Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection

Abstract

Natural selection as a mechanism of evolution is a central concept in biology; yet, most nonbiology-majors do not thoroughly understand the theory even after instruction. Many alternative conceptions on this topic have been identified, indicating that the job of the instructor is a difficult one. This article presents a new diagnostic test to assess students' understanding of natural selection. The test items are based on actual scientific studies of natural selection, whereas previous tests have employed hypothetical situations that were often misleading or oversimplified. The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) is a 20-item multiple choice test that employs common alternative conceptions as distractors. An original 12-item version of the test was field-tested with 170 nonmajors in 6 classes and 43 biology majors in 1 class at 3 community colleges. The test scores of one subset of nonmajors (n ¼ 7) were compared with the students' performances in semistructured interviews. There was a positive correlation between the test scores and the interview scores. The current 20-item version of the CINS was field-tested with 206 students in a nonmajors' general biology course. The face validity, internal validity, reliability, and readability of the CINS are discussed. Results indicate that the CINS will be a valuable tool for instructors. ß 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 952-978, 2002 Natural selection is the principal mechanism of evolution, and the theory of evolution is of great importance as a unifying theory in biology education according to the National Science Standards (National Research Council, 1996). Yet, natural selection is misunderstood by many students. The litany of alternative conceptions regarding natural selection and evolution is long (Mayr,

Addressing Undergraduate Student Misconceptions about Natural Selection with an Interactive Simulated Laboratory

“…This fits with other work that suggests multiple-choice questions are not as powerful at capturing students' underlying conceptual knowledge as other types of questions (e.g., Almquist and Cronin 1988;Nehm and Reilly 2007). However, the use of student misconceptions as distracters in multiple-choice questions allows for a more complete assessment of student conceptual knowledge (Anderson et al 2002;Tanner and Allen 2005;Settlage and Odom 1995). We have successfully assessed conceptual knowledge with multiple-choice questions in a previous study (Perry et al 2008).…”

“…The realization that students and the general public largely misunderstand evolutionary biology principles has spurred educators and researchers to focus on the identification and correction of common misconceptions (Brumby 1984;Bishop and Anderson 1990;Anderson et al 2002). Much of this work has focused on confusions about the process of natural selection (e.g., Bishop and Anderson 1990;Settlage 1994;Jensen and Finley 1996;Nehm and Reilly 2007).…”

Relationship between achievement and students' acceptance of evolution or creation in an upper‐level evolution course

“…Lawson (1983) found that prior knowledge was second only to acceptance of evolution in predicting achievement when both prior knowledge and achievement were measured using the same instrument. We are extending the study reported here with the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) (Anderson, Fisher, & Norman, 2002) to examine the influence of prior knowledge on learning evolution, and look forward to other researchers using this tool to examine different curricular strategies and questions similar to those we have addressed. Lawson (1983) stated that instructors must know if students lack essential prior declarative knowledge; the CINS and tools from the forthcoming Bioliteracy project (Klymkowsky, Garvin-Doxas, & Zeilik, 2003) will provide instructors with standardized devices for quantifying prior knowledge, similar to those available for physics and astronomy (e.g., Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhammer, 1992;Hufnagel, 2002, respectively).…”

Bridging the educational research‐teaching practice gap

“…In this regard, the IUBMB Educational Sub-Committee, under the chairmanship of Susan Hamilton, has recently launched a more concerted effort to develop a concept inventory for the entire molecular life sciences [21], an initiative that is also being piloted in Australia as a Carrick-funded project. This whole initiative will be considerably facilitated by various other related concept inventories that have been developed, especially the biological concept inventory (BCI) project [22,23] and the conceptual inventory of natural selection (CINS) [24]. As these concept inventories develop, and we obtain greater clarification of key concepts in our field, colleagues will be in a better position to properly focus their bridging-the-gap activities.…”