Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access originally published online on May 6, 2008
Integrative and Comparative Biology 2008 48(2):213-225; doi:10.1093/icb/icn027
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: Strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions
Biology (Emeritus), Indiana University, 1001 E. 3rd Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA
Correspondence: 1E-mail: nelson1{at}indiana.edu
 |
Synopsis |
|---|
Top
Synopsis
IntroductionThe strength of the evidence supporting evolution has increased markedly since the discovery of DNA but, paradoxically, public resistance to accepting evolution seems to have become stronger. A key dilemma is that science faculty have often continued to teach evolution ineffectively, even as the evidence that traditional ways of teaching are inferior has become stronger and stronger. Three pedagogical strategies that together can make a large difference in students’ understanding and acceptance of evolution are extensive use of interactive engagement, a focus on critical thinking in science (especially on comparisons and explicit criteria) and using both of these in helping the students actively compare their initial conceptions (and publicly popular misconceptions) with more fully scientific conceptions. The conclusion that students’ misconceptions must be dealt with systematically can be difficult for faculty who are teaching evolution since much of the students’ resistance is framed in religious terms and one might be reluctant to address religious ideas in class. Applications to teaching evolution are illustrated with examples that address criteria and critical thinking, standard geology versus flood geology, evolutionary developmental biology versus organs of extreme perfection, and the importance of using humans as a central example. It is also helpful to bridge the false dichotomy, seen by many students, between atheistic evolution versus religious creationism. These applications are developed in detail and are intended to be sufficient to allow others to use these approaches in their teaching. Students and other faculty were quite supportive of these approaches as implemented in my classes.
|
Introduction |
|---|
Public resistance to accepting evolution seems to have become stronger even as the strength of the evidence supporting evolution, already overwhelmingly strong, has increased markedly in the advancing molecular era in biology. There is a tendency among faculty to attribute public distrust of evolution almost entirely to religious fundamentalism or even to nefarious political manipulation or pandering. These are very convenient views as they absolve faculty of responsibility for asking whether evolution and the nature of science are being taught effectively in our introductory and specialized courses (Alberts 2005
).
For at least three decades, the evidence has been quite strong that traditional teaching is not very effective in college and university classes in science and other disciplines (Terenzini and Pascarella 1994). More precisely, the problem is that while traditional methods are "not ineffective" and work for some students, they are not nearly as effective as some well-documented alternative approaches (Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). For student learning in introductory physics, Hake (1998, 2002) showed that "interactive engagement" is more effective than traditional teaching on average by a factor of two and for best practices by a factor approaching three. Lion Gardiner (1994), a zoologist at Rutgers, wrote a classic summary of how one can easily make large gains: Redesigning higher education: producing dramatic gains in student learning. Although science faculties are experts at using data, they have often continued to teach ineffectively, even as the evidence that those ways are inferior has become stronger and stronger. I will summarize three foundational pedagogical changes that, when used together, increase the understanding and, even, acceptance of evolution in college and university courses. These strategies are also applicable to a wide range of other science courses. They increase deep mastery of the content of the course and, perhaps more importantly, they increase the students’ mastery of scientific thinking and of critical thinking, generally, and their understanding of the nature of science—outcomes that are of fundamental importance for scientific literacy and public support of science and its appropriate applications.
I also present some illustrations of classroom activities that combine these three changes. The activities mostly have not been published previously but the core ideas draw on several prior summaries focused on teaching evolution effectively, summaries that also provide more extensive literature reviews (Nelson 1986; Nickels et al. 1996; Nelson et al. 1998; Nelson 2000; Alters and Nelson 2002; Alters 2005; Scharmann 2005; Scharmann et al. 2005; Verhey 2005a,b; Wilson 2005, 2007). The tables provide key introductory citations both for college teaching generally (Table 1) and for finding some of the advanced literature on learning and teaching in colleges and universities (Table 2)
|
|
|
Fundamental change 1: use structured active learning extensively |
|---|
Hake (1998
, 2002) assembled the most impressive dataset illustrating the effectiveness of alternative pedagogical strategies in college and university science. The data are for key concepts in introductory physics. Hake (1998) defined "traditional" teaching of physics as "relying primarily on passive-student lectures, recipe labs, and algorithmic problem exams" and "interactive engagement" methods as "those designed at least in part to promote conceptual understanding through interactive engagement of students in heads-on (always) and hands-on (usually) activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors." Interactive engagement methods ranged from inquiry labs without lectures (Laws 1991,1997) to large classes in which mini-lectures alternated with conceptually focused multiple-choice questions that students answered individually and then discussed with their neighbors for two minutes before answering the questions again (Crouch and Mazur 2001). Four key components of effective interactive engagement are extensive structuring of learning tasks by the teacher, strongly interactive student-student execution of the tasks, effective debriefing or other assessments that provide prompt feedback to the teacher as to the extent that the intended learning succeeded and, finally, instructional modifications by the teacher that take account of this feedback.
The assessments in physics that allowed comparisons among courses (Hake 1998) used qualitative, multiple-choice pretests and posttests, tests on which the wrong answers were based on common student misconceptions. (One can approximate this measure of teaching effectiveness for other courses by using short-answer questions; the commonest wrong answers can then be used subsequently to generate multiple-choice assessments.) The measure of teaching effectiveness asked: How much of the total possible improvement in conceptual understanding did the class achieve? This "average normalized gain" was defined as the ratio of the actual average gain (%<post>–%<pre>) to the maximum possible average gain (100–%<pre>) where %<pre> is the class average (as a percent) on the pretest and %<post> is the class average on the posttest (Hake 1998). Note that this measure is quite harsh in that it gives the instruction credit only for net improvements in the average scores for students’ conceptual understanding.
The average normalized gain for traditional teaching in introductory physics was 23% of possible (0.23 ± 0.04, mean ± SD) and was similar across a range of institutions from high schools to Harvard. The average normalized gain for interactive engagement was about two standard deviations higher at 48% (0.48 ± 0.14). No traditionally taught physics course exceeded an average normalized gain of 33%—none approached the mean for interactive engagement. In contrast, the most successful interactive engagement courses had average normalized gains of about 69% (presented graphically by Hake 1998, 2002; Sundberg 2003).
The implications are both distressing and elating for many of us. Distressing because time spent on improving lectures is largely wasted unless pedagogy has already been rather radically transformed—and many of us have spent a lot of time trying to improve lectures. Elating because pedagogical transformation is relatively easy (e.g., Crouch and Mazur 2001; see also Tables 1 and 2) once one accepts that reducing coverage is an essential part of effective teaching (for introductory biology: Sundberg and Dini 1993; Sundberg et al. 1994).
Similar conclusions can be drawn from a variety of studies. For an understanding of natural selection, Sundberg (2003) found very little (2 sections) or no (15 sections) pretest to posttest gain in class average when traditional pedagogy was used but an average normalized gain of over 25% for each of three interactive engagement sections. Similar studies now could be conducted using the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection as pretests and posttests (Anderson et al. 2002). Effects can be quite large with no reduction in rigor for previously underachieving groups such as chemistry students with low math SAT scores (Jacobs 2000) or African-Americans who were previously doing disastrously in calculus (Fullilove and Treisman 1990; Treisman 1992). Sometimes the gains are large enough to eliminate all grades of F, as in calculus (Angelo and Cross 1993 p 69–72) and economics (Nelson 1996). Introductory reviews include those by Gardnier (1994), Handelsman et al. (2004) and Smith et al. (2005). Springer et al. (1997) provide a powerful meta-analysis.
To increase learning and lower student resistance to change, it is best to start with carefully tested methods for interactive engagement. Fortunately, guides are widely available, both to interactive engagement in general (Table 1) and with particular reference to science (Cooper and Robinson 1997, 1998; Committee on undergraduate education 1999; Michael and Modell 2003; Herreid 2004; Donovan and Bransford 2005). Project Kaleidoscope (2008) provides an online introduction to several of the most powerful pedagogies as applied to science. Part II of Table 1 lists some more exemplary printed and on-line resources for increasing the extent and effectiveness of active learning in any college or university science course.
|
Fundamental change 2: focus on scientific and critical thinking |
|---|
The fundamental justifications given for requiring nonmajors (and majors) to take science courses typically include the importance of understanding science as a mode of knowing or reasoning. However, scientists often find covering the content to be so fascinating and important that little serious consideration is given to scientific reasoning and the nature of science. I personally found limiting content to be so difficult that I later argued that this is the most difficult step in becoming a good teacher (Nelson 2001
). A study of students in multiple institutions (Seymour and Hewitt 1997) found that introductory major courses in science were regarded as too content crammed and of limited utility both by students who continued to major in science and by equally talented students who initially had planned to major in science but later changed their minds.
Here, again, when we are not well versed in the literature on student learning in post-secondary classes, we tend to assume that if we have presented it clearly and somewhat slowly, the problems that result in limited learning are due to students’ lack of talent or preparation or lack of effort. I certainly thought so for some years. Instead, there are problems that help explain "what (even) ‘good’ students cannot understand" (Herron 1975). Sinatra et al. (2008) reviewed several fundamental barriers to learning that limit students’ understanding of evolution. Resources now available make it easier to find what is already known about learning in science courses and to design assessments to see how well one's students are doing (Table 2). One broadly important kind of problem, beyond those addressed by Sinatra et al. (2008), has to do with a functional understanding of ratios and permutations. These problems are typically said to limit about 50% of freshmen (Herron 1975), but I have been told of recent assessments from one selective-admission liberal arts college that found these problems to affect at least two-thirds of their freshmen. Arons (1997) explained the problems that students have with ratios and illustrated the pedagogical interventions required to deal with these problems in any quantitative discipline. Herron (1975, 1978) did the same with special reference to chemistry. An example from genetics is the use of Punnett squares to help students understand the biology and resulting quantitative aspects of Mendelian recombination. In teaching evolution, I found these problems especially pertinent in addressing population genetics and experimental design and analysis generally. It was very helpful to try to fit both genetic analyses and experimental-design analyses into matrices analogous to Punnett squares and to use even more student-to-student discussion.
Students’ deep views of knowledge and their consequent expectations for learning also greatly limit their learning wherever critical thinking is required. Many students arrive at colleges or universities with the expectation that knowledge in at least some areas, usually including science, is unquestionable truth passed on by authority. In such areas, these students expect faculty to present clear answers that the students can memorize or problems that they can solve by "plug and chug" using memorized equations. As students come to see that apparently valid authorities can disagree on the answers (as on creation and evolution) they conclude that any choices among answers are arbitrary and based on how one feels about the answers or about the authorities. The students do not expect to consider evidence and have no well-developed ways to rationally evaluate the comparative validity of alternative hypotheses. Two key pedagogical tasks become clear. First, for each topic we must help the students understand how there are (or were) apparently reasonable alternative hypotheses. Second, we must help them use appropriate criteria to decide which of the alternatives are stronger and which are weaker. Without a clear comparison and a set of criteria, little critical thinking can occur and the nature of science remains buried in content to be memorized. These ideas were initially developed to explain learning difficulties experienced by Harvard students (Perry 1970). They have since been confirmed in many other educational contexts (Bleneky et al. 1986; King and Kitchner 1994; partial review in Hofer and Pintrich 1997; Baxter Magolda 2004;). Applications were developed especially well by Bleneky et al. (1986) and Baxter Magolda (1999). Discipline-specific examples are available for chemistry (Finster 1991, 1992; Zielinski 1995) and biology (Baxter Magolda 1999). Nelson (1996, 1999, 2000) has provided a guide to classroom applications generally and specific applications to teaching evolution.
|
Fundamental change 3: directly address misconceptions and student resistance |
|---|
Some 7,700 papers, reviews, and books have been published addressing students’ and teachers’ conceptions in science (Duit 2007
). The online, searchable bibliography includes 67 papers on evolution among 383 on biology in post-secondary education and includes many more on high-school biology, many of which are relevant at the post-secondary freshman level or beyond.
Students’ pre-instructional conceptions are typically little altered by traditional science teaching. More precisely, traditional teaching can often help students add content to fundamental models they already have mastered or "assimilation," but is of little consequence when the underlying student models are different from the scientific ones and need to be changed or "accommodation" (Sinatra et al. 2008). Effective approaches to helping students alter inadequate models first help students to see the limitations of their initial conceptions and then help them construct more scientifically valid understandings (Duit and Treagust 2003). Interactive engagement becomes essential in the face of the tenacity of students’ misconceptions. Further, the diversity of students’ misconceptions typically well exceeds the time available for faculty to discover them all, let alone to address them individually, again making structured interaction among students essential.
The conclusion that students’ misconceptions must be dealt with systematically can be especially difficult for faculty when teaching evolution since much of the students’ resistance is framed in religious terms. It is difficult, on a variety of grounds, for many scientists (as it was for me) to decide to include non-scientific views in their classes as it might seem to be a waste of time when there is a surfeit of good science to teach.
This resistance to teaching against the reasons for rejecting evolution may be changing. A critical examination of creationism has been forcefully advocated by Bruce Alberts (2005), a recent president of the US National Academy of Sciences: "intelligent design should be taught in science classes, but not as the alternative to Darwinism .... It is through the careful analysis of why intelligent design is not science that students can perhaps best come to appreciate the nature of science itself."
Verhey (2005a, b; this symposium) had students read and discuss popular books supporting evolution and intelligent design. Students in other sections read and discussed only readings supporting evolution. In accord with the strong consensus from the research on the effects of interactive engagement on misconceptions and in accord with Alberts’ suggestion, there was a much greater shift towards full acceptance of evolution when students explored both views. Similarly, instruction that broadly and interactively compared creationist ideas with standard science produced increased acceptance of evolution, especially by students who were initially undecided (Ingram and Nelson 2005).
Note that I am not advocating the "teach the controversy" model in the sense of presenting a critique of evolution and assuming that any issues raised, whether spurious or not, support some alternative. Rather, the focus must be on comparing the alternatives using appropriate scientific criteria. This was the approach applied by Verhey and advocated by Alberts.
Other beneficial consequences may flow from this strategy. Students’ attitudes toward evolution can affect their grades as well, with students who have a more black-and-white view of knowledge or more fundamentalist religious views tending to make lower grades (Lawson 1983; McKeachie et al. 2002). However, interactive engagement with creationism while showing that the scientific case for evolution is exceedingly strong also can result in students’ grades being largely decoupled from their religious views (Ingram and Nelson 2005) and from their view of knowledge (Ingram and Nelson, in preparation).
In summary, three strategies that can make a large difference in understanding and accepting evolution are extensive use of interactive engagement, a focus on scientific and general critical thinking (especially on comparisons and explicit criteria) and using both of these in advancing the third major strategy: helping the students actively compare their initial conceptions (and publicly popular misconceptions) with more fully scientific conceptions. The most effective approaches combine all three. The following examples illustrate how these can be applied in teaching evolution. The precise examples are drawn from my senior course on evolution for biology majors, but I have used quite similar exercises with freshmen nonmajors. I am presenting only selected examples but am doing so in detail sufficient to allow easy modification and use in others’ classes of both the examples and the approaches. I am providing a few lightly modified excerpts from actual class materials in order to make the applications clear and thus facilitate their use by other faculty. These excerpts are given in italics.
|
Application 1: criteria |
|---|
One key pedagogical task is the development of criteria for comparing alternative hypotheses. A key criterion is confirmation by a "fair test," one that could have supported either hypothesis and that also is based on a new line of evidence, one that is independent of the lines on which the ideas were initially based. Radioactive dating was a new line of evidence that could have supported any age for geological formations–from too young to date to many billions of years. It was thus a fair test of young earth versus old earth hypotheses. I developed several criteria while teaching age and macroevolution and then reused them where appropriate on other topics. As listed for the students these were: A scientific theory is better science (than the alternatives to which it has been compared): (1) If it better matches the data from one fair test. (2) If it is confirmed by multiple independent fair tests. (3) If initially conflicting data can be shown to agree. (4) If there are no conflicting lines of scientific evidence. (5) If the scientific test that supports it is particularly strong (radioactive clocks have a clear causal basis and a number of internal checks). (6) If the alternatives are seriously defective conceptually. (Several young earth ideas are ad hoc and/or untestable.) (7) If the overall weight of evidence is greatly in its favor. (We reject creationist ideas generally not because the hypotheses originated in religion but because they either fail several fair tests or remain ad hoc or untestable.)
As these criteria were developed in class, frequent use was made of questions for each student to answer individually in class and then discuss with his/her neighbor (i.e., of interactive engagement). The same criteria were used repeatedly for different topics and for comparing popular misconceptions with scientifically appropriate ideas. The study guide for the second exam asked students to review key applications and to discuss the criteria across topics: Define each of the following criteria [the seven just listed] and explain what it is used for. Show how each criterion applies to an important example for each of five major topics in the course.
Explicit questions on the study guide, some of which are used with little or no modification on the exam, allow the students to study in small groups outside of class. It thus facilitates teacher-structured, student-executed informal interactive engagement (Nelson 1996).
Before the exam, students were also asked to prepare a multi-page worksheet that asked them to apply each criterion outside of science: Examples can be from any non-scientific area including incidents that might causes jealousy, sports, consumer goods, mechanics, business decisions, crimes, mystery novels, or issues for parents. Criteria for better answers are: (1) The examples accurately illustrate the criteria. (2) The examples are interesting (non-trivial, help one understand). (3) The examples are fascinating or funny. The specific questions varied by topic. One example will suffice. Explain the two criteria: Fair tests and multiple independent tests. State what basic task each criterion could be used for outside of science. State a specific non-scientific question to which these two criteria could be applied. Explain at least two alternative possible answers to the question. Explain at least two potential fair tests and indicate which conclusion would be supported by what results from each. Discussion of these worksheets in groups of about six students required, with some whole class debriefing, an entire class period.
Although I was initially reluctant to devote this much time to non-scientific applications, I was driven to it by persistent failures by many students to really understand the applications in science. From noticeably improved exam grades on questions applying criteria in science, it was clear that the exercise had helped.
The key point is not that all faculties should use these particular criteria. Rather, my suggestion is that one needs a set of criteria that one can use repeatedly to make a series of important comparisons within a course and, ideally, among courses. A careful approach to teaching experimental design and critique would serve many of the same purposes, especially if it focused on how one tells what issues the controls should address and whether they really achieved this.
This critical-thinking approach focuses on comparing hypotheses and contrasts to more common approaches such as "here is what we found (take it on faith and memorize it)" or "here are the data that show that this is true." While it often seems to us as scientists that we really do have the full truth, a quick study of the history of science will show that such an assumption has often, even usually, been wrong. Thus, a key point, often not emphasized in the way we present material, is that data can not really show that a hypothesis is true, only that it is better than a set of specified alternatives. This is the reason that the results of analyses are always tentative, at least in principle. An approach that asks what alternatives have been compared and what criteria have allowed us to choose among them keeps the emphasis on better hypotheses.
It is important to frame this tentativeness carefully. A full understanding of the nature of science will highlight its tentativeness, its deep predictive and explanatory power and the way change usually builds upon and expands previous findings. This means that the tentativeness is often replaced with much more firmly secured findings of the same general nature. We repeatedly, and almost dependably, move from good to better hypotheses.
Is it also important to note that some areas we teach may not be easily understood by students at a particular level while others may be ideas we lack the time to teach as scientific reasoning. For these, I have often explicitly noted that I am not taking my usual critical-thinking approach but rather am going to summarize what philosophers of science term the "received view," the one that most experts in the area currently support. It is essential, however, that these be a small fraction of any course in which we want to foster deep understanding and critical thinking.
|
Application 2: geological record |
|---|
Students in my courses tended to have almost no understanding of the extent and importance of the geological record in documenting evolution. Instead, they thought of fossils as rare and more or less haphazardly distributed across the landscape, almost like meteorites. I found that the descriptions of some rich fossil sites in Gould (2001
) were very useful in helping students form a more realistic view of the fossil record. I have not encountered any other overview of the fossil record that presented equally rich, short site descriptions. I framed the task before I had the students read appropriate excerpts. One important thing that this book does is to allow us to compare the hypotheses that the sedimentary record of the earth was deposited (a) rather gradually over hundreds of millions of years versus (b) rapidly in layers one on top of the other during a one year-long global flood. The central question is thus whether normal geology or flood geology better explains the features we find (remember that explanation is the central task of science). Important sub-questions include: Are the kinds of organisms mixed up as they would be in a global flood or are the organisms those one would have expected to find living in a local area? Are the deposits the kind that would be formed from suspension, mixing, and deposition during one year or are the deposits those that would be formed locally and, often, over a long period of time? How can we explain the presence or absence of major groups? (Normal geology would often note that many of the differences were due to the fact that different organisms lived at different times—in many cases they either were already long extinct or had not evolved yet.)
The students then read the descriptions of some deposits with these context-specific criteria in mind. They filled out worksheets and discussed them in class for four or more of the sites described in detail in Gould. One example will, again, suffice. The mid-Paleozoic, Orcadian basin deposits (including the Old Red Sandstone beds) of the Devonian of Scotland consist of vast, then-equatorial, lake sediments. These deposits have yielded many kinds of early fishes. Why are the fishes so well preserved? Why do only a fraction of the layers contain abundant fishes? Why do so many layers contain fishes? How can we tell how often the fish-rich layers were deposited? How long would it have taken to deposit the rocks in this deposit if the estimated deposition rate (1 mm/year) applies to the whole thickness? Briefly summarize the diversity of vertebrate animals found in this deposit. How do we explain the diversity of (or lack of) teleosts, turtles, crocodiles, pterosaurs, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and flowering plants in it?
A study question for the final exam asked students to synthesize across deposits: Compare the hypotheses that the sedimentary record of the earth was deposited (a) rather gradually over hundreds of millions of years versus (b) rapidly in layers one on top of the other during a one year-long global flood. Frame your answer in terms of the central scientific criterion of explaining features and differences. Include at least five of the following considerations in your discussion: (a) The span of time over which individual fossil beds were deposited, as indicated by the geological evidence, (b) The extent to which the associated sediments and the associated fossils make ecological sense, (c) The reasons the fossils in many sites are so well preserved, (d) The extent to which similar fossils are found together, (e) The differences among the kinds of fossils found in rather similar ecological conditions at different times, and (f) The extent to which the distribution of many deposits makes geographic and ecological sense when placed on a map of continental positions at the time, as reconstructed from paleomagnetic evidence. For each of the five, explain how at least one rich fossil deposit illustrates your main points and for each of the five answers explain: Would this aspect of the record be easy or hard to explain with flood geology? How so?
Again, I was initially reluctant to invest so much effort in paleontology while teaching a biology class. However, the lack of any real understanding of the fossil record was limiting some students’ acceptance and was leaving most students unable to effectively help others outside the class to understand the strength of the scientific support for evolution. Note the use of teacher-structured interactive engagement, the use of context-specific criteria for critical thinking and the engagement with creationist ideas on topics that are quite important in understanding the strength of evolution.
|
Application 3: organs of extreme perfection |
|---|
Similar approaches were utilized whenever reasonable (Flammer et al. 2007
, provide complete lessons that are appropriate at the freshman level and sometimes beyond). For example, the evolution of eyes and of wings both were framed as persistent puzzles of the organs of extreme perfection kind. For such traits, it appears naively (and intelligent design proponents claim) that natural selection could not have formed them since intermediate steps would seem to be inviable or nonfunctional. The evolutionary origins of eyes and of wings have been greatly clarified by evolutionary developmental biology. The students also examined some other examples cited recently by proponents of intelligent design, together with their scientific explanations (Behe 1996, 2003; Miller 1999, 2003; Matzke 2006). In the study guides for the final, I asked: Suppose you become a research biologist and you find a feature of some or all organisms that is so complex that its evolution by natural selection seems inconceivable to you, one where the intermediate incremental steps would appear to be nonfunctional. What attitude are other scientists likely to take towards your findings? Why? What attitude should they take? Why? [Hint: Remember eyes and insect wings.] If my teaching has been successful, it will be obvious to the students that a long chain of resolved claims citing the impossibility of the evolution of particular structures because of their extreme perfection means that we will appropriately treat any new claim as a puzzle to be addressed as time allows, just as a large number of strong lines of evidence that the earth and universe are old makes suspect any claim that a single new line of evidence shows the contrary. Again, giving the students the questions before the exam and encouraging them to work together fosters an informal form of interactive engagement. |
Application 4: humans too |
|---|
An important barrier to accepting evolution is the feeling that we did not evolve. Sometimes this flows from an almost visceral revulsion at the idea that we had ape-like ancestors, to say nothing of worm-like ones. In other cases, it may follow from carefully articulated positions on issues such as the nature of the soul, the nature of God, and the extent of appropriate materialism. In either case it is important to use human evolution as an example whenever convenient (Nelson and Nickels 2001
). Close examination of a series of skull casts in small groups using a structured worksheet was the single most effective strategy we found for addressing the rejection (Nelson and Nickels 2001). Another important exercise used data from a variety of primates, including humans, to go from molecular sequences to phylogenetic trees (Nelson and Nickels 2001). This exercise included practice in seeing that rotations about nodes contained scientifically equivalent information, even though some rotations spuriously looked like a ladder leading to humans and others with the same exact content looked like a ladder leading to lemurs (Nelson and Nickels 2001). Including humans in this exercise seemed to help hold students’ attention in the face of needing to understand complex ideas. Comparing phylogenies that had been developed on morphological and on molecular bases, or on other disparate bases, for the same or similar sets of species, is also core to understanding the synthetic and predictive power of Darwinian phylogenetic trees (Nickels and Nelson 2005). |
Making change easier |
|---|
Students often seemed to feel initially that there were only two alternatives: atheistic evolution or religious creationism. I gradually found ways to help students transcend this false dichotomy. Most did not know of the broad theological consensus that acceptance of evolution is quite compatible with faith (Matusmura 1995
; Zimmerman 2006). I also noted the gradient between young-earth creation (commonly advocated by fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims), progressive creation (evangelicals) and gradual creationism (theistic evolution; mainline protestants, Roman Catholics, reformed Judaism, and progressive Islam).
A key aspect of higher-order critical thinking is an understanding that rational decisions take into account positive and negative consequences and tradeoffs as well probabilities. I used an example based on the risks from pulling the pin on a rusty hand grenade to emphasize the importance of consequences as well as probability in making rational decisions (Nelson 1996, 2000). Religion has provided many students with an understanding of negative consequences that might flow from accepting evolution that seem much greater than those that we fear from rusty grenades. An introduction to alternative, but still deeply religious, theological frameworks may help students reframe the religious consequences (Nelson 1996, 2000). An emphasis on applied evolution helps students understand its massive practical benefits (Mindell 2006). Carefully showing how many of the important applications depend on macroevolution helps challenge the idea that microevolution is all that really matters.
I emphasize that I am not suggesting that a rationalist point of view is the only valid one. Indeed, many important decisions, including falling in love, are patently not rationalist, whether or not they are influenced by our evolutionary heritage (Wilson 2007). However, given many of the students’ commitments as they enter our courses, we are often asking the students to expand the areas in which they consider scientific approaches. Verhey (2005a, b, and this symposium) showed that we can foster such changes. In his classes, many students who initially doubted evolution changed to an approach that combined science and religion in ways that closely parallel those of many clergy (Zimmerman 2006) and the official positions of many denominations (Matusumura 1995). Again: just as it can be rational to refuse to pull the pin on a rusty hand grenade when it appears the consequences will be inconvenient if the less probable hypothesis proves true, it can also be rational to reject any scientifically probable hypothesis when the consequences seem sufficiently bad. It may help to ask: when is the 5% level of statistical acceptance appropriate and when should we demand stronger evidence and when should we accept weaker evidence.
Some of the questions on the study guide for the final examination focused on these ideas for evolution: Consider the array of Gradual Creation (Theistic Evolution), Progressive Creation and Quick (Young-Earth) Creation as a spectrum. Using the rusty-hand-grenade example as a base, explain how and why the increased recognition of the practical benefits of evolution should tend to affect peoples beliefs on this spectrum. Explain, in terms of the rusty hand grenade analysis (i.e., in terms of benefits and consequences), what stance you think the National Institutes of Medicine should take towards evolutionary-based medical analyses and treatments.
|
Student and faculty responses |
|---|
Despite or, perhaps, because of my increasing use of nontraditional pedagogies, my course evaluations were usually high. Students’ comments typically favored interactive engagement, critical thinking and respect for religion. In addition, I received several teaching awards. These included ones for which the department nominated me and others given by student groups with no faculty or administrative input.
|
Concluding comments |
|---|
When I started teaching evolution, I avoided any comment on religiously based ideas out of what I took to be respect for religion and from a feeling that there was just so much good science that I already could not cover for lack of time that it would be scientifically indefensible to spend time on such topics. I accidentally encountered the educational literature showing that students’ initial ideas would usually persist unless they were directly challenged in an interactive engagement format. If everything in biology does indeed make sense only in the light of evolution, as Dobzhansky (1973
) famously claimed, I asked myself, what could have really been accomplished in a biology course if students left it without understanding evolution and the powerful evidence on which it was based? Taking serious account of what is now known about teaching science effectively in college and university settings made a real understanding of evolution much more likely. Doing so, while using evolution as a clear example of scientific excellence, presented science more effectively as a way of knowing and as a model of critical thinking. It also was perceived by the students and by me as being much more respectful of them and their initial ideas. |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Many of these were initially developed in interaction with Martin Nickels and Jean Beard and the high school teachers who participated in our Evolution and the Nature of Science institutes. They have been further refined in continuing interactions with them and with Larry Flammer, Ella Ingram, and Brian Alters.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
From the symposium "Evolution vs. Creationism in the classroom: Evolving student attitudes" presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, January 2–6, 2008, at San Antonio, Texas.
|
References |
|---|
Alberts B. A wakeup call for science faculty. Cell (2005) 123::739–741.[CrossRef][Medline]
Alters BJ. Teaching biological evolution in higher education: methodological, religious and nonreligious issues (2005) Sudbury (MA): Jones and Bartlett.
Alters BJ, Nelson CE. Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution (2002) 56::1891–1901.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Anderson DL, Fisher KM, Norman GJ. Development and evaluation of the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection. J Res Sci Teach (2002) 39::952–978.[CrossRef]
Angelo TA, Cross KP. Classroom assessment techniques (1993) 2nd. San Francisco (CA): Jossey Bass.
Arons AB. Teaching introductory physics (1997) New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Baxter Magolda MB. Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: constructive developmental pedagogy (1999) Nashville (TN): Vanderbilt University Press.
Baxter Magolda MB. Making their own way: narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development (2004) Sterling (VA): Stylus Publishing.
Behe MJ. Darwin's black box: the biochemical challenge to evolution (1996) New York: Free Press.
Behe MJ. The modern intelligent design hypothesis: breaking rules. In: God and design: the teleological argument and modern science—Manson NA, ed. (2003) London: Routledge. 277–291.
Bleneky M, Clinchy B, Goldberger N, Tarule J. Women's ways of knowing (1986) New York: Basic Books.
Committee on Undergraduate Science Education. Transforming undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (1999) Washington (DC): National Academy Press.
Cooper J, Robinson P. Small-group instruction: an annotated bibliography of science, mathematics, engineering and technology resources in higher education. (1997) Available from: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cl1/CL/resource/R1.asp.
Cooper J, Robinson P. Small-group instruction in science, mathematics, engineering and technology (SMET) disciplines: a status report and an agenda for the future. (1998) Available from: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/cl1/CL/resource/smallgrp.htm.
Crouch CH, Mazur E. Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Amer J Physics (2001) 69::970–977.[CrossRef]
Dobzhansky T. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Amer Biol Teacher (1973) 35::125–129.
Donovan MS, Bransford JD, eds. How students learn: science in the classroom. (2005) Washington (DC): National Academy Press.
Duit R. Bibliography – STCSE: students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. (2007) Available from: www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
Duit R, Treagust DF. Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. Int J Sci Educ (2003) 25::671–688.[CrossRef]
Finster DC. Developmental instruction: part II. Application of the Perry model to general chemistry. J Chem Educ (1991) 68::753.
Finster DC. New pathways for teaching chemistry: reflective judgment in science. Liberal Educ (1992) 78::14–19.
Flammer L, Beard J, Nickels MK, Nelson CE, eds. Evolution and the nature of science institutes. (2007) Available from: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/home.html.
Fullilove RE, Treisman PU. Mathematics achievement among African American undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: an evaluation of the Mathematics Workshop Program. J Negro Educ (1990) 59::463–478.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Gardiner LF. Redesigning higher education: producing dramatic gains in student learning (1994) Washington (DC): George Washington University.
Gould SJ, ed. The book of life. (2001) New York: WW Norton.
Hake RR. Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys (1998) 66::64–74.
Hake RR. Lessons from the physics-education-reform effort. In: Ecol Soc 5 (2002) Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art28/.
Handelsman J, et al. Scientific teaching. Science (2004) 304::521–522.
Herreid CF. Using case studies in science—and still "covering the content". In: Team-based learning—Michaelsen LK, Knight AB, Fink LD, eds. (2004) Sterling (VA): Stylus. 205–114.
Herron JD. Piaget for chemists: explaining what "good" students cannot understand. J Chem Educ (1975) 52::146–150.[Web of Science]
Herron JD. Piaget in the classroom: guidelines for applications. J Chem Educ (1978) 55::165–170.[Web of Science]
Hofer B, Pintrich P. The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Rev Educ Res (1997) 67::88–140.
Ingram EL, Nelson CE. Relationship between achievement and students’ acceptance of evolution or creation in an upper-level evolution course. J Res Sci Teach (2005) 43::7–24.[CrossRef]
Jacobs DC. An alternative approach to general chemistry: addressing the needs of at-risk students with cooperative learning strategies. (2000) Available from http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/djacobs/index2.htm.
King PM, Kitchner KS. Developing reflexive judgment: understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults (1994) San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass.
Kloss RJ. A nudge is best: helping students through the Perry scheme of intellectual development. Coll Teach (1994) 42::151–158.
Laws P. Calculus-based physics without lectures. Phys Today (1991) 44::24–31.
Laws P. Millikan Lecture 1996: promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses. Am J Phys (1997) 65::13–21.
Lawson AE. Predicting science achievement: the role of developmental level, disembedding ability, mental capacity, prior knowledge, and beliefs. J Res Sci Teach (1983) 20::117–129.[CrossRef]
Matsumura M. Voices for evolution (1995) Revised edition. Berkeley (CA): National Center for Science Education.
Matzke N. Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology. In: The Panda's Thumb: Entry 2576 (2006) Available from: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html.
McKeachie WJ, Lin YG, Strayer J. Creationist vs. evolutionary beliefs: effects on learning biology. Am Biol Teacher (2002) 64::189–192.[CrossRef]
Michael JA, Modell HI. Active learning in secondary and college science classrooms, a working model for helping the learner to learn (2003) Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.
Miller KR. Finding Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution (1999) New York: Cliff Street Books.
Miller KR. Answering the biochemical argument from design. In: God and design: the teleological argument and modern science—Manson NA, ed. (2003) London: Routledge. 292–307.
Mindell DP. The evolving world: evolution in everyday life (2006) Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
Nelson CE. Creation, evolution, or both? A multiple model approach. In: Science and creation: geological, theological, and educational perspectives—Hanson RW, ed. (1986) New York: Macmillan. 128–159.
Nelson CE. Student diversity requires different approaches to college teaching, even in math and science. Am Behav Sci (1996) 40::165–175.[Abstract]
Nelson CE. On the persistence of unicorns: the tradeoff between content and critical thinking revisited. In: The social worlds of higher education: handbook for teaching in a new century—Pescosolido BA, Aminzade R, eds. (1999) Thousand Oaks (CA): Pine Forge Press.
Nelson CE. Effective strategies for teaching evolution and other controversial subjects. In: The creation controversy and the science classroom—Skehan JW, Nelson CE, eds. (2000) Arlington (VA): NSTA Press. 19–50.
Nelson CE. What is the most difficult step we must take to become great teachers?" National Teaching Learning Forum (2001) 10::10–11.
Nelson CE, Nickels MK. Using humans as a central example in teaching undergraduate biology labs. Tested Studies for Laboratory Teaching (2001) 22::332–365.
Nickels MK, Nelson CE. Beware of nuts and bolts: putting evolution back into the teaching of classification. Am Biol Teacher (2005) 67::289–295.
Nickels MN, Nelson CE, Beard J. Better biology teaching by emphasizing evolution and the nature of science. Am Biol Teacher (1996) 58::332–336.
Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT. How college affects students: a third decade of research (2005) San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass.
Perry WG Jr. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years, a scheme (1970) New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Perry WG Jr. Cognitive and ethical growth: the making of meaning. In: The modern American college—Chickering AW, ed. (1981) San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass. 76–116.
Project Kaleidoscope. Pedagogies. (2008) Available from: http://www.pkal.org/keywords/Pedagogies.cfm.
Scharmann LC. A proactive strategy for teaching evolution. Am Biol Teacher (2005) 67::12–16.[CrossRef]
Scharmann LC, Smith MU, James MC, Jensen M. Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellalogy. J Sci Teacher Educ (2005) 16::27–41.[CrossRef]
Seymour E, Hewitt NM. Talking about leaving: why undergraduates leave the sciences (1997) Boulder (CO): Westview Press.
Sinatra GM, Brem SK, Evans EM. Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. In: Evolution: Education and Outreach. 1 (2008) [Published online 12 February 2008].
Smith KA, Sheppard SD, Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Pedagogies of engagement: classroom-based practices. J Eng Educ (2005) 94::87–101.
Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology, a meta-analysis (1997) Madison (WI): National Institute for Science Education: University of Wisconsin.
Sundberg MD. Strategies to help students change naive alternative conceptions about evolution and natural selection. In: Reports of the National Center for Science Education 23(2) (2003) Available from: http://www.ncseweb.org/newsletter.asp?curiss=38.
Sundberg MD, Dini ML. Science majors vs nonmajors: is there a difference? J Coll Sci Teach (1993) 22::299–304.
Sundberg MD, Dini ML, Li E. Improving student comprehension and attitudes in freshman biology by decreasing course content. J Res Sci Teach (1994) 31::679–693.[CrossRef]
Terenzini PT, Pascarella ET. Living with myths: undergraduate education in America. Change (1994) 26::28–32.
Treisman U. Studying students studying calculus: a look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. Coll Math J (1992) 23::362–372.[CrossRef]
Verhey SD. The effect of engaging prior learning on students’ attitudes towards creationism and evolution. Bioscience (2005a) 55::996–1003.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Verhey SD. Correction. Bioscience (2005b) 56::285.
Wilson DS. Evolution for everyone: how to increase acceptance of, interest in, and knowledge about evolution. (2005) Available from Public Library Sci Biol: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030364.
Wilson DS. Evolution for everyone: how Darwin's theory can change the way we think about our lives (2007) New York: Delacorte Press.
Zielinski TJ. Promoting higher-order thinking skills: uses of Mathcad and classical chemical kinetics to foster student development. J Chem Educ (1995) 72::631–38.[Web of Science]
Zimmerman M. The clergy letter project. (2006) [cited August 6, 2007]. [Accessed August 6, 2007, from Butler University.] Available from: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||