A systematic classification of student misconceptions in biological evolution

Year 2014, , 31 - 41, 01.12.2014

Pratchayapong Yasri

https://doi.org/10.20876/ijobed.06781

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The paper considers student understandings of particular aspects of biological evolution from the perspective of misconceptions. Although lists of misconceptions and possible categories have been proposed in educational research studies, individual misconceptions have not been categorised systematically. This paper therefore explores student misconceptions in biological evolution in greater detail. It synthesises existing categorisation schemes for misconceptions and categorise each misconception within a synthesised scheme. According of this new scheme, student misconceptions in biological evolution can be systematically classified into five groups: common sense, content-based, NOS-based (misconceptions related to the nature of science), non-scientific and vernacular misconceptions. This categorisation serves as an organisational scheme for future research on student misconceptions in evolutionary theory, providing both fundamental and analytical frameworks for researchers interested in biology education

Keywords

misconceptions, evolution, classification, biology education

References

• Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the Sources for our Understandings about Science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 353-374.
• Allen, M. (2010). Misconceptions in primary science. Berkshire, Open University Press.
• Alexander, D. (2009). Creation or evolution: Do we have to choose?, Oxford, Monarch Books.
• Alter, B. J. & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56, 1891- 190
• Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (2005). The nature of science and the study of biological evolution,
• Washington DC, NSTA Press. Clores, M. & Limjap, A. (2006). Diversity of students' beliefs about biological evolution. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 26, 65-77.
• Committee on Undergraduate Science Education National Research Council (1997). Science Teaching
• Reconsidered: A Handbook, Washington DC, The National Academies Press. Dagher, Z. R. & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students' perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89, 378-391.
• Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species, London, John Murray.
• Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational Psychology: Windows, Classrooms, Upper Saddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Finlay, G. (2004). Evolving creation. Auckland, TELOS Books.
• Fuller, S. (2007). Science vs Religion? Intelligent design and the problem of evolution. Cambridge, Polity Press.
• González Galli, L. & Meinardi, E. (2011). The Role of Teleological Thinking in Learning the Darwinian Model of Evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4, 145-152.
• Gregory, T. (2009). Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions.
• Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 156-175. Hokayem, H., & BouJaoude, S. (2008). College students' perceptions of the theory of evolution. Journal of
• Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 395–419. Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2014). Evolution in Four Dimensions, revised edition: Genetic, Epigenetic,
• Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. MIT press. Mead, L. & Scott, E. (2010). Problem Concepts in Evolution Part I: Purpose and Design. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3, 78-81.
• Nehm, R. H. & Schonfeld, I. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge about evolution and the nature of science lead to greater advocacy for teaching evolution in schools? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 699-723.
• Pickrell, J. (2006). Top 10: Dinosaur Myths. NewScientist.
• Pongsophon, P. (2006). Enhancing Thai students' scientific understanding of evolution: A social constructivist approach. PhD Thesis, Kasetsart University.
• Reiss, M. J. (2009). The relationship between evolutionary biology and religion. Evolution, 63, 1934-1941.
• Rice, J. W., Warner, D. A., Kelly, C. D., Clough, M. P. & Colbert, J. T. (2010). The theory of evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3, 141-142.
• Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs Creationism: An Introduction, California, University of California Press.
• Smith, M. (2010). Current Status of Research in Teaching and Learning Evolution: II. Pedagogical Issues.
• Science & Education, 19, 539-571. Stearns, S. C. & Hoekstra, R. F. (2005). Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Stringer, C. (2012). Evolution: What makes a modern human. Nature, 485(7396), 33-35.
• Thompson, F. & Logue, S. (2006). An exploration of common student misconceptions in science. International Education Journal, 7, 553-559.
• Wiles, J. (2010). Overwhelming scientific confidence in evolution and its centrality in science education and the public disconnect. Science Education Review, 9, 18-27.
• Williams, J. D. (2009). Belief versus acceptance: why do people not believe in evolution? Bioessays, 31, 1255- 12
• Yasri, P. & Mancy, R. (2014). Understanding student approaches to learning evolution in the context of their perceptions of the relationship between science and religion. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 24-45
• Yasri, P., Arthur, S., Smith, M. U. & Mancy, R. (2013). Relating science and religion: An ontology of taxonomies and development of a research tool for identifying individual views. Science & Education, 22, 2679–2707. Appendix
• Species existing today have gradually developed from their early forms over millions of years. Vernacular Biological complexities are the results of natural section. Evolution is a purposeless process or a directionless process. Evolution is a dynamic process.