Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
To, Cheryl; Tenenbaum, Harriet; Hogh, H (2016)
Publisher: Wiley
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: BF, LB1603
This study examined age differences in young people’s understanding of evolution theory in secondary school. A second aim of this study was to propose a new coding scheme that more accurately described students’ conceptual understanding about evolutionary theory. We argue that coding schemes adopted in previous research may have overestimated students’ grasp of evolutionary concepts.Atotal of 106 students aged 12, 14, and 16 took part in individual interviews investigating their understanding of evolution. Using the newcoding scheme, wefound that while 16-year olds were more likely than 12-year olds to endorse scientific concepts when answering a question about finches, their understanding of natural selection, however, did not generalize to the other four questions. Furthermore, students began to incorporate relevant terminology (e.g., adapt, evolve, etc.) and structure their explanations using relevant language at around age 14. Students often used relevant terminology without having a more advanced understanding of evolutionary theory. Instead, they used the relevant terms in a colloquial rather than a scientific sense. Implications of the current findings for teaching and theory are discussed.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abraham-Silver, L., & Kisiel, J. (2008). Comparing visitors' conceptions of evolution: Examining understanding outside the United States. Visitor Studies, 11, 41-54. doi: 10.1080/10645570801938434
    • Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolutionQ23 in higher education. Evolution, S 56, 1891-1901. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00115.x
    • Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual F inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 952-978. doi: 10.1002/tea/ 10053 O
    • Asghar, A., Wiles, J. R., & Alters, B. (2007). Canadian pre-service elementary teachers' conceptions of biological evolution and evolution education. McGill Journal of Education, 42, 189-208. doi: O10.1007/ s11165-010-9193-2
    • Atran, S., Estin, P., Coley, J., & Medin, D. (1997). Generic species and basic levels: REssence and sites/default/files/pdfs/JoE/17-1/Atranetal1997.pdf P appearance in folkbiology. Journal of Ethnobiology, 17, 17-43. Retrieved from: https://ethnobiology.org/
    • Atran, S., Medin, D., Lynch, E., Vapnarsky, V., Ek', E. U., & Sousa, P. (2001). Folkbiology doesn't come from folkpsychology: Evidence from Yukatek Maya in cross-cultural perspectiDve.Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1, 3-42. doi: 10.1163/156853701300063561
    • Atran, S., Medin, D., & Ross, N. (2004). Evolution and devolution of kEnowledge: A tale of two biologies.
    • T Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10, 395-420. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9655.2004.00195.x
    • Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. C
    • Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of ScienEceEducation, 25, 373-407. doi: 10.1080/ 09500690210145716
    • Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural proceRssesin science education: Supporting the navigation of
    • Beardsley, P. M. (2004). Middle school stRudent learning in evolution: Are current standards achievable? multiple epistemologies. Science Learning, 94, 1008-1026. doi: 10.1002/sce.20392
    • Beggrow, E. P., & Nehm, R. H. (O2012). Students' mental models of evolutionary causation: Natural The American Biology Teacher, 66, 604-612. doi: 10.2307/4451757
    • C selection and genetic drift. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5, 429-444. doi: 10.1007/s12052-012-0432-z
    • Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research NinScience Teaching, 27, 415-427. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660270503
    • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework Uandimplications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49. doi: 10.3102/00346543063001001
    • Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2001). Distinguishing understanding and belief. Theory Into Practice, 40, 235-241. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4004_4
    • Clough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). How secondary school students interpret instances of biological adaptation. Journal of Biological Education, 19, 125-130. doi: 10.1080/00219266.1985.9654708
    • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Coley, J. D., & Muratore, T. M. (2012). Trees, fish and other fictions. In K. S. Rosengren, S. K. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), In evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 22-46). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    • Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Common origins of diverse misconceptions: Cognitive principles and the development of biology thinking. Life Sciences Education, 11, 209-215. doi: 10.1187/cbe.12-06- 0074
    • Coley, J. D., Solomon, G. E. A., & Shafto, P. (2002). The development of folkbiology: A cognitive science perspective on children's understanding of the biological world. In P. H. Kahn, & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, andQ24 evolutionary investigations (pp. 65-92). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    • Deadman, J., & Kelly, P. (1978). What do secondary school boys understand about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics? Journal of Biological Education, 12, 7-15. doi: 10.1080/ 00219266.1978.9654169
    • Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1996). Patterns of conceptual change in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 407-431. doi: 10.1080/00219266.1978.9654169 S
    • Demastes, S. S., Settlage, J. Jr., & Good, R. (1995). Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, F 535-550. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320509
    • Department for Education. (2013a). Science Programmes of study: Key stage 3. National Curriculum Oin England. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-englandscience-programmes-of-study O England. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curricuRlum-in-england-
    • Department for Education. (2013b). Science Programmes of study: Key stage 4. National Curriculum in science-programmes-of-study P
    • Department of Education. (2014a). School Performance Tables. Retrieved from: http://www.education. gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/search.pl? searchType¼postcode&postcode¼rh1þ2pe&distance¼25&phase¼all D 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00121.x E
    • Diamond, J., & Evans, E. M. (2007). Museums teach evolution. Evolution, 61, 1500-1506. doi:
    • diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). TCoherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 842-900. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.05.003
    • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: Cpowerful A framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688. doi: 10.1080/ 09500690305016 E Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 221-254. Retrieved fRrom: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23093715
    • Evans, E. M. (2000). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. explanations of the origin (s) of species. HumRanDevelopment, 54, 144-159. doi: 10.1159/000329130
    • Evans, E. M., & Lane, J. D. (2011). Contradictory or complementary? Creationist and evolutionist
    • Evans, E. M., Legare, C. H., & Rosengren, K. S. (2010a). Engaging multiple epistemologies: Implications for science education. In R. S. Taylor, & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology andQ25 science
    • C education (pp. 111-138). Oxon: Routledge.
    • Evans, E. M., Legare, C., & Rosengren, K. (2011). Engaging multiple epistemologies: Implications for science education. In M. FeNrrari, & R. Taylor (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy (pp. 111-139). New York, NY: Routledge.
    • Evans, E. M., SpUiegel, A. N., Gram, W., Frazier, B. N., Tare, M., Thompson, S., & Diamond, J. (2010b). A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors' understanding of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 326-353. doi: 10.1002/tea/20337
    • Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Balanced incomplete block designs for inter-rater reliability studies. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 105-112. doi: 10.1177/014662168100500115
    • Gardner, A. (2014, August 20). GCSEs & early choice: How important are your GCSE grades? Which University? Retrieved from http://university.which.co.uk/advice/how-important-are-my-gcse-grades
    • Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404-408. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.001
    • Gelman, S. A., & Legare, C. H. (2011). Concepts and folk theories. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 379-198. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145822
    • Gelman, S. A., & Rhodes, M. (2012). “Two-thousand years of stasis” How psychological essentialism impedes evolutionary understanding. In K. Rosengren, S. Brem, E. Evans, & G. Sinatra (Eds.), EvolutionQ26 challenges (pp. 3-21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Geraedts, C. L., & Boersma, K. T. (2006). Reinventing natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 843-870. doi: 10.1080/09500690500404722
    • Ha, M., Haury, D., & Nehm, R. H. (2012). A feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between evolutionary knowledge and acceptance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 95-121. doi: 10.1002/ tea.20449
    • Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 53-90. doi: 10.1207/S15327809jls1201_3
    • Harris, P. L., & Koenig, M. A. (2003). Trust in testimony: How children learn about science and religion. Child Development, 77, 505-524. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00886.x
    • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Conceptual change using multiple interpretive perspectives: Two case studies in secondary school chemistry. Instructional Science, 29, 45-85. doi: 10.1023/ A:1026456101444
    • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997a). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs abOout knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Education Research, 67, 88-140. doi: 10.3102/00346543067001088 O knowledge and knowing their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, R88-140. doi:
    • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997b). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about 10.3102/00346543067001088 P
    • Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in students' understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teacher, 33, 879-900. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199610)33:8<879::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-T D characterization as “Lamarckian” when considering the history of eEvolutionary thought? Science &
    • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2007). Students' preconceptions about evolution: How accurate is the Education, 16, 393-422. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9019-9 T
    • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students' intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science & Education, 17, 27-47. doi: 10.1007/s111C91-007-9075-9
    • Kelemen, D. (1999). Why are rocks pointy? Children's preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 36, 1440-1452. Edoi: 10.1037/ 0012-1649. 35.6.1440 learning about evolution. In K. S. Rosengren, S. K. BRrem, E. M. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), In evolution
    • Kelemen, D. (2012). Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence York, NY: Oxford University Press. R challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 66-92). New
    • Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111, 138-143. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001
    • Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & CSeston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 142, 1074-1083. Ndoi: 10.1037/a0030399
    • King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptionUsthrough adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39, 37-41. doi: 10.1207/ s15326985ep3901
    • Krist, H. (2000). Development of na€ıve beliefs about moving objects: The straight-down belief in action. Cognitive Development, 15, 281-308. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00029-0
    • Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674-689. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.674
    • Lane, J. D., Wellman, H. M., & Evans, E. M. (2010). Children's understanding of ordinary and extraordinary minds. Child Development, 81, 1475-1489. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01486.x
    • Legare, C. H., Evans, E. M., Rosengren, K. S., & Harris, P. L. (2012). The coexistence of natural and supernatural explanations across cultures and development. Child Development, 83, 779-793. doi: 10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x Please provide the significance of table footnote (a, b, and c) for Table 3. References (Alters and Nelson, 2002; Anderson et al., 2002; Asghar et al., 2007; Coley et al., 2002; Department of Education, 2014a; Ha et al., 2012; Kampourakis and Zogza, 2007; Lane et al., 2010; National Academy of Sciences, 1998; National Research Council, 2012; Opfer et al., 2012; Pintrich, 2000; Poling and Evans, 2004; and Rosengren et al., 1991) have not been cited in the text. Please indicate where it should be cited; or delete from the reference lists.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article