Download comments on the results

COMMENTS ON THE RESULTS
OF A TEACHING INTERVENTION ON EVOLUTION.
WHICH PUPILS BENEFITED?
Lucia Prinou, Lia Halkia and Constantine Skordoulis
University of Athens, Greece
Abstract: In the present research the endeavour to teach the theory of evolution by natural
selection, which took place in an average state school in Greece, is described. The instruction
included efforts to make pupils express their conceptions, to confront them and replace them
with more accurate ones. To make this happen the instructional design integrated the pupils’
high engagement through discussion and juxtaposition of their conceptions. The purpose of
the research was to ascertain a) how were pupils’ conceptions formed after the instruction and
b) which were the probable reasons that influenced the results of this endeavor.
As the research showed the teaching intervention resulted in more pupils accepting biological
evolution and evolution of humankind, the reliability of the theory of evolution and the
randomness in the production of the variation. As far as natural selection is concerned, the
teaching intervention helped nearly half of the pupils to learn to use it with consistency.
Pupils with richer conceptual background were able to see systematically how their prior
conceptions contradicted the scientific theory they were taught.
Keywords: Evolution, natural selection, lower secondary school, teaching intervention
BACKGROUND, FRAMEWORK, AND PURPOSE
Natural selection is in the center of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Other procedures have
played an important role in the history of life, but no other force except for selection can
explain the complexity of life, the intricacy of the survival mechanisms of various organisms
and their adaptation to their environment (Futuyma, 1986). Natural selection “is a core
concept of the secondary school biology curricula” (Brumby, 1984, p.499) and without a
working knowledge of it, it is impossible to understand the diversity and complexity of life
(Gregory, 2008).
Nevertheless, a great number of science education research papers (at least in the English
bibliography) have shown that many pupils have a plethora of alternative conceptions on the
theory of evolution including Lamarckian misconceptions (Enderle et al., 2009; Lucas, 1971;
Brumby, 1979, 1984; Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Greene, 1990; Jiménez-Aleixandre, 1996;
Samarapungavan & Wiers, 1997; Jensen et al., 2007). A documented presentation of worldwide studies on this issue is presented in Gregory (2008).
A research conducted in a large sample of pupils from many different schools in our country
(Prinou et al., 2008) had shown that secondary school pupils appeared to be favorably
disposed towards biological evolution. However, despite the fact that the theory of evolution
by natural selection was included in the 9th grade biology curriculum, pupils’ explanations
were teleological (goal-directed). Pupils did not use natural selection to explain evolutionary
changes, but treated organisms as a unified total of almost identical individuals, which acquire
new traits in order to deal with the needs of the environment. Following that, organisms
passed on the new traits to their offspring.
Also, another research conducted in our country (Prinou et al., 2011) indicated that the
intuitive teleological reasoning of primary schools pupils (Kelemen, 1999; Bloom &
Weisberg, 2007) is not questioned or destabilized during primary education and thus it is
carried on to the next levels of education and it also influences the teaching of biological
subjects in higher grades.
According to Sinatra et al. (2008, pp.193-194) learning about a complex process like
evolution, requires conceptual change. The educators who foster conceptual change must be
aware of students’ preconceived ideas that they bring to the classroom, and must design
instruction to give them the opportunity to think deeply about alternative perspectives.
According to Sinatra et al. (2008, pp.193-194) the likelihood of change relates to the degree
of pupils’ engagement, that is how deeply students become involved in the content through
discussion, debate or dialogue.
Taking into account the result of all the above-mentioned studies we attempted the
introduction of the teaching of the theory of evolution by natural selection fostering
conceptual change. The instruction took place in an average state school in Greece in the
context of the existing 9th grade biology curriculum (as a last unit as it is placed in the
curriculum)1. The purpose of the research was to ascertain: a) how were pupils’ conceptions
formed after the instruction and b) which were the probable reasons that influenced the results
of this endeavor.
METHODS
First as a pre-test the Questionnaire1 (Q1) was given to pupils, that was intended to make
pupils express their views and conceptions on this subject. This consisted of open-ended and
multiple choice questions. The multiple choice questions were four-grade scale statements
(Agree or Disagree absolutely or probably and don’t know- no reply). In the open-ended
questions pupils were called to explain instances of biological adaptation. The questions
excited pupils’ interest and this facilitated the conduct of the teaching intervention afterwards.

The Teaching intervention
The subject content: It included basically the following issues: Τhe variety of life and the
similarities between living things, the evidence for evolution, Charles Darwin, Natural
Selection, The origin of humans.
The Instructional process that was adopted (based on the model of conceptual change
presented in Sinatra et al., 2008) included the continuous active pupils’ involvement in this
procedure, which took place with issues and questions that were posed for discussion in the
class. The argumentative discussion for (or against) the validity of their explanations on
subjects concerning e.g. biological adaptation of a large array of different organisms was used
with pupils. Evans et al. (2010) refer that curricula which provide opportunities for
generalizing across diverse species are more likely to be successful in relaying evolution.
Very special attention was given to the “language” that was used during the instruction, to
make pupils “aware of the conflict” (Sinatra et al., 2008) between the manner concepts (e.g.
adaptation, evolution) which are used in everyday language and scientific terminology. The
exact content of the concepts and the difference between their meaning in everyday language
and the theory of evolution was made totally clear.
The duration of the intervention was eight hours.

As a post-test the Questionnaire 2 (Q2) was given to pupils. That consisted of open-ended
(with other scenarios) and multiple choice questions. The Q2 was given a month after the Q1.
The S.P.S.S. statistical program and content analysis were used to process both the
questionnaires’ replies.
As a re-test two optional open-ended questions that were set among others, in the final
biology examination (one month later) taken by the pupils, were used. Pupils, who wanted to
answer them, did so.

Regarding the synthesis of the questionnaires and of the teaching material used in the
intervention the above-mentioned relevant bibliography on evolution and the site
Understanding Evolution2 were taken into account.
Τhe Participants pupils : 98 pupils of 9th grade, divided in four classes alphabetically. 62.2%
were girls and 37.8% were boys. 98 pupils answered Q1 and 95 pupils answered Q2. Their
general records in biology in a scale 0-20 were: a. the 25.5% had from 17 to 20 (or A), b. the
31.6% had marks from 13 to 16 (or B) and c. The 42.9% of pupils had marks from 9 to 12 (or
C).

RESULTS
On the origin of species
The percentage of 76.8% of pupils who accepted that the species living today are the result of
evolutionary processes that have been occurring for millions of years when answering the
Questionnaire1 (Q1) increased to 85.3% when they answered the Questionnaire 2 (Q2), while
the percentages of the other answers decreased.
N=95
Q1
Q2
Agree %
76.8
85.3
Disagree %
13.7
7.4
Don’t know- reply %
9.5
7.3
The correlation between pupils’ answers in Q1 and Q2 on the origin of species proved to be
statistically significant with χ2= 10.733, ΒΕ=4 and p-value=0.030<0.05.
On the origin of humankind
The percentage of 59% of pupils who accepted that humankind has evolved from earlier
forms of life when answering Q1, increased to 82.1% when they answered the Q2, while the
percentages of the other answers decreased.
N=95
Q1
Q2
Agree %
59
82.1
Disagree %
21
10.5
Don’t know- reply %
20
7.4
The correlation between pupils’ answers in Q1 and Q2 on the origin of humankind proved to
be statistically significant with χ2= 22.839, ΒΕ=4 and p-value=0.000<0.05.
On the evidence for evolution
The percentage of 35.8% of pupils who accepted that the available evidence are sufficient for
the theory of evolution to be regarded as reliable when answering Q1 increased to 62.1%,
when they answered the Q2, while the percentages of the other answers decreased.
N=95
Q1
Q2
Agree %
35.8
62.1
Disagree %
33.7
15.8
Don’t know- reply %
30.5
22.1
The correlation between pupils’ answers in Q1 and Q2 on whether the available evidence are
sufficient for the theory of evolution to be regarded as reliable proved to be statistically
significant with χ2=19.158, ΒΕ=4 and p-value=0.001<0.05.
On the origin of new traits
The percentage of 15.8% of pupils who accepted that new traits originate randomly when
answering Q1 increased to 58.9% when they answered the Q2, while the percentages of the
other answers decreased.
N=95
Q1
Agree %
15.8
Disagree %
74.8
Don’t know- reply %
9.4
Q2
58.9
33.7
7.4
The correlation between pupils’ answers in Q1 and Q2 on the origin of new traits proved to be
statistically significant with χ2= 12.447, ΒΕ=4 and p-value=0.014<0.05.
On natural selection
Before the intervention the great majority of pupils’ answers in the open-ended questions of
Q1 (n=98) did not use scientifically accepted explanations.
E.g. in the question which asked pupils to explain the insects resistance to insecticides3 the
majority of them (75.8%) thought that all organisms (taken as a unified whole of almost
identical individuals) “have been transformed”, in order to survive or that insects “became
accustomed”, “acquired immunity, antibodies”etc.
In another question, pupils were asked to explain how a species of wingless insects (feature
that helps them not to be carried away by the winds into the sea) came to live on an island
subjected continually to strong winds”: 65.3% of pupils had answered that “the insects
evolved in order to adapt …”“their bodies were formed in accordance with the requirements
for survival in their environment” or “their wings atrophied because they stopped using
them”.
The common points between pupils’ answers were that the various features were acquired by
all organisms (together) in response to environmental pressures. Then their offspring inherited
the new traits. Pupils’ reasoning was teleological.
After the intervention a number of pupils gave scientifically accepted answers. These
answers included the following rudiments:
“In the past … a long time ago…there were some organisms which had the (specific) feature
and there were some other organisms which they did not have it. These organisms that had the
(specific) feature had an advantage over the others because ….These survived and had
children (descendants) which inherited the (specific) feature. These children had an advantage
over the others who had not inherited the (specific) feature. The ones who had the (specific)
feature survived, while the other died. Gradually …with the passage of time, the percentage
of the organisms with the advantageous trait increased… or …now the population consists of
organisms with this specific trait…”
Analytically: in the open-ended question of Q2 (n=95), which was referred to the explanation
for the resistance of microorganisms to antibiotics2, it was found that a percentage of pupils
(62.2%) used natural selection.
- In the open-ended question which asked pupils to explain the existence of adaptive traits to
dry environments of camels, a percentage of pupils (64.3%) gave a scientifically accepted
explanation.
- In the open-ended question which asked pupils to explain another instance of evolutionary
change (the cheetahs’ ability to run faster than their ancestors4) a percentage of pupils (51%)
used natural selection.
However, a percentage of pupils continued to answer the questions with misconceptions. The
common points between pupils’ answers were that the various features of organisms were
acquired by all organisms (together) in response to environmental pressures. Then their
offspring inherited the new traits. Although pupils’ answers had small variations, they
described biological adaptation by the use of verbs “organisms mutated, adapted in order to
survive, changed little by little from one generation to the next in order to” etc. Their
reasoning was still teleological.
N=95
Natural
selection
1.Resistance of microbes in
62.2%
Answers with
common
misconceptions
29.6%
No reply/
Tautological
8.2%
antibiotics
2.Camels’adaptive traits to
drought
3.Cheetahs’ ability to run
faster
64.3%
25.5%
10.2%
51%
30.6%
18.4%
The correlations between pupils’ answers to each question and their marks in biology
proved to be statistically significant. Analytically:
- The correlation of pupils’ replies to the first open question and their marks in biology proved
to be statistically significant with χ2= 32.543, ΒΕ=6 and p-value=0.000<0.05 and showed that
the majority of pupils who used natural selection to answer the first open question had high
marks in biology i.e. A (the 39.3%) and B (the 32.8%). Also the majority of pupils (the
95.6%) who answered that insects (altogether) “changed” (adapted) in order to survive had
average (the 47.8% had B) and low marks (the 47.8% had C) in biology. All the pupils
(100%) who answered that they do not know or they gave tautological answers had low marks
in biology.
- The correlation of pupils’ replies to the second open question and their marks in biology
proved to be statistically significant with χ2= 18.879, BE=4 and p-value=0.001<0.05 and
showed that the majority of pupils who used natural selection to answer the second open
question had high marks in biology i.e. A (the 38.1%) and B (the 31.7%). Also the majority of
pupils (96%) who answered that the camels adapted in order to survive had average (the 36%
had B) and low marks (the 60% had C) in biology. The majority of pupils (the 80%) who
answered that they do not know or they gave tautological answers had low marks in biology.
- The correlation of pupils’ replies to the third open question and their marks in biology
proved to be statistically significant with χ2= 22.610, BE=4 and p-value=0.000<0.05 and
showed that the majority of pupils who used natural selection to answer the third open
question had high marks in biology i.e. A (the 42%) and B (the 34%). Also the majority of
pupils (90%) who answered that the cheetahs adapted in order to survive had average (the
36.7% had B) and low marks (the 53.3% had C) in biology. The majority of pupils (the
77.8%) who answered that they do not know or they gave tautological answers had low marks
in biology.
 The correlations of pupils’ replies to the second open question and their conception on the
origin of the new traits proved to be statistically significant. Analytically:
The correlation of pupils’ replies to the second open question and their conception on the
origin of the new traits, proved to be statistically significant with χ2=10.826, BE=2 and pvalue=0.004<0.05 and showed that the majority of pupils (70.5%) who used natural selection
to answer the second open question accepted that new traits originate randomly.
The correlation of pupils’ replies to the third open question and their conception on the origin
of the new traits, proved to be statistically significant with χ2=6.916, BE=2 and pvalue=0.031<0.05 and showed that the majority of pupils (75%) who used natural selection to
answer the third open question accepted that new traits originate randomly.

Natural selection as an explanation in all three open-ended questions
- 43.8% used natural selection in all three open-ended questions.
- Half of these pupils (46.5%) had high grades in biology (A). 80% of them were girls.
- One third of the pupils (30.2) who used natural selection to all questions had μέτριους marks
(B). 70% of them were girls.
- The rest of the pupils (23.3%) had low marks. 80% of them were girls.
 In the re-test two open questions on (different) instances of biological adaptation, that
were given among others in the final biology examinations (one month later) taken by the
pupils, were used.

- 92 pupils chose to answer the first open question referring to the evolution of the beaks of
birds living on an island with plants producing small seeds. 70.7% of them used natural
selection.
- 82 pupils chose to answer the second open question. Pupils were asked to explain the
existence of adaptive characteristics of seals. 54.9 % of them used natural selection.
- 53.6 % of pupils who chose to answer both questions (n =82) used natural selection to each
one of them.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The teaching intervention resulted in more pupils accepting biological evolution and
evolution of humankind.
The percentage of pupils who accepted the reliability of the theory of evolution was increased.
However there were a percentage of pupils which did not answer or accept this statement. A
great increase of the percentage of pupils who accepted the randomness in the production of
the variation, which is a prerequisite for the “action” of natural selection, was ascertained.
Nevertheless there were a remarkable percentage of pupils which had difficulties in accepting
the role of chance in the origin of new traits of organisms. As it was shown in pupils’ answers
and their correlations, the recognition of the role of chance in the origin of variation perhaps
leads to the conception of natural selection more easily.
After the intervention, a number of pupils were able to use natural selection in each question,
while a smaller percentage used natural selection with consistency, i.e. they used it to answer
all open-ended questions.
The great majority of pupils who appeared to be able to use natural selection to answer all
questions were pupils with good and average marks in biology, result that could be explained
in different ways. A probable explanation is that natural selection is a complex concept and its
understanding presupposes the knowledge and understanding of other biological concepts.
Probably these pupils had a richer conceptual background that enabled them to see
systematically how their prior conceptions contradicted the scientific theory they were taught.
The other pupils probably having fragmented conceptual frameworks used natural selection in
some questions and they tended to slip into their intuitive teleological conceptions in other
questions.
Additionally, a percentage of pupils did not use natural selection but they repeated
teleological explanations. Unfortunately these types of explanations had not been doubted
during the previous years of pupils’ formal or informal education. On the one hand, pupils
had been taught the “adaptation of organisms” during the formal education problematically
(Prinou et al., 2011). On the other hand, pupils have watched documentaries on television
programs etc., where the “adaptation of organisms” is presented problematically also.
Probably there are also other reasons responsible for the fact that pupils were not able to use
natural selection. These reasons should be taken into account when designing a new teaching
rubric fostering conceptual change for all pupils ; maybe the time devoted to the instruction
was limited; or the time when the instruction took place (end of the school year as it was
scheduled in the curriculum) ; or perhaps that the intervention did not interest all pupils. M.
Evans (2008) has commented that the persistence of misconceptions is probably due to the
fact that students who are taught biology are not (always) interested in acquiring a deep
understanding to comprehend evolutionary concepts but merely in passing the course.
In the next phase of this research we are going to collect more data through pupils’ interviews
and recording of their discussions on the previous issues. Also we are going to record the
development of pupils’ conceptions as they evolve and follow the next school grades.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brumby, M. N. (1979). Problems in learning the concept of natural selection. Journal of
Biological Education, 13, 119-122.
Brumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical
biology students. Science Education, 68, 493-503.
Bishop, B., Anderson, C. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in
evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427.
Bloom, P., & Weisberg, D.S. (2007). Childhood origins of Adult Resistance to Science.
Science, 316, 996-997
Enderle, P.J., Smith, M.U., Southerland, S. (2009) Does Prior Knowledge Matter? Do
Lamarckian misconceptions exist? A critique of Geraedts and Boersma (2006).
International Journal of Science Education 31(18), 2527-2532.
Evans, E.M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis.
In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp.
263–294). New York, NY: Routledge.
Evans, E.M., Spiegel A.N., Gram W., Frazier B.N., Tare M., Thompson S. & Diamond J.
(2010) A Conceptual Guide to Natural History Museum Visitors Understanding of
Evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (3), 326-353.
Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,
Massachusetts.
Greene, E. D. (1990). The Logic of University Students’ Misunderstanding of Natural
Selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(9), 875–885.
Gregory, T.R. (2009). Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common
Misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2156-175.
Jensen, M, Moore, R, Hatch, J. & Hsu, L. (2007). Α scoring rubric for students’ Responses to
Simple Evolution Questions : Darwinian Components, The American Biology Teacher,
69(7), 394- 399.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (1996). Darwinian and Lamarckian models used by students and
their Representations. In Fisher, K.M. & Kibby, M. (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition,
organization and use in biology 65–77, New York: Springer Verlag.
Kelemen, D. (1999). Functions, goals and intentions: Children’s teleological reasoning about
objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 461-468.
Lucas, A. (1971). The teaching of adaptation. Journal of Biological Education, 5, 86-90.
Prinou, L., Halkia, L., Skordoulis, C. (2008). What Conceptions do Greek school Students
Form about Biological Evolution? Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 312 -317.
Prinou, L., Halkia, L., Skordoulis, C. (2011). The inability of Primary School to introduce
children to the theory of biological evolution, Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4 275–
285
Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W. (1997). Children’s Thoughts on the Origin of Species:
A study of explanatory science. Cognitive Science, 21:2 147-177.
Sinatra, G.M., Brem, S. K., Evans, E. M (2008). Changing Minds? Implications of
Conceptual Change for Teaching and Learning about Biological Evolution Evolution:
Education and Outreach, 1 189 – 195.
NOTES
1
Our intervention differed from other studies published in the bibliography in that it was shorter in length and the
whole biology curriculum was not reorganized. The other studies published in the bibliography are not presented
in this paper because of the lack of space for which we apologize.
2
Understanding
Evolution:
University
of
California
Museum
of
Palaeontology.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html.
3
Similar questions were first found in Brumby’ research (1979, 1984) but they are also referred in contemporary
textbooks
4
Adopted by Bishop &Anderson (1990)