 244; 90% Ph.D. holders in 40 disciplines at 35 colleges/universities) and college students from public secular (n = 161), private secular (n = 298), and religious (n = 185) institutions: 94/3% of the faculty vs. 64/14% of the students admitted to accepting evolution openly and/or privately, and 82/18% of the faculty vs. 58/42% of the students thought that evolution is definitely true or probably true, respectively. Only 3% of the faculty vs. 23% of the students thought that evolution and creationism are in harmony. Although 92% of faculty and students thought that evolution relies on common ancestry, one in every four faculty and one in every three students did not know that humans are apes; 15% of the faculty vs. 34% of the students believed, incorrectly, that the origin of the human mind cannot be explained by evolution, and 30% of the faculty vs. 72% of the students was Lamarckian (believed in inheritance of acquired traits). Notably, 91% of the faculty was very concerned (64%) or somehow concerned (27%) about the controversy evolution vs creationism vs ID and its implications for science education: 96% of the faculty vs. 72% of the students supported the exclusive teaching of evolution while 4% of the faculty vs. 28% of the students favored equal time to evolution, creationism and ID; 92% of the faculty vs. 52% of the students perceived ID as not scientific and proposed to counter evolution or as doctrine consistent with creationism. Although ≈30% of both faculty and students considered religion to be very important in their lives, and ≈20% admitted to praying daily, the faculty was less religious (Religiosity Index faculty = 0.5 and students = 0.75) and, as expected, more knowledgeable about science (Science Index faculty = 2.27 and students = 1.60) and evolution (Evolution Index faculty = 2.48 and students = 1.65) than the students. Because attitudes toward evolution correlate (1) positively with understanding of science/evolution and (2) negatively with religiosity/political ideology, we conclude that science education combined with vigorous public debate should suffice to increase acceptance of naturalistic rationalism and decrease the negative impact of creationism and ID on society’s evolution literacy.