Biology Undergraduates’ Misconceptions about Genetic Drift

Abstract

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.

A Conceptual Characterization of Online Videos Explaining Natural Selection

“…However, learning difficulties and robust misconceptions related to evolution through natural selection are frequent among learners as well as teachers (e.g. Andrews et al 2012;Gregory 2009;Hiatt et al 2013; Smith 2010a, b). Although a number of teaching strategies have been evaluated during the last 30 years (Smith 2010b; Understanding Evolution 2017), no reliable solution or "magic bullet" for effective teaching of natural selection has emerged as yet.…”

Testing validity inferences for Genetic Drift Inventory scores using Rasch modeling and item order analyses

“…Empirical studies on teaching, learning, and assessing non-adaptive contributors to evolution have been scarce in a vast body of evolution education research dominated by studies on natural selection (Andrews et al 2012;Beggrow and Nehm 2012;Price and Perez 2016). How students conceptualize genetic drift and how genetic drift fits into the broader conceptual ecology of evolutionary thought are two areas that have only recently begun to be explored.…”

Making evolution stick: using sticky notes to teach the mechanisms of evolutionary change

“…Evolutionary concepts can be difficult to grasp because they are complex and, in some cases, seemingly counterintuitive Tanner 2015, 2012;Richard et al 2017) which is compounded by potential religious controversies surrounding the subject. Due to all of these factors, American students have often formed opinions and misconceptions about evolutionary theory well before entering a biology classroom which can be challenging for educators to overcome (Alters and Nelson 2002;Andrews et al 2012;Bishop and Anderson 1990;Cunningham and Wescott 2009;Gregory 2009;Hokayem and BouJaoude 2008). Student comprehension of evolution is further confounded by the need to call upon quantitative reasoning to fully grasp the relationship between phenotype and genotype.…”