Evaluating the current state of evolution acceptance instruments: a research coordination network meeting report

Abstract

Hundreds of studies have explored student evolution acceptance because evolution is a core concept of biology that many undergraduate biology students struggle to accept. However, this construct of “evolution acceptance” has been defined and measured in various ways, which has led to inconsistencies across studies and difficulties in comparing results from different studies. Many studies and essays have offered evaluations and perspectives of evolution acceptance instruments, but publications with a focus on consensus building across research teams is still needed. Further, little attention has been paid to how evolution acceptance instruments may be interpreted differently by students with varied religious backgrounds. Funded by a Research Coordination Network in Undergraduate Biology Education grant from the National Science Foundation, we gathered 16 experts from different disciplinary and religious backgrounds to review current evolution acceptance instruments and create a guide to the strengths and weaknesses of these instruments, including appropriate contexts for using these instruments and their potential weaknesses with different religious populations. Finally, in an attempt to move the field forward, we articulated a consensus definition of evolution acceptance that can be used to guide future instrument development.

Influence of self‐assessment and conditional metaconceptual knowledge on students' self‐regulation of intuitive and scientific conceptions of evolution

“…The instrument used for measuring acceptance of evolution (i.e., the GAENE 2.1) has been criticized by other researchers (e.g., because it treats acceptance as a unidimensional construct rather than making distinctions between different contexts and scales; ; for other concerns reported, see also Barnes et al, 2024;Beniermann et al, 2023;Misheva et al, 2023;Romine et al, 2018). However, concerns have also been raised for other established instruments for acceptance of evolution (e.g., Barnes et al, 2019Barnes et al, , 2024Konnemann et al, 2012;Misheva et al, 2023;Sbeglia & Nehm, 2019), making the choice for an instrument difficult. We decided to use the GAENE 2.1 primarily because of its suitability for the population sampled in our study (Barnes et al, 2024;Smith et al, 2016).…”

“…However, concerns have also been raised for other established instruments for acceptance of evolution (e.g., Barnes et al, 2019Barnes et al, , 2024Konnemann et al, 2012;Misheva et al, 2023;Sbeglia & Nehm, 2019), making the choice for an instrument difficult. We decided to use the GAENE 2.1 primarily because of its suitability for the population sampled in our study (Barnes et al, 2024;Smith et al, 2016). The only instrument other than the GAENE 2.1 that experts have recently identified as suitable for populations with low prior biology/ evolutionary knowledge is the MATE 2.0 (Barnes et al, 2022(Barnes et al, , 2024, which was not yet published when data collection for the presented study took place.…”

“…We decided to use the GAENE 2.1 primarily because of its suitability for the population sampled in our study (Barnes et al, 2024;Smith et al, 2016). The only instrument other than the GAENE 2.1 that experts have recently identified as suitable for populations with low prior biology/ evolutionary knowledge is the MATE 2.0 (Barnes et al, 2022(Barnes et al, , 2024, which was not yet published when data collection for the presented study took place. Further, we do not consider concerns regarding the GAENE 2.1 a major limitation of our study because we used acceptance of evolution only as a control variable.…”