Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison

Demastes, Sherry S.; Settlage, John; Good, Ron

doi:10.1002/tea.3660320509

Cited by 148 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But as decades of research in scientific education suggest, teleological thinking is one of the primary obstacles in students' path to acquiring an adequate understanding of natural selection (see Galli andMeinardi, 2011 andKelemen, 2012 for an overview). For instance, students tend to think that a "personified "Mother Nature" responded to animals functional needs by generating or conferring the functional part with a view to preserving the animal's survival" (Kelemen, 2012, p. 4; see also Kampourakis & Zogza, 2008;Moore et al, 2002;and Gregory, 2009), such as by stretching a giraffe's neck so it could reach leaves on trees (e.g., Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985;Demastes, Settlage, & Good, 1995;Evans et al, 2010;Jensen & Finley,1995;Kampourakis and Zogza, 2008). Summing up a range of this work, Kelemen (2012) suggests that people's teleological views are "embedded within a framework of intuitions characterizing Nature as a designing agent" (p. 6).…”

Section: Benighted Teleologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistence through function preservation

Rosé

2014

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do ordinary material objects persist? For instance, if a rock is hit with a hammer and chipped, does the rock survive? Or if a rock is smashed to pieces by a hammer, does the rock survive the smashing? Many metaphysicians have wanted a view of persistence that fits with folk intuitions and have charged leading views with failing to do so. Yet, there is disagreement about what the folk intuit and no empirical discipline to the discussion. For a debate so heavily centered on folk intuitions, it seems that some empirical evidence might help advance the discussion. Indeed, it seems that empirically discerning the folk view of persistence will help decide whether it deserves to be taken seriously. So my question is:what is the folk view of persistence against which metaphysical accounts might be measured? My view is that the folk view of persistence is teleological in that the folk tend to intuit that a material object survives alterations when its function is preserved. As such, I hold that the folk view of persistence is tied into a benighted view of nature and thus deserves to be dismissed. Given an empirically informed understanding of the folk view of persistence, I hold that the discussion over how ordinary objects persist should be liberated from any demanded conformity with folk intuitions.The Plan: I'll begin, in Section I, by briefly documenting some conflicting claims about the folk view of persistence and charges of failing to fit common sense. In Section II, I will present evidence from psychology which suggests that the folk are promiscuous teleologists. Given the background of promiscuous teleology, I will then go on, in Section III, to present a range of evidence in support of the claim that the folk view of persistence is teleological. Having achieved sufficient empirical understanding of the folk view of persistence to judge its credentials, I will, in Section IV, argue for a dismissive take on folk intuitions about material object persistence. I will situate the discussion within the background of what Dan Korman (2009) calls the challenge from folk belief and discuss my results in the context of debunking arguments in order to show how the challenge can be met, concluding that in the specific case of persistence, the folk do not deserve to be taken seriously. They deserve to be ignored. I. Persistence and Common SenseHow do ordinary material objects persist? There are two general answers. The first is the answer of the four dimensionalist. According to the four dimensionalist, ordinary material objects persist by having temporal parts, in addition to spatial parts, which are spread out across regions of spacetime. Ordinary objects persist by having distinct temporal parts at more than one time: they persist by perduring. The second answer, that of the three dimensionalist, denies that ordinary material objects persist by having temporal parts. Instead, the three dimensionalist holds that ordinary material objects persist by being "wholly present" at more than one time,

show abstract

Section: Benighted Teleologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistence through function preservation

Rosé

2014

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, efforts to develop new pedagogical tools for teaching evolutionary biology have achieved some success. Bishop and Anderson (1990) found moderate improvement in undergraduate student understanding of natural selection after intervention with a unit on that subject designed to dispel misconceptions, while Demastes et al (1995) found minimal improvement using the same instructional methods. However, high school students showed greater gains, perhaps due to differences in the presentation of instructional materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It is, therefore, imperative to identify the source of student confusions about evolution and to develop effective teaching tools that can correct them (National Research Council 1996;Novak 2002;Modell et al 2005;Wescott and Cunningham 2005). Although cultural and political viewpoints affect student understanding (Almquist and Cronin 1988;Sinclair et al 1997;Hokayem and BouJaoude 2008), even students who claim to accept evolutionary theory often demonstrate little understanding of its basic principles (e.g., Bishop and Anderson 1990;Demastes et al 1995). These misunderstandings are instead often directly linked to students having their own incorrect conception of the functioning of the world (known as misconceptions), which prevents them from being able to use scientifically accepted concepts in thinking through some scientific problems (Greene 1990;Ferrari and Chi 1998; but see Hamza and Wickman 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although evolutionary theory is considered to be a unifying foundation for biological education, misconceptions about basic evolutionary processes such as natural selection inhibit student understanding. Even after instruction, students harbor misconceptions about natural selection, suggesting that traditional teaching methods are insufficient for correcting these confusions. This has spurred an effort to develop new teaching methods and tools that effectively confront student misconceptions. In this study, we designed an interactive computer-based simulated laboratory to teach the principles of evolution through natural selection and to correct common student misconceptions about this process. We quantified undergraduate student misconceptions and understanding of natural selection before and after instruction with multiple-choice and open-response test questions and compared student performance across gender and academic levels. While our lab appeared to be effective at dispelling some common misconceptions about natural selection, we did not find evidence that it was as successful at increasing student mastery of the major principles of natural selection. Student performance varied across student academic level and question type, but students performed equally across gender. Beginner students were more likely to use misconceptions before instruction. Advanced students showed greater improvement than beginners on multiple-choice questions, while beginner students reduced their use of misconceptions in the open-response questions to a greater extent. These results suggest that misconceptions can be effectively addressed through computer-based simulated laboratories. Given the level of misconception use by beginner and advanced undergraduates and the gains in performance recorded after instruction at both academic levels, natural selection should continue to be reviewed through upper-level biology courses.

show abstract

“…age of pupils, teaching time and content of lessons. Bearing this in mind, it is noted that, in general, the improvement in results reported has not matched ours (Bishop & Anderson, 1990;Bizzo, 1994, Demastes, Settlage & Good, 1995. Good long-term retention was achieved in a study by Jiménez-Aleixandre (1992).…”

Section: Methodological Issuesmentioning

confidence: 67%