How Controversy, Misconceptions, and Personal Beliefs
Contribute to the failure of Educators to
Effectively Teach the Theory of Evolution
Patty McGinnis
Advanced Seminar in Evolution
Fall 2012
Miami University
Abstract
Key words: evolution, misconception, creationism
2
Introduction
Perhaps no other science topic is as mired in passion and misinformation than evolution;
an idea promoted by Charles Darwin with his publication of On the Origins of Species in 1859.
In it, Darwin advanced the theory that evolution occurs via the process of natural selection; a
process by which individuals best suited for the environment survive, reproduce, and pass on
their traits. Darwin’s evidence, which came from observations of the natural world, did not
explain the mechanism behind inherited traits since he lacked knowledge of Mendelian genetics,
a theory that explains how traits are passed from parent to offspring. Today, neo-Darwinism
refers to the modern theory of evolution which utilizes the principles of genetics to explain how
variations in populations arise ("Neo-Darwinism," 2012).
Today evolution is considered to be the greatest unifying idea in the biological sciences,
much in the way that the laws of gravity are to physics (McComas, 1997). Up until the 1960’s,
however, the topic of evolution was not addressed in high school biology textbooks. In 1956, a
committee of distinguished biologists representing AIBS (American Institute of Biological
Sciences) met and recommended that biology instruction be reformed to include the topic of
evolution (Bybee, 2001). The National Defense Act, passed in 1958, provided funding for the
development of updated science books. As a result of these events, the Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study (BSCS) was the first to produce a book that addressed the controversial topic
of evolution (Bybee, 2001).
Despite fifty years of the inclusion of evolution into high school biology, the theory of
evolution remains plagued with misconceptions (Gregg, Janssen, & Bhattacharjee, 2003;
Gregory & Ellis, 2009) and continues to face opposition from creationists (Bybee, 2001). Unlike
other scientific theories, such as the atomic theory or Copernicus’ heliocentric theory, the theory
of evolution remains one that is heavily questioned, even after 150 years of discussion (Ayala,
2000). Misconceptions regarding the theory, combined with the emotional response it triggers,
often translate into controversy for school systems (Moore, 2004). Statements such as “evolution
is just a theory” or “evolution is far from being proven scientifically” continue to perpetuate the
idea that there is little scientific basis for evolution and point to a lapse in understanding what is
meant by the nature of science and the role that evidence has in the development of a theory
(Bybee, 2001).
This paper will examine the state of evolution in today’s classrooms, including the
difficulties and misconceptions encountered when teaching evolution, and the role that teachers
have in promoting misconceptions related to evolution.
Challenges to Teaching Evolution
Teaching evolution is a challenging and often emotionally charged endeavor; some
teachers report being harassed by parents, school board members, and community members
when the topic of evolution is discussed within the high school classroom (Oliver, 2011).
Additionally, teachers often do not understand the legal precedents associated with evolution
education (Moore, 2004); although communities, school boards, and parents may challenge a
teacher who teaches evolution, it is against the law to ban the teaching of evolution (Epperson v.
Arkansas, 1968).
Studies have found that many teachers do not want to teach evolution because they do not
feel fully prepared to teach it (Aguillard, 1999; Griffith & Brem, as cited by (Nehm, Kim, &
Sheppard, 2009) because they either lack content knowledge or lack teaching strategies to
adequately teach the topic (Oliver, 2011). For the past three decades the evidence indicates that
3
traditional teaching of evolution is ineffective (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1994). This is in part due
to the difficulty of the topic; students fail to fully comprehend the theory of evolution (Enderle,
Smith, & Southerland, 2009), due to the necessity of understanding complex and abstract
concepts such as molecular genetics, biochemistry, and geologic time (Bean, Sinatra, &
Schrader, 2010; Burton & Dobson, 2009; Gregg, et al., 2003).
Abstract topics require formal reasoning ability and often result in smaller learning gains
than concrete topics. Theoretical concepts, such as evolution, are among the most difficult of all
to master (Timmerman, Strickland, & Carstensen, 2008). The inability to accurately read
cladograms, diagrams designed to show the relationships between organisms, adds to the
difficulty of understanding how evolution works (Meir, Perry, Herron, & Kingsolver, 2007).
This inability continues well into college; 25% of college students in upper-level undergraduate
courses had difficulty reading these commonly-found diagrams present in most biology texts
(Meir, et al., 2007).
Misconceptions
In addition to the challenge of addressing abstract concepts, teachers need to be cognizant
that students enter their classroom with numerous misconceptions based on prior knowledge
(Oliver, 2011). Misconceptions are constructed when incorrect reasoning occurs as newlyencountered information is analyzed to determine its relationship to already existing information
(Abdi, 2006; Gooding & Metz, 2011). Information is either assimilated to the learner’s existing
belief system, altered to fit their belief system, or discarded (Smith & Ragan, 2005). Knowledge
that is contrary to existing beliefs is either rejected or causes the individual to restructure their
thinking (Gooding & Metz, 2011; Winn, 2004). Restructuring of a learner’s thinking, when
misconceptions are replaced with correct conceptual understanding, is very challenging since
many misconceptions are deeply engrained. Even after having been taught a concept, many
students may hold onto their incorrect misconception (Gooding & Metz, 2011). Evolution is no
exception; so strong are misconceptions concerning evolution that instead of adopting and
accepting new knowledge, the new knowledge may be discarded or altered in such a way that it
fits existing misconceptions (Alters & Nelson, 2002).
There are several origins of misconceptions related to evolution, including those acquired
from experience, self-constructed misconceptions, misconceptions that were taught and learned
(such as seeing dinosaurs and humans incorrectly depicted together in books or movies),
vernacular misconceptions in which science words such as “theory” are not used correctly, and
religious misconceptions (Alters & Nelson, 2002). Most misconceptions can be traced to the
origin of new traits, the role of variation, and how the populations change over time due to traits
(Bishop & Anderson; Settlage & Odom, as cited by (Oliver, 2011).
All misconceptions pose a challenge to the teaching of evolution and their immense
variety makes it impossible to address each one (Nelson, 2008), but teachers can design their
lessons to address those misconceptions that are the most common. A study by Mayr in 1982
(cited by Alters & Nelson, 2002) revealed three major misconceptions held by college students.
The first was that students thought the environment, rather than variation in species, caused traits
to change over time. The second was that students did not consider genetic variation in
individuals to be important. Thirdly, the students failed to recognize that as individuals with
specific traits increase in numbers and pass on their genes, that the traits eventually become
established in a population.
4
Students often use teleological and Lamarckian concepts to explain their misconceptions.
Teleological explanations imply that a species deliberately sets out to change in response to an
environmental factor (Geraedts & Boersma, 2006) while Lamarckian reasoning says that
acquired characteristics are passed onto offspring (Oliver, 2011). Explaining evolution via
teleological and Lamarckian logic may be easier for students than explaining evolution using
molecular genetics (Gregg, et al., 2003). Other misconceptions include that evolution occurs at
the population level, not at the individual level (Geraedts & Boersma, 2006), that all mutations
are detrimental to organisms, and that the direction of evolution is predetermined toward
progressing to more complicated life forms (Alters & Nelson, as cited by Burton & Dobson,
2009).
Misconceptions can be found at all levels, even among college students, as is evidenced
by the frustration of university professors with the lack of student understanding concerning
evolution (Timmerman, et al., 2008). Nehm & Reilly (2007) examined views on evolution of
students in an introductory biology course. They discovered that only 3.4% could adequately
explain natural selection using scientific concepts to support their thinking despite prior exposure
to the concepts of evolution, evidence of the persistence of misconceptions related to evolution.
Additional studies support these findings. Gregory & Ellis (2009) examined postdoctoral science
students to determine their understanding of evolution. Among the 186 students who
participated, although most recognized that evolution is an important concept in biology, the
most common misconception was that of teleological thinking; that need drives mutations. An
alarming 30% were not personally convinced that evolution occurs.
Addressing Misconceptions
Addressing misconceptions is a challenging procedure. The process of addressing
misconceptions is two-fold; first, misconceptions must be exposed. Secondly, instruction that
forces the learner to confront their misconceptions must occur (Oliver, 2011). Exposure of
misconceptions can be accomplished via an assessment probe; a multiple-choice question that
contains common misconceptions related to a topic. An assessment probe designed to expose
misconceptions regarding evolution may be one that prompts students to explain how life
originated (Keeley & Tugel, 2009). During the assessment probe, students are asked to construct
a written response to explain their thinking. Follow-up lessons are then used to create a sense of
discomfort within the student as they confront their misconceptions, question their thinking, and
begin to create correct conceptual understanding (Keeley, Eberle, & Farrin, 2005). Firmly
engrained misconceptions require numerous hands-on or concrete experiences to correct
(Khourey-Bowers, 2011; Olson, 2009), in some cases requiring years of exposure to accurate
concepts before a misconception is corrected (Chinn & Brewer, 1993).
Methods commonly employed by teachers to address the abstract topics of evolution and
natural selection include the use of text, lecture, video, discussions and debate (Riechert,
Leander, & Lenhart, 2011). Allowing students to voice their opinions and confront their
misconceptions via questioning, inquiry, and investigation is important, however (Sinclair &
Pendarvis, 1998). Nehm & Reilly (2007) examined the effectiveness of active learning teaching
methods on misconceptions related to evolution. They compared a group of biology majors who
participated in an active-learning class to a group of biology majors who were instructed about
evolution in a tradition setting. Teaching strategies employed by the active learning class
included cooperative learning and inquiry; while the traditional class was taught using a didactic
approach. Although active learning was found to be more successful at extinguishing
misconceptions, the difficulty of fully understanding evolution and its driving forces was
5
pronounced; 70% of students in the active learning class and 86% of the traditional class retained
misconceptions after instruction. This study is particularly alarming since it dealt with future
high school biology teachers (Nehm & Reilly, 2007).
Utilizing simulation software such as “Spore,” in which students “create and guide a
creature through five generations of evolution” (“What is Spore,” n.d.) is another method for
teaching about evolution. It is important, however, that regardless of the activity, teachers
monitor students to ensure misconceptions are being corrected, rather than reinforced, as could
occur when using the game Spore. Spore involves the creation of a successful individual without
witnessing how mutations affect subsequent populations. Its use may reinforce the
misconception that evolution occurs on an individual, rather than population, basis. Spore may
also act to perpetuate and reinforce misconceptions such as the idea of essentialism; that an
organism’s qualities are essential to its survival and that change does not occur over time (Bean,
et al., 2010). As game-based learning moves to mainstream education as has been predicted
within the next two to three years (Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine, & Haywood, 2011), science
teachers will need to carefully evaluate games for misconceptions.
The Role of the Science Teacher
Despite molecular and genetic information gleaned in the last twenty years, public
resistance to evolution has strengthened (Nelson, 2008). Belief in creationism is on the rise; a
Gallup poll revealed that when asked about evolution, 45% of Americans chose the response
"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000
years or so,” with only 35% of the respondents responding that the theory of evolution is
supported by evidence (Brooks, as cited by Moore, Brooks, & Cotner, 2011). In view of this
survey, it is perhaps not unsurprising that the controversy caused by evolution seems to be
heating up as creationists demand that creationism to be taught in the classroom (Kaplan, as cited
by Sinclair & Pendarvis, 1998).
When teaching evolution, teachers need to be aware of student beliefs (Sinclair &
Pendarvis, 1998) since understanding how evolution works is highly influenced by religious
beliefs (Clores & Limjap, 2006) and by the background many students received well before
entering a high school biology classroom (Riechert, et al., 2011). McKeachie, Lin, and Strayer
(as cited by Clores & Limjak, 2006) found those students that believed in creationism were more
likely to drop biology classes or do poorly; students who accepted the theory of evolution often
do so based on misconceptions.
In light of these facts, it is not surprising that the National Science Teacher s
Association’s position statement on the teaching of evolution states that teaching evolution is
necessary for science literacy and should be included in K-12 standards (“The Teaching of
Evolution,” 2003). The quality of state standards related to evolution, and the level to which they
are carried out within individual science classrooms across the nation, vary considerably. A
study of state standards found that 30% of the states do not teach evolution satisfactorily; ten
states do not even include the word “evolution” in their standards (Lerner, 2000).
Personal conflicts between religion and science cause stress for science teachers (Griffith
& Brem, as cited by Nehm, Kim, & Sheppard, 2009); in many cases, teachers sacrifice scientific
evidence of evolution to personal religious beliefs (Kraemer; Trani; Berkman et al., as cited by
Moore et al., 2011). Nearly 25% of biology teachers believe that creationism is scientifically
valid Kraemer, 1995; Moore & Kraemer, 2005 as cited by Moore, Brooks, & Cotner, 2011) and
15% believe evolution is not scientifically valid (Moore & Kraemer, 2005). Forty percent of
6
Indiana’s biology teachers (a state that has among the best evolution standards in the country)
admitted that they either avoided or only briefly mentioned evolution. In Oregon, 39% of the
biology teachers feel creationism should be taught in science class (Moore, 2004), while in
Louisiana, 29% of the science teachers want to teach creationism in their classes. Even teachers
who participated in a 14-week course designed to increase their content knowledge did not
change their opinion that creationism should be taught in school (Nehm, Kim, & Sheppard,
2009). It is alarming that many teachers may be choosing to ignore standards or teach their own
beliefs, despite the fact that it is against the law to teach creationism in public school science
classes (Edwards v. Aguillard, as cited by Moore, 2004).
Exposure to creationism in high school sacrifices time that could have been spent
understanding evolution. A study by Moore et al. (2011) identified factors that influenced
students who entered college knowing little of evolution. Ignorance of evolution was found to be
positively correlated to religious beliefs, to a lack of evolution instruction during high school,
and to exposure of creationism-related instruction in high school. Of these factors, the inclusion
of creationism in a high school biology class had the greatest weight. Those students who were
exposed to creationism in high school science knew less about evolution than their peers who
had not been exposed to creationism. These findings extended to science majors as well as nonscience majors. Additionally, students whose high school biology course included evolution
topics were more likely to believe in the theory of evolution than students whose high school
biology course had included discussions of creationism (Moore & Cotner, as cited by Moore et
al., 2011).
Conclusions
The role of science education is not to produce within students a belief in evolution, but
to produce scientifically literate students; students who are capable of understanding the theory
of evolution and the mechanisms behind it. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution over 150
years ago, but it continues to be entrenched in misconceptions which are perhaps unwittingly
perpetuated by science teachers. Although teachers should make it clear to that accepting
evolution does not mean rejecting religious beliefs, it is important to acknowledge that
creationism does not belong in the science classroom. Creationism is accepted on faith, not facts;
its belief leads to misconceptions which are difficult to change.
The argument utilized by creationists that evolution cannot be proven because it is “only
a theory” (Nehm, Kim, & Sheppard, 2009) presumes that ideas that cannot be proven by
experimentation are not real science, a misconception often reinforced by textbooks that devote
the first chapter to a list of the scientific steps. Large numbers of preservice teachers have been
found to accept creationalism and reject evolution (Losh & Nzekwe, 2010), indicativative that
preservice teachers lack an understanding of the nature of science; a deficit that they are unlikely
to be able to adequately address within their future students.
The ability to objectively examine evidence is tied closely to understanding the nature of
science; the processes and skills scientists utilize throughout their work. Developing the
scientific habit of mind by requiriing students to ask questions and learn how to separate fact
from fiction is essential if students are to receive proper groundwork to enable them to think
scientifically, particularly when it comes to understanding abstract theories such as evolution.
Science teachers need to be a better job instilling an understanding of the nature of science
within their students, including how to properly differentiate between words such as hypothesis,
theory, and law (Bybee, 2000).
7
Successful planning and execution of inquiry lessons designed to allow learners to
confront and correct their misconceptions will require that science teachers to be educated
regarding common misconceptions related to evolution and natural selection. This education
needs to extend to self-examination of the teachers’ personal misconceptions and beliefs to
ensure unbiased delivery of content required by state science standards. Only by allowing
students to truly begin thinking like scientists will Darwin’s theory become better understood.
References
Abdi, S. W. (2006). Correcting student misconceptions. Science Scope, 29(4), 39.
Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching Evolution in Higher Education.
Evolution, 56(10), 1891-1901.
Ayala, F. J. (2000). Arguing for evolution. The Sciencce Teacher, 67(2), 30-32.
Bean, T. E., Sinatra, G. M., & Schrader, P. G. (2010). Spore: Spawning Evolutionary
Misconceptions? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(5), 409-414.
Burton, S. R., & Dobson, C. (2009). Spork & Beans: Addressing Evolutionary Misconceptions
(Vol. 71, pp. 89-91): National Association of Biology Teachers.
Bybee, R. W. (2000). Evolution: Don't debate, educate. The Science Teacher, 67(6), 30-35.
Bybee, R. W. (2001). Teaching about Evolution: Old Controversy, New Challenges. BioScience,
51(4), 309-312. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/00063568(2001)051[0309:TAEOCN]2.0.CO;2
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A
theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational
Research, 63(1), 1-49.
Clores, M. A., & Limjap, A. A. (2006). Diversity of Students’ Beliefs about
Biological Evolution. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 26(1), 65-77.
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. doi:
10.1080/09500690802428106
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228 (1968).
Geraedts, C. L., & Boersma, K. T. (2006). Reinventing natural selection. International Journal
of Science Education, 28(8), 843-870. doi: 10.1080/09500690500404722
Gooding, J., & Metz, B. (2011). From misconceptions to conceptual change. The Science
Teacher, 78(4), 34-37.
Gregg, T. G., Janssen, G. R., & Bhattacharjee, J. K. (2003). Teaching Guide to Evolution. The
Science Teacher, 70(8), 24-31.
Gregory, T. R., & Ellis, C. A. J. (2009). Conceptions of Evolution among Science Graduate
Students. [Article]. BioScience, 59(9), 792-799. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.11
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., and Haywood, K., (2011). The 2011 Horizon
Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Available from
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2011-Horizon-Report.pdf
Keeley, P., Eberle, F., & Farrin, L. (2005). Uncovering student ideas in science. Arlington, VA:
NSTA Press.
8
Keeley, P., & Tugel, J. (2009). Uncovering Student Ideas in Science, Volume 4: 25 New
Formative Assessment Probes. Alexandria: National Science Teacher Association.
Khourey-Bowers, C. (2011). Active learning strategies: The top 10 strategies to help
students overcome their naïve conceptions of science. The Science Teacher, 78(4),
38-42.
Lerner, L. S. (2000). Good science, bad science: Teaching evolution in the states. Washington
(DC): The Thomas B Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED447099.pdf
Losh, S. C., & Nzekwe, B. (2010). Creatures in the classroom: Preservice teacher beliefs about
fantastic beasts, magic, extraterrestrials, evolution and creationism. Science and
Education, 20, 473-489. doi: DOI 10.1007/s11191-010-9268-5
McComas, W. F. (1997). The discovery & Nature of Evolution by Natural Selection:
Misconceptions & Lessons from the History of Science. American Biology Teacher,
59(8), 492-501.
Meir, E., Perry, J., Herron, J. C., & Kingsolver, J. (2007). College Students' Misconceptions
About Evolutionary Trees. National Association of Biology Teachers The American
Biology Teacher, 69(7), e71-e76.
Moore, R., Brooks, D. C., & Cotner, S. (2011). The Relation of High School Biology Courses
& Students' Religious Beliefs to College Students' Knowledge of Evolution. ambt
The American Biology Teacher, 73(4), 222-226.
Moore R and Kraemer K. 2005. The teaching of evolution and creationism in Minnesota. Am
Biol Teach, (67):457–67.
Moore, R. (2004). State standards and evolution: Are standards relevant to the teaching of
evolution in public school biology classrooms? The Sciencce Teacher, 71(6), 41-44.
National Science Teachers Association. Position Statement: The teaching of evolution. Retrieved
from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx
Nehm, R. H., Kim, S. Y., & Sheppard, K. (2009). Academic Preparation in Biology and
Advocacy for Teaching Evolution: Biology Versus Non-Biology Teachers. Science
Education, 93, 1122-1146. doi: DOI 10.1002/sce.20340
Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology Majors' Knowledge and Misconceptions of Natural
Selection. [Article]. BioScience, 57(3), 263-272. doi: 10.1641/b570311
Nelson, C. E. (2008). Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: Strategies for
engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integrative and
comparative biology, 48(2), 213-225. doi: 10.1093/icb/icn027
Neo-Darwinism. (2012). In Wikipedia: Wikipedia. Available from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism
Oliver, M. (2011). Teaching and learning evolution: Testing the principles of a constructivist
approach through action research. [Article]. Teaching Science: The Journal of the
Australian Science Teachers Association, 57(1), 13-18.
Olson, J. K. (2009). Being deliberate about concept development: Effectively moving
students from experience to understanding. Science Scope, 46(6), 51-55.
Riechert, S. E., Leander, R. N., & Lenhart, S. M. (2011). A Role-Playing Exercise that
Demonstrates the Process of Evolution by Natural Selection: Caching Squirrels in a
World of Pilferers. ambt The American Biology Teacher, 73(4), 208-212.
Sinclair, A., & Pendarvis, M. P. (1998). Evolution vs. Conservative Religious Beliefs. Journal of
College Science Teaching, 27(3), 167-170.
9
Smith, P. A., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design, Third Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1994). Living with myths:
Undergraduate education in America. Change, 26(1): 28-32.
Timmerman, B. E., Strickland, D. C., & Carstensen, S. M. (2008). Curricular reform and inquiry
teaching in biology: where are our efforts most fruitfully invested? Integrative and
comparative biology, 48(2), 226-240. doi: 10.1093/icb/icn064
What is Spore? (n.d.). [Software]. Available from http://www.spore.com/what
Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (pp. 79-112). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Understanding evolution (n.d.). University of California, Berkley. Retrieved from
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php
10