Previous research has suggested that adding active learning to traditional college science lectures substantially improves student learning. However, this research predominantly studied courses taught by science education researchers, who are likely to have exceptional teaching expertise. The present study investigated introductory biology courses randomly selected from a list of prominent colleges and universities to include instructors representing a broader population. We examined the relationship between active learning and student learning in the subject area of natural selection. We found no association between student learning gains and the use of active-learning instruction. Although active learning has the potential to substantially improve student learning, this research suggests that active learning, as used by typical college biology instructors, is not associated with greater learning gains. We contend that most instructors lack the rich and nuanced understanding of teaching and learning that science education researchers have developed. Therefore, active learning as designed and implemented by typical college biology instructors may superficially resemble active learning used by education researchers, but lacks the constructivist elements necessary for improving learning.

This study explores biology undergraduates’ misconceptions about genetic drift. We use qualitative and quantitative methods to describe students’ definitions, identify common misconceptions, and examine differences before and after instruction on genetic drift. We identify and describe five overarching categories that include 16 distinct misconceptions about genetic drift. The accuracy of students’ conceptions ranges considerably, from responses indicating only superficial, if any, knowledge of any aspect of evolution to responses indicating knowledge of genetic drift but confusion about the nuances of genetic drift. After instruction, a significantly greater number of responses indicate some knowledge of genetic drift (p = 0.005), but 74.6% of responses still contain at least one misconception. We conclude by presenting a framework that organizes how students’ conceptions of genetic drift change with instruction. We also articulate three hypotheses regarding undergraduates’ conceptions of evolution in general and genetic drift in particular. We propose that: 1) students begin with undeveloped conceptions of evolution that do not recognize different mechanisms of change; 2) students develop more complex, but still inaccurate, conceptual frameworks that reflect experience with vocabulary but still lack deep understanding; and 3) some new misconceptions about genetic drift emerge as students comprehend more about evolution.

Natural selection is one of the most important concepts for biology students to understand, but students frequently have misconceptions regarding how natural selection operates. Many of these misconceptions, such as a belief in “Lamarckian” evolution, are based on a misunderstanding of inheritance. In this essay, we argue that evolution instructors should clarify the genetic basis of natural selection by discussing examples of DNA sequences that affect fitness. Such examples are useful for showing how natural selection works, for establishing connections between genetics and evolution, and for creating cognitive conflict within students having misconceptions. We describe several examples of genes that instructors might use during lectures, and present preliminary evidence from our classroom that an evolution curriculum rich in DNA sequences is effective at reducing student misconceptions of natural selection.

Natural selection is an important mechanism in the unifying biological theory of evolution, but many undergraduate students struggle to learn this concept. Students enter introductory biology courses with predictable misconceptions about natural selection, and traditional teaching methods, such as lecturing, are unlikely to dispel these misconceptions. Instead, students are more likely to learn natural selection when they are engaged in instructional activities specifically designed to change misconceptions. Three instructional strategies useful for changing student conceptions include (1) eliciting naïve conceptions from students, (2) challenging nonscientific conceptions, and (3) emphasizing conceptual frameworks throughout instruction. In this paper, we describe a classroom discussion of the question "Are humans evolving?" that employs these three strategies for teaching students how natural selection operates. Our assessment of this activity shows that it successfully elicits students' misconceptions and improves student understanding of natural selection. Seventy-eight percent of our students who began this exercise with misconceptions were able to partially or completely change their misconceptions by the end of this discussion. The course that this activity was part of also showed significant learning gains (d = 1.48) on the short form of the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection. This paper includes all the background information, data, and visual aids an instructor will need to implement this activity.

Six classroom lessons are presented for teaching undergraduate students in introductory biology courses how natural selection works.

Translocations are frequently used to increase the abundance and range of endangered fishes. One factor likely to affect the outcome of translocations is fish movement. We introduced embryos from five Westslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi populations (both hatchery and wild) at five different locations within a fishless watershed. We then examined the movement of age‐1 and age‐2 fish and looked for differences in movement distance among source populations and among introduction sites; we also examined the interactions among age, population, and introduction site. At age 1, most individuals (90.9%) remained within 1,000 m their introduction sites. By age 2, the majority of individuals (58.3%) still remained within 1,000 m of their introduction site, but considerably more individuals had moved downstream, some more than 6,000 m from their introduction site. We observed a significant interaction between age and source population (F 4, 1077 = 15.45, P < 0.0001) as well as between age and introduction site (F 41, 1077 = 11.39, P < 0.0008), so we presented results in the context of these interactions. Within age‐groups, we observed differences in movement behavior among source populations and among donor populations of Westslope Cutthroat Trout. We discuss these findings in light of previous research on juvenile salmonid movement.Received April 20, 2012; accepted June 3, 2013

Many students do not recognize that individual organisms within populations vary, and this may make it difficult for them to recognize the essential role variation plays in natural selection. Also, many students have weak scientific reasoning skills, and this makes it difficult for them to recognize misconceptions they might have. This paper describes a 2-h laboratory for college students that introduces them to genetic diversity and gives them practice using hypothetico-deductive reasoning. In brief, the lab presents students with DNA sequences from Africans, Europeans, and Asians, and asks students to determine whether people from each continent qualify as distinct “races.” Comparison of the DNA sequences shows that people on each continent are not more similar to one another than to people on other continents, and therefore do not qualify as distinct races. Ninety-four percent of our students reported that the laboratory was interesting, and 79% reported that it was a valuable learning experience. We developed and used a survey to measure the extent to which students recognized variation and its significance within populations and showed that the lab increased student awareness of variation. We also showed that the lab improved the ability of students to construct hypothetico-deductive arguments.

No abstract