Better Biology Teaching by Emphasizing Evolution &amp; the Nature of Science

Nickels, Martin K.; Nelson, Craig E.; Beard, J. T.

doi:10.2307/4450173

Cited by 41 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although a number of studies have developed activities for teaching genetic drift in the classroom, or advocated for hands-on activities relating to genetic drift (e.g., Nickels et al 1996;Maret and Rissing 1998;Staub 2002), remarkably little work has been done to explore how (or if) students think about non-adaptive factors in evolutionary change. We know that practicing evolutionary biologists attribute evolutionary change to selection, non-adaptive factors (e.g., genetic drift) or a combination of these two factors, but what do students' explanations of evolutionary causation look like?…”

Section: Selection and Drift In Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, as noted above, natural selection is not the only process leading to evolutionary changes in the living world. Alternative mechanisms, collectively known as "non-adaptive" factors, include concepts such as genetic drift and developmental constraints, among others (Gould and Lewontin 1979;Nickels et al 1996;Gould 2002). Nonadaptive change (e.g., genetic drift) occurs when the frequency of a trait increases or decreases in a population because of stochastic factors, regardless of whether the trait confers an advantage, disadvantage, or is neutral with respect to survival or reproduction (Freeman 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Students’ Mental Models of Evolutionary Causation: Natural Selection and Genetic Drift

Beggrow

Nehm

2012

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an effort to understand how to improve student learning about evolution, a focus of science education research has been to document and address students' naive ideas. Less research has investigated how students reason about alternative scientific models that attempt to explain the same phenomenon (e.g., which causal model best accounts for evolutionary change?). Within evolutionary biology, research has yet to explore how non-adaptive factors are situated within students' conceptual ecologies of evolutionary causation. Do students construct evolutionary explanations that include nonadaptive and adaptive factors? If so, how are non-adaptive factors structured within students' evolutionary explanations? We used clinical interviews and two paper and pencil instruments (one open-response and one multiple-choice) to investigate the use of non-adaptive and adaptive factors in undergraduate students' patterns of evolutionary reasoning. After instruction that included non-adaptive causal factors (e.g., genetic drift), we found them to be remarkably uncommon in students' explanatory models of evolutionary change in both written assessments and clinical interviews. However, consistent with many evolutionary biologists' explanations, when students used non-adaptive factors they were conceptualized as causal alternatives to selection. Interestingly, use of non-adaptive factors was not associated with greater understanding of natural selection in interviews or written assessments, or with fewer naive ideas of natural selection. Thus, reasoning using non-adaptive factors appears to be a distinct facet of evolutionary thinking. We propose a theoretical framework for an expert-novice continuum of evolutionary reasoning that incorporates both adaptive and non-adaptive factors, and can be used to inform instructional efficacy in evolutionary biology.

show abstract

Section: Selection and Drift In Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students’ Mental Models of Evolutionary Causation: Natural Selection and Genetic Drift

Beggrow

Nehm

2012

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We cannot take this for granted. Exercises or demonstrations on the nature of science (Nickels et al 1996;Rutledge and Warden 2000;Farber 2003;Lombrozo et al 2008), including gadgets or "black box" set-ups with mechanical mysteries that students must figure out, go a long way toward showing cause-and-effect relationships and the roles of purpose and design in organismal complexity (Mead and Scott 2010a, b). The ENSI website is a lush source of ideas, as are the Understanding Evolution and Understanding Science websites run by the University of California (Berkeley) Museum of Paleontology.…”

Section: Tackling Preconceptions Head-onmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoiding the Pitfall of Progress and Associated Perils of Evolutionary Education

Werth

2012

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People reflexively see all change as implying inevitably increasing progress and complexity. This expected directionality is especially observed in students' views of living things, with some species envisioned as "higher" or more evolved. Students tend naturally to see all evolutionary change as adaptive, progressive, optimal, and teleological, with improvement achieved as needed or desired by organisms (if not as planned in advance). Following an extended outline of many interrelated ways, this basic yet unfortunately widespread and deep-seated misconception of evolutionary thinking ensnares students and hinders proper understanding of the actual pattern and process of evolution, a more useful pedagogical approach is presented. A strategy that involves eliciting preconceptions, engaging in numerous counterexamples, and continually reinforcing an alternative view is generally effective. This is best achieved by tackling the misconception of progress head-on, with an active learning model that forces students to come up with substitute explanations. Several examples of exercises and activities to combat the universal and automatically intuitive inclination toward teleological notions of progress are given, including analyses of paleontology, ecology, biochemistry, development, and systematics.

show abstract

“…We also do not use the word \evolution" during the presentation of these learning stations. This is a deliberate omission because we want the data presented through the hominid fossil record to speak for themselves, and we want to take advantage of students' curiosity about themselves (Nickels et al, 1996). We do not have the time to construct or deconstruct what evolution is and is not, but faculty respond to any and all direct questions that students, their teachers, or parent chaperones might have about evolution.…”

Section: Two Important Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A series of fossil hominid casts represents extremely powerful content material (Nickels, 1987;Nickels et al, 1996) that facilitates students to self-discover the tenets of evolution and the role evolution has played in the development of the modern human species. The hominid fossil record also provides us with a forum to teach about the nature of science and the value of critical thinking (Nickels et al, 1996; National Academy of Sciences, 1998;Alles and Stevenson, 2003;Farber, 2003;Bybee, 2004;DeSilva, 2004). Teachers accompanying students to this program often comment that the evolution/creation controversy is actually diffused through the use of such powerful content material.…”

Section: The Role Of Physical Anthropologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of Physical Anthropology in Intermediate and Secondary Education

Ashmore

2005

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of physical anthropology in precollegiate education has been limited, but has the potential to play a vital and integral role in promoting students' understanding of themselves and others. This study describes the development, implementation, and results of a program constructed on an inquiry-based learning model that introduces middle and high school students to the content of physical anthropology. Demonstrated student learning indicates that intermediate and secondary students are capable of acquiring and applying complex content about human evolution and diversity. Program findings indicate that students frequently had previous knowledge about the hominid fossil record but little information about the significance of human biological diversity. Teaching intermediate and high school students about our common evolutionary heritage and the fact that humans exhibit clinal variation were found to be both powerful and effective content material. The fact that program participants lacked previous knowledge about the relationship between human biological diversity (illustrated in this program by light and dark skin color) and the erroneous sociocultural construction of this diversity confirmed the suspicion that this content is not being addressed in precollegiate education. Traditionally, intermediate and secondary students are taught about human variation within the context of social studies, reading, communication, and finearts classes. This program identifies a new paradigm for teaching about human variation. Providing students with scientific knowledge about human origins and diversity provides a constructive starting point, creating a common platform and knowledge base on which to then frame discussions about cultural variation.

show abstract

Better Biology Teaching by Emphasizing Evolution & the Nature of Science

Cited by 41 publications

References 3 publications

Students’ Mental Models of Evolutionary Causation: Natural Selection and Genetic Drift

Students’ Mental Models of Evolutionary Causation: Natural Selection and Genetic Drift

Avoiding the Pitfall of Progress and Associated Perils of Evolutionary Education

Role of Physical Anthropology in Intermediate and Secondary Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About