Factors Potentially Influencing Student Acceptance of Biological Evolution

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI*

Jason R. Wiles

Department of Integrated Studies in Education

McGill University

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

April 2008

A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-66699-9 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-66699-9

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'Internet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

••I Canada Abstract

This investigation explored scientific, religious, and otherwise nonscientific factors that may influence student acceptance of biological evolution and related concepts, how students perceived these factors to have influenced their levels of acceptance of evolution and changes therein, and what patterns arose among students' articulations of how their levels of acceptance of evolution may have changed. This exploration also measured the extent to which students' levels of acceptance changed following a treatment designed to address factors identified as potentially affecting student acceptance of evolution. Acceptance of evolution was measured using the MATE instrument (Rutledge and Warden,

1999; Rutledge and Sadler, 2007) among participants enrolled in a secondary- level academic program during the summer prior to their final year of high school and as they transitioned to the post-secondary level. Student acceptance of evolution was measured to be significantly higher than pre-treatment levels both immediately following and slightly over one year after treatment. Qualitative data from informal questionnaires, from formal course evaluations, and from semi- structured interviews of students engaged in secondary level education and former students at various stages of post-secondary education confirmed that the suspected factors were perceived by participants to have influenced their levels of acceptance of evolution. Furthermore, participant reports provided insight regarding the relative effects they perceived these factors to have had on their evolution acceptance levels. Additionally, many participants reported that their science teachers in public schools had avoided, omitted, or denigrated evolution

i during instruction, and several of these students expressed frustration regarding what they perceived to have been a lack of education of an important scientific principle. Finally, no students expressed feelings of being offended by having

been taught about evolutionary science, and the overwhelming majority of the

participants expressed enjoyment of the course and appreciation for having been

taught about evolution. Resume

Cette recherche a permis d'explorer les facteurs scientifiques, religieux et autrement non scientifiques qui peuvent influer sur l'acceptation par les eleves de revolution biologique et des concepts qui s'y rapportent, la facon dont les eleves ont percu l'incidence de ces facteurs sur leur degre d'acceptation de revolution et des changements a cet egard, ainsi que les modeles qui ressortent des propos des eleves quant a la maniere dont leur degre d'acceptation de revolution peut avoir change. Cette recherche a egalement permis de mesurer l'ampleur du changement du degre d'acceptation par les eleves a la suite d'un traitement concu pour aborder les facteurs identifies comme pouvant avoir un effet sur l'acceptation de revolution par les eleves. L'acceptation de revolution a ete mesuree au moyen de 1'instrument MATE (Rutledge et Warden, 1999; Rutledge et Sadler, 2007), chez des participants inscrits a un programme du niveau secondaire durant l'ete precedant leur derniere annee du secondaire, tandis qu'ils s'appretaient a faire la transition au niveau post-secondaire. Selon les resultats obtenus, l'acceptation de revolution par les eleves s'est revelee bien plus elevee qu'aux degres pretraitement, a la fois immediatement apres et un peu plus d'une annee suivant le traitement. Les donnees qualitatives recueillies a partir de questionnaires informels, d'evaluations de cours formelles et d'entrevues semi-structurees d'eleves qui poursuivaient des etudes secondaires et d'anciens eleves a differents niveaux d'enseignement post-secondaire ont confirme que les participants croient que les facteurs soupconnes ont influe sur leur degre d'acceptation de revolution.

De plus, les rapports des participants ont donne un apercu des effets relatifs que,

iii selon les participants, ces facteurs ont eu sur leur degre d'acceptation de revolution. De nombreux participants ont aussi rapporte que leurs professeurs de science dans les ecoles publiques ont evite, omis ou denigre revolution durant leur cours. Plusieurs eleves ont exprime leur frustration au sujet de l'enseignement deficient d'un principe scientifique important selon eux. Enfin, aucun eleve ne s'est senti offense en suivant les cours de science de revolution et la tres grande majorite des participants ont eu du plaisir a assister au cours et apprecie que revolution leur soit enseignee.

IV Dedication

In no particular order, I would like to dedicate this work to the following people for whom, in part, it was written.

To my mother and father: I love you both. I have thought about you constantly over the duration of this project, wondering all the while what you would think about the topic and of me for having endeavored to explore this particular issue. If you do not already, I sincerely hope that you will understand it better by and by.

To my wife: I love you, Tracy. This research has taken me away from you several times and for many months. I have missed you immensely when I have been away, and I regret having sometimes been less than present for you, even when at home, while this project has continued. Thank you for all of your understanding and support and patience. I am excited to move on to a new chapter in our lives together.

To the students who participated in this project: I am proud of you all, and I am grateful for your help. I hope that I have represented you faithfully, as has been my sincere intention. Keep evolving!

To the founders, supporters, alumni, faculty, and staff of the Arkansas Governor's School: Thank you for crafting and maintaining such a wonderful and phenomenally beneficial program. I credit much of what I have been able to accomplish to my experiences at AGS, and I feel a genuine bond with all who are affiliated with the program.

To the teachers who responsibly, and often bravely, teach evolution as it should be taught: I hope you will find the results of this project encouraging and that you will find it to be of some assistance in your invaluable work.

To the staff, directors, and supporters of the National Center for Science Education: The members of NCSE have been immensely helpful throughout the course of this and other projects, and you continue to be the most tireless and capable defenders of evolution education. I am honored to call you colleagues and friends. You are true heroes all.

And to those who have navigated the journey from rejection of evolution to acceptance and to those who are in between: For some, this can be a lonely and difficult process. I know from personal experience. We should look out for our fellow pilgrims.

v Acknowledgments

Dr. Brian Alters holds international appointments across universities and departments; bears many titles; serves the science education community as a member of several directorial and editorial boards; heads an extraordinary number of research centres, projects, and outreach initiatives; hosts a prime-time television show which brings science education to homes across North America; teaches untold numbers of students (most of whom go on to teach others); has produced five books in the past five years (others are forthcoming); and has excelled in all of these and other endeavors. However, he has still managed to find time to serve as the finest mentor, advisor, and example a graduate student could hope to find. I am profoundly grateful for his guidance in this and other projects. Dr. Alters has provided me with opportunities unthinkable by even the most fortunate of doctoral students. He has shown tremendous confidence in my abilities and, from the very beginning of my studies at McGill, he has trusted me with copious and important responsibilities. He has allowed me to make, and to learn from in a much more forgiving environment, mistakes that most academics must face only at such time as when tenure is on the line. In short, he has treated me as a competent professional while training me to be a competent professional.

I hold him in the highest regard, and I thank him sincerely for all of his efforts on my behalf.

I also wish to acknowledge my truly stellar advisory committee. Dr.

Philip M. Sadler, Director of Science Education at the Harvard-Smithsonian

Center for Astrophysics; Dr. Graham A. C. Bell, FRSC, James McGill Professor of Biology; and Dr. Robert L. Carroll, FRSC, Strathcona Professor of Zoology

(Emeritus) have provided valuable critique, thoughtful advice, and needed encouragement.

I would like to thank Dr. Anila Asghar for her guidance in the formulation of the original proposal for this project and Nina Hamida for her assistance in the tabulation of the participants' MATE scores. David Syncox has been a vital resource in many ways, and he has done far more legwork than I should ever have asked of him. I am truly indebted to him for his acts of ingenuity and grace. My thanks are also due to Faygie Covens for many administrative favors.

I am immensely grateful to Glenn Branch for his editorial assistance.

Were I as eloquent as he has often helped me to sound, I would be far more capable of expressing my admiration of his broad expertise, his cunning wordsmithery, and his natural humility. I am also obliged to Dr. Eugenie C. Scott and to the National Center for Science Education for, among other things, allowing me to borrow Glenn's time, on occasion, for advice on many projects and problems.

A great many teachers and professors have prepared me for doctoral study, and I am particularly appreciative of Sarah Renard, William F. Rushton, Dr.

Michael V. Plummer, Dr. Joseph W. Goy, Dr. Deborah Duffield, and Dr. Micki

Caskey. It is an honor to thank Dr. Richard B. Forbes, though he is with us no longer, for all the times he assured me, "You're doing just fine."

Several individuals have made various aspects of my doctoral studies possible through their financial contributions to McGill, its Faculty of Education,

vii or to the Evolution Education Research Centre (EERC). For their generous gifts,

I wish to thank Dr. Gretta Chambers, Dr. Lome Trottier, Dr. Richard H.

Tomlinson, and the Birks family. I would also like to thank McGill University and those who have donated to its Alma Mater fund. Additionally, I would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for supporting the EERC in our ongoing international research.

I would like to acknowledge, with pride and gratitude, the tremendous support, financial, emotional, and otherwise, of Dennis and Wanda Wiles, my parents. Without their unwavering encouragement and patience, completion of this dissertation would not have been possible.

Finally, I cannot overstate how much Tracy Daige, now Tracy Wiles, has supported and encouraged me throughout this process. It is with great anticipation of spending much more time with her in the very near future that I will now click "save" and go home.

viu Table of Contents

Abstract i Resume iii Dedication v Acknowledgments vi List of Tables and Figures 5 CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM 6 Introduction 6 The Problem and its Explication 7 Evolution: Certainty and Centrality 7 Evolution Expounded by Scientists 7 Evolution's Centrality in Science Education: Official Positions of the Science Education Community 15 Disconnect Between the Scientific Community and the General Public ..17 Area of Concern 18 Purpose of the Study 19 Importance of the Study 20 Definitions 20 Research Questions 22 Delimitations 23 Limitations 24 Conceptual Assumptions 24 Student Acceptance of Evolution as an Educational Goal 24 Acceptance vs. Belief 25 Additional Conceptual Assumptions 28 Outline of the Remainder of the Dissertation 28 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE 29 Prior Research on the Teaching and Learning of Evolution 29 Creationism 30 Why Students Accept (or Reject) Evolution 31 Religious Factors 32 Non-religious Factors 35 Scientific Factors 35 Overall Knowledge of Evolutionary Theory 35 Evidence of Evolution 37 Mechanisms and Patterns of Evolution 38 Non-scientific Non-religious Factors 39 Social and Emotional Factors 39 Critical Thinking, Epistemological Views, and Cognitive Dispositions 40 Demographic Factors 41 Conclusions and Gaps in the Literature 42 CHAPTER III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 45 Sample 45 Participants and Location of Research 45

1 Treatment 47 Factors Treated in Various Settings 48 Extracurricular Seminars and Semi-weekly Guest Speakers 48 Treatment of the False Dichotomy Between Science and Religion 48 The Perceived Problem of Evolution and Racism 49 Additional attention to Misconception Rooted in Physics 50 AGS Core Curriculum 50 Treatment Course on Evolutionary Science 51 Procedures and Treatment Administration 53 Instrumentation 54 Students' Levels of Acceptance of Evolution 54 Students' Perceptions of Evolution Acceptance, Changes Therein, and Factors Involved 56 Reliability and Validity 56 Procedures in Instrument Administration 58 Administration of MATE Instrument 58 Administration of Interviews 59 Data Analyses 60 Methodological Assumptions 61 CHAPTER IV. ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 63 Analyses of Findings 63 To what extent do students' levels of acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution change (a) after taking a course on evolutionary evidence in the summer prior to their senior year and (b) during their final high school year? 63 Pre- and Post-treatment Measures of Students' Acceptance of Evolution 63 Longitudinal Measurements of Acceptance of Evolution: Post- treatment and After Participants' Final High School Year 64 How do students perceive their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution changing in their final high school and early university years? 66 Open-ended Responses from Participants in the One-yeat-post- treatment Survey 66 Interviews With AGS Alumni in Various States of Post-Secondary Education 66 Percieved Changes in Acceptance of Evolution Among Recent High Schools Graduates Entering Post-Secondary Study 66 Becky 67 Tim 67 Rachel 68 Perceived Changes in Acceptance of Evolution Among Students Who Have Completed One Year of Post-secondary Study 69 Cindy 69 Angela 71

2 Robert 72 Perceived Changes in Acceptance of Evolution Among Students Who Have Completed Two Years of Post Secondary Study 73 Samantha 73 Bill 74 Mitch 75 Secondary Research Questions 77 A) What factors do students perceive as influencing their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution? 77 Religious Factors 77 Open-ended Questions from the Follow-up Survey 77 Responses from Interviews 79 Non-religious Factors 81 Evidence 81 Open-ended Questions From The Follow-up Survey 81 Responses from Interviews 82 Mechanisms 83 Open-ended Questions From The Follow-up Survey 83 Responses from Interviews 83 Nature of Science 84 Open-ended Questions From The Follow-up Survey 84 Responses from Interviews 84 Critical Thinking and Cognitive Disposition 85 Open-ended Questions From The Follow-up Survey 85 Responses from Interviews 85 Social and Emotional Factors 86 Open-ended Questions From The Follow-up Survey 86 Responses from Interviews 86 B) How do students perceive these factors to rank in order of influence on their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution? 88 Open-ended Questions From The Follow-up Survey 88 Responses from Interviews 90 C) What patterns arise among students' articulations of why their level of acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution has changed? 91 Additional Findings 93 Lack of Teaching of Evolution in High Schools 93 Concerns of Students at the Beginning of the Course 95 Students Overwhelmingly Reported that They Were Respectfully Treated ." 95 Enjoyment and Appreciation 96 Is it Important to Learn About Evolution? 97 Discussion 97 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 102

3 Summary 102 Background 102 Purpose 103 Research Questions 103 Methods and Procedures 104 Treatment 104 Instrumentation 105 Data Analyses 105 Selected Findings 105 Conclusions and Recommendations 108 Recommendations for Future Research 109 References Ill Table 1. Relative categories of acceptance of evolution according to MATE score 129 Table 2. Average gain over pre-treatment MATE scores as measured by post- treatment MATE scores as measured by post-treatment re-administration of the MATE instrument 130 Figure 1. Change in Mean MATE Scores Pre- and Post-treatment 131 Figure 2. Change in Students' Acceptance of Evolution by Category 132 Figure 3. Longitudinal Change in Students' Acceptance of Evolution 133 Figure 4. Longitudinal Change in Students' Acceptance of Evolution (Boxplots) 134 Appendices 135 Appendix A. Letter Requesting Permission for Access to Research Site 135 Appendix B. Informed Consent Letter (Parents) 137 Appendix C. Student Informed Assent Letter 140 Appendix D. Interview Informed Consent Letter (Past Students) 143 Appendix E. Ethics Certificates for Research Involving Human Subjects... 146 Appendix F. The MATE Instrument and Scoring Instructions 147

4 List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Relative categories of acceptance of evolution according to MATE score 129

Table 2. Average gain over pre-treatment MATE scores as measured by post- treatment MATE scores as measured by post-treatment re-administration of the MATE instrument 130

Figure 1. Change in Mean MATE Scores Pre- and Post-treatment 131

Figure 2. Change in Students' Acceptance of Evolution by Category 132

Figure 3. Longitudinal Change in Students' Acceptance of Evolution 133

Figure 4. Longitudinal Change in Students' Acceptance of Evolution (Boxplots) 134

5 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Evolution, defined narrowly, is the scientific principle that the diversity of life on Earth has arisen via descent with modification from a common ancestry.'

In the broader sense, evolution can refer to cumulative change in the natural world over time (Scott, 2004, p. 23). Under both of these definitions, evolution has been deemed by scientists and science educators alike as a central and unifying principle in the natural sciences (Wiles and Asghar, 2007), and perhaps especially in biology.

However, the teaching and learning of evolution has been beset by a host of challenges ranging from pedagogical obstacles to social controversy. These include two distinctive sets of problems: one arising from the fact that many evolutionary concepts may seem counterintuitive to students, and the other stemming from objections rooted in religion. Despite the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists and despite evolution's centrality to modern biology, virtually all national polls indicate approximately one-half of

North Americans reject evolution—indicating a great disconnect between the scientific community and the largely dissenting and apparently under- or mis informed public.

1 This definition of evolution is derived from that used by Scott (2004, p. 23). This definition is consistent with Bell (1996, p. 9) and with the working definition used by Alters and Alters (2001, p. 10), which was originally found in Futuyma (2000, p. 3), a document endorsed by the following scientific societies: American Society of Naturalists, American Behavior Society, American Institute of Biological Sciences, Ecological Society of America, Genetics Society of America, Paleontological Society, Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Systematic Biologists.

6 This signifies a grave failure of science education. Yet surprisingly, evolution education is, as a topic of educational study, woefully under-researched.

This dissertation explores one of the lesser understood areas of this burgeoning field of research, namely, factors which may influence student acceptance of evolution.

The Problem and Its Explication

Evolution: Certainty and Centrality

Evolution Expounded by Expert Scientists

It has become very nearly cliche for authors, this author included, when writing on issues in life science education to cite the famous proclamation of the revered geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973) that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (p. 125). Perhaps this assertion is so frequently quoted because, as stated by the National Association of Biology

Teachers (2004), it "accurately illuminates the central, unifying role of evolution in nature, and therefore in biology."

Dobzhansky is certainly not the only scientist to have made such a statement about evolution. The eminent paleontologists Stephen Jay Gould

(1983) and Robert Carroll (1997) both acknowledged the power of evolution to connect the broad and otherwise disjointed fields of the life sciences, Carroll calling it "the greatest unifying principle of biology" (p. 1). The venerated biologist E. O. Wilson (1998) described evolutionary biology as being "linked by consilience to the rest of the natural sciences" (p. 11), a statement in full accord with the opinion of his long-time Harvard University colleague Ernst Mayr (1970) who wrote:

The theory of evolution is quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory

in biology. The diversity of organisms, similarities and differences

between kinds of organisms, patterns of distribution and behavior,

adaptation and interaction, all this was merely a bewildering chaos of facts

until given meaning by the evolutionary theory, (p. 1)

In this quote, Mayr mentions both "the theory of evolution" and "evolutionary theory". Members of the general, non-scientist public are often confused by common conflation of the scientific and vernacular uses of the word theory.

When used in casual, non-scientific parlance, the word is often understood to mean "'guess' or 'hunch'" (Scott, 2004, p. 14). But in scientific terms, according to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses" (National Academy of Sciences, 1998, p. 8).

And there may not be a more thoroughly substantiated theory in all of science than that of evolution.

Charles Darwin (1859) listed sufficient evidence to assert the veracity of evolution in On the Origin of Species, and he affirmed the factuality of evolution in The Descent of Man while subtly and humbly admitting that the debate over his proposed mechanism was still somewhat tentative (Darwin, 1871). One hundred years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, the Nobel-Prize-

8 winning geneticist H. J. Muller (1959) summed up a century's worth of additional evidence and corroboration by saying:

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution

become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception

of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even

my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute

sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that

you are hearing or reading these words, (p. 304-305)

As Mayr (1997) explained it, the evidence for the occurrence of evolution

has become so overwhelming that biologists no longer speak of evolution

as a theory but consider it a fact—as well-established as the fact that the

Earth rotates around the sun and that the Earth is round and not flat. (p.

178)

In his final (i.e., non-posthumously) published book, Stephen Jay Gould

(2002) devoted 1,343 pages to explaining The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.

Gould's explanation is extensive, complex, and somewhat contentious, but he agreed with Mayr that the occurrence of evolution is indeed a fact. In an earlier essay (Gould, 1983), while acknowledging the tentative nature of science, he described evolution as factual in that it has been "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" (p. 255). According to

Gould, evolutionary theory involves explanations about the mechanisms of evolution, essentially how evolution occurred rather than whether it occurred. Richard Lewontin (1981), another great Harvard evolutionary biologist, also sought to clarify what is fact and what is theory regarding evolution, writing:

evolution is a fact, not theory . . . what is at issue within biology are

questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different

mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water is

more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been

around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life

is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on

earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or

mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the

past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus,

and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from

previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from

ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans

from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the

natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that

the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. (p. 559)

Dobzhansky (1973) held that the occurrence of evolution has been

"established beyond a reasonable doubt" (p. 129), adding that:

Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the Earth

can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are

resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry,

(p. 129) In his widely used university-level textbook on evolutionary biology,

Futuyma (1986) wrote:

the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from

common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It

is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like

the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and

achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no

knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality (p. 15).

Famed scientists Carl Sagan (1980) and Richard Dawkins have also stated flatly that evolution is a fact. Dawkins (writing with Jerry Coyne) elaborated:

Evolution is a fact: as much a fact as plate tectonics or the heliocentric

solar system. (Dawkins and Coyne, 2005, p. 5)

These comments from prominent scientists are a mere smattering of such acknowledgments from individual experts regarding the factuality of evolution and its central and unifying role in science. It would be a monumental endeavor indeed to attempt to collect an exhaustive catalogue of qualified scientists who are in agreement with these assessments of the status of evolution. As evidence of the near-universal acceptance of evolution among the scientific community, consider the numerous statements in support of evolution offered by various groups of scientists.

Evolution is Overwhelmingly Accepted by the International Scientific Community

A panel of 72 Nobel laureates in the sciences signed a document agreeing that, "The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as

11 thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept" (Amici Curiae, 1986). The

National Center for Science Education (NCSE) keeps a list, although it was admittedly compiled in jest, of scientists, all of whom hold doctorates in one of the natural sciences from accredited universities, and all of whom, as a tribute to the late Stephen Jay Gould, are named Steve (or some variation thereof, e.g.,

Stephanie, Esteban, Etienne, etc.). All 875 "scientific Steves" have signed a statement which reads, in part-

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological

sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the

idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are

legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is

no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection

is a major mechanism in its occurrence. (National Center for Science

Education, 2003; Scott et al., 2004, p. 26, Fig. la)

As for more officially organized groups of qualified scientists, several

National Academies of Science and professional scientific organizations have issued position statements regarding the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among the scientific community. For instance, the Academy of Science of the

Royal Society of Canada (1985) attested that:

The theory of evolution by natural selection was first clearly formulated in

1859, and for over a century it has been tested and improved by the

research of many thousands of scientists: not only by biologists and

geologists, but also by chemists and physicists. From deductions based on abundant data, the theory has been developed to explain the changes that

have taken place in living things over much of the Earth's history. In its

modern form, it remains the only explanation for the diversity of life on

this planet that is acceptable to the scientific community, (p. 21)

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is an umbrella organization comprising nearly 200 professional societies with a total individual membership of over 250,000. According to AIBS, "evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species," and furthermore:

As a community, biologists agree that evolution occurred and that the

forces driving the evolutionary process are still active today. This

consensus is based on more than a century of scientific data gathering and

analysis. (American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1994)

The (U.S.) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has addressed the certainty of the occurrence of evolution under its narrow as well as its broad definition. Excerpts from one statement issued by NAS (1984) read:

The processes by which new galaxies, stars, and our own planetary system

are formed are sometimes referred to as the "evolution" of the universe,

the stars, and the solar system.. . . Evidence that the evolution of the

universe has taken place over at least several billion years is

overwhelming.

The same NAS document concludes that biological evolution is also "supported by an overwhelming body of evidence," and that: Evidence for relation by common descent has been provided by

paleontology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, embryology,

biochemistry, molecular genetics, and other biological disciplines.

The NAS reaffirmed this assessment in 2008, writing that evolution:

is the only tested, comprehensive scientific explanation for the nature of

the biological world today that is supported by overwhelming evidence

and widely accepted by the scientific community. (National Academy of

Sciences, 2008, p. 53)

The list of similar statements from scientific societies is long. Indeed, 88 such statements from scientific and scholarly organizations in support of evolution can be found on the National Center for Science Education's Voices for

Evolution database (National Center for Science Education, 2002). And these statements represent not only the positions of North American and European organizations, but those of the worldwide scientific community (showing that evolution is not merely a construct of Western scientists, and informed acceptance of evolution as a factual phenomenon is not limited to any one culture). In fact, no fewer than sixty-seven national academies of science have attested that the evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, and of life on Earth over billions of years is supported by observations and experiments from all branches of the natural sciences and that the evolutionary sciences represent an extraordinarily interdisciplinary understanding of the history and workings of our planet and its inhabitants (Inter-Academy Panel, 2006). National academies of science from all inhabited continents and "representing countries from Albania to Zimbabwe" (National Center for Science Education, 2006) were signatory to the Inter-

Academy statement, including the African Academy of Science and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World, which serve member scientists from countries having no formal academy of their own.

Evolution's Centrality in Science Education:

Official Positions of the Science Education Community

The almost unanimous acceptance of the occurrence of evolution and recognition of its central and unifying position in science is not limited to professional scientists, but is in turn embraced by science educators who are trained in the sciences as well as in pedagogy. Consequently, science education organizations have also issued statements acknowledging the factuality of evolution and its power in unifying the sciences, especially biology. These statements generally (as do many of those ratified by scientific societies) endorse evolution as a foundational principle upon and around which to structure the teaching and learning of biology as well as science in general.

A section from one such statement issued by the National Science

Teachers Association (NSTA), one of the world's largest science education organizations, reads:

Evolution in the broadest sense can be defined as the idea that the universe

has a history: that change through time has taken place. If we look today at

the galaxies, stars, the planet Earth, and the life on planet Earth, we see

that things today are different from what they were in the past: galaxies,

stars, planets, and life forms have evolved. Biological evolution refers to

15 the scientific theory that living things share ancestors from which they

have diverged; it is called "descent with modification." There is abundant

and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry,

geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences that

evolution has taken place.

As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science. (National Science

Teachers Association, 2003)

This statement goes on to discuss evolution as an organizational principle for science teaching citing the National Science Education Standards'' recognition of evolution as a "conceptual scheme" that can "unify science disciplines and provide students with powerful ideas to help them understand the natural world"

(National Research Council, 1996, p. 104). Benchmarks for Science Literacy

(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993) also offer evolution as an example of a unifying concept, and noting this, the NSTA concludes, "Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized" (NSTA, 2003). Accordingly, the curriculum guidelines of most

U.S. states (Gross et al., 2005; Lerner, 2000) and Canadian provinces (Wiles,

Asghar, and Alters, 2005) prescribe the teaching of evolution in biology and other science courses. Moreover, evolution is prominently featured in most of the widely used and highly rated biology textbooks (Flammer, 2001; Morse, 2001).

16 Disconnect Between the Scientific Community and the General Public

Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence supporting the occurrence of evolution; in defiance of the consonant assurance from the scientific community that evolution is factual; despite the insistence of all relevant authorities on science education that evolution is indispensable to effective teaching and meaningful understanding of biology; although evolution is widely represented in state, provincial, and national curriculum documents; and regardless of the coverage of evolution in science textbooks, a large portion of the North American public remains resistant, many resolutely so, to the notion of an evolutionary natural history, suggesting that they think scientists, teachers, and textbooks are simply wrong.

The figures are appalling. In the United States, polls have consistently shown that over one-third to about one-half of adults overtly reject evolution, and, over the past 20 years, the percentage of adults in the U.S. who accept evolution has declined from 45% to 40% (Miller, Scott, and Okamoto, 2006). Figures on the public acceptance of evolution in Canada are about as abysmally low. An

Angus Reid poll in 1993 found that 53% of Canadians surveyed disagreed with the statement "human beings as we know them today developed from earlier species of animals" (Sonderstrom, 2000, p. 16), and, although Brown and

Delodder (2003) have questioned the methodology of the survey, a 2000 poll suggested that "Canadians are about evenly divided in their views about the origin of life" (Compas, 2000, p. 1). The latest Angus Reid poll returned a slightly higher figure, 59%, for Canadians accepting evolution; however, only 37% of this

17 population disagreed with the notion that dinosaurs and humans co-existed on

Earth—a central, albeit scientifically untenable, claim among many evolution rejecters—a curious datum indeed (Angus Reid, 2007). And just as the all-but- universal acceptance of evolution among the scientific community is global in scope (Inter-Academy Panel, 2006), so, it seems, is the rejection of evolution by large proportions of the general populations of many countries worldwide

(Asghar, Wiles, and Alters, 2007b; Branch, 2008; Chinsamy and Plaganyi, 2007;

Cornish-Bowden and Cardenas, 2007; Miller et al., 2006; Numbers, 1992;

Numbers, 2004; Numbers, 2006).

This widespread rejection of evolution among members of the general, non-scientist public has been lamented by a host of scientists and science educators. In their oft-cited article on teaching evolution, Alters and Nelson

(2002) reported that most science educators and researchers consider the public understanding of evolution to be "woefully lacking" (p. 1891). In 1998, Randy

Moore, who was then the editor of the American Biology Teacher, described the state of public understanding and rife rejection of evolution as "by far the biggest failure of failure of science education from top to bottom" (Christensen, 1998, p.

D3). And the situation has apparently not improved (Branch and Scott, 2008;

Miller et al., 2006).

Area of Concern

Alters and Nelson (2002) reported that even students with a substantial amount of science training often show an alarming degree of misunderstanding of evolutionary processes, and may even reject evolution entirely. In order to be

18 effective in teaching evolution, science educators need to understand their students' misconceptions and their rationales for accepting or rejecting the underlying concept of biology.

In 2002 Massimo Pigliucci reflected on his experiences with people who had initially resisted evolutionary ideas but had eventually overcome their original rejection of evolution. He called for the research community to focus on individuals who had progressed from rejection of evolution to acceptance

(Pigliucci, 2002) and, after five years of little response, he renewed his appeal, writing, "It is important to find out how they did it, because that insight provides us with crucial clues as to what works and what does not" (Pigliucci, 2007, p.

296).

Hence, in answer to repeated calls for research and the demonstrated need for better understanding, this study is primarily concerned with exploring students' changing levels of acceptance of evolution during their final secondary school year and into the early stages of post-secondary education. Whereas this study addresses important questions related to the problem outlined in the previous section, it also clearly indicates the need for further research.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this investigation was to determine to what extent students' acceptance of evolution may change during and after a treatment designed to address an inventory of factors identified in the literature as potentially influencing evolution acceptance. This study further sought to probe secondary and post-secondary students' perceptions of changes in their levels of

19 acceptance of evolution and the relative importance of any factors they identified as influencing their evolution acceptance levels.

Importance of the Study

Given the overwhelming acceptance of evolution by the scientists most qualified to assess its validity, and the centrality of evolution to the broad understanding of biology and allied sciences under a unified framework, and the intense support from the science education community of evolution as a foundational principle around which to build knowledge of the natural world, the problem of widespread student rejection of evolution is of immense importance.

In fact, Stephen Jay Gould described evolution education as, "one of the most important issues of our age" (Gould, 2001, p. 3). That evolution is so well evidenced, and so vital, and yet so poorly accepted by students and the general public, clearly bespeaks the importance of this and future studies into factors that may influence student acceptance of evolution.

Moreover, because national, state, and provincial standards include understanding of evolution as a goal within their science curricula, and because student rejection of evolution may constitute a barrier to greater understanding, teachers at all levels at which evolution is taught will benefit from the type of knowledge generated by this and future studies in their efforts to achieve the goals mandated by their curricular guidelines.

Definitions

The development of and rationales behind the working definitions for key terms appears in context and with references throughout this dissertation. However, several of these terms merit concise definition for the sake of expedient reference.

Evolution is the scientific principle that the diversity of life on Earth has arisen via descent with modification from a common ancestry. In the broader sense, evolution can refer to cumulative change in the natural world over time.

Creationism, under its broad definition, refers to the belief that a supernatural force created the universe, Earth, and living organisms. More narrowly, creationism often connotes the doctrine of special creationism: that

God created the cosmos essentially as we see it today, and that neither the universe, nor Earth, nor living organisms have undergone significant change since the time of creation. The definition of creationism has been extended to include a number of anti-evolution positions described in Chapter 2.

A creationist is one who rejects natural scientific explanations of the history of the universe, Earth, and/or of the diversity of living organisms in favor of explanations involving supernatural creation.

A belief is a subjective tenet held by an individual that is regarded as being based on personal conviction.

Acceptance is a personal assessment of the validity of a construct based on an evaluation of evidence.

Also, as this dissertation was prepared in a Canadian institution, and as the research was conducted in the United States, the audience will probably include individuals from both countries. It is therefore necessary to explain that the terms college and university are sometimes understood differently by Canadians than

21 they are by people from the U.S. Because the participants, who are U.S. citizens, understood both "college" and "university" generally to refer to post-secondary institutions, seeing little, if any, distinction between the two terms, the terms are herein used interchangeably. Canadian readers should be aware that in no instance in this dissertation does "college" refer to a trade school or CEGEP2, and that all of the post-secondary participants were enrolled in 4-year institutions.

Research Questions

Primary question #1:

To what extent do students' levels of acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution change (a) after taking a course on evolutionary evidence in the summer prior to their senior year and (b) during their final high school year?

Primary question #2:

How do students perceive their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution changing in their final high school and early university years?

Secondary questions:

A) What factors do students perceive as influencing their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution?

B) How do students perceive these factors to rank in order of influence on their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution?

C) What patterns arise among students' articulation of why their level of

2 The postsecondary system in the Province of Quebec includes a two-year general program of "college" (CEGEP) which students must complete after high school (7-11) before proceeding to university education. (The French acronym CEGEP stands for College d'enseignement general et professionnel, i.e., College of General and Vocational Education.) acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution has changed?

Delimitations

The parameters of this investigation with regard to external validity include items related to the participant population, the treatment, and the instrumentation.

Most, if not all, of the members of the participant population have been identified as gifted, and all have shown high aptitude and motivation for learning about science. The sample was taken from only one institution, albeit one whose

students comprise individuals selected from disparate communities across the

state in which it is situated. As a result of the state's geography and of the institution's student selection process, although many participants were from rural communities with relatively low racial and cultural diversity, the population was more diverse with regard to race, ethnicity, religion, and prior experience than many classrooms may be. However, this population is likely to be similar in these respects to accelerated or advanced placement science classrooms, particularly in urban settings or other centers of diversity, or in early post-secondary courses.

Due to the structure of the curriculum employed by the institution at which this research was conducted, and due to ethical issues particular to research with human subjects who are minors, it was impossible to establish a comparable control group. Also, only the dependent variable, acceptance of evolution, was measured using a previously validated quantitative instrument. Whereas the treatment was designed to address an inventory of factors that may influence

student acceptance of evolution, it is assumed that measured changes in students'

23 acceptance levels were attributable, at least to some degree, to the treatment experience. Also, the instrument used to measure acceptance of evolution was slightly modified from its original form to be more inclusive of religious students who were not Christians (e.g., Muslims, Buddhists, etc.). The question of how, or whether, various factors may affect student acceptance of evolution was largely explored through students' self-reports. Hence, the results are ultimately only valid descriptions of the perceptions of the individual participants. However, the ideas and experiences of these participants are likely to resemble those of many

students in similar populations.

Limitations

As this research was conducted with human participants, there was no

control over variables not related to the treatment. It is acknowledged that the

participants' acceptance of evolution may be influenced by factors beyond those

addressed in the treatment and explored in this investigation. Furthermore, the

internal validity of this study would be threatened to the extent that one or more

of the methodological assumptions were not met.

Conceptual Assumptions

Student Acceptance of Evolution as an Educational Goal

Some readers may question whether student acceptance of evolution is, or

should be, a goal of science education, and, consequently, whether rampant public

rejection of evolution does in fact constitute a failure of science education. There

has been some debate around this question among various educators and

researchers (Alters, 1997; Kearney, 1999; Nehm and Schonfeld, 2007). The positions of the scientists, science educators, and their societies mentioned above are consistently and staunchly that biology and a variety of other branches of science cannot be properly understood outside of the context of evolution.

Increased understanding is surely a goal of education. Ingram and Nelson (2006) underscore this point, asserting that student understanding of evolution is more important than student acceptance of evolution. Although this may be true, there appears to be somewhat of a catch-22, at least when dealing with some students, for a number of researchers have argued that lack of acceptance of a concept may in fact prevent students from developing an understanding of the concept (Cobern,

1994; Meadows, Doster, and Jackson, 2000; Scharmann, 1990; Smith, 1994).

Such discussions often include distinguishing acceptance from belief.

Acceptance vs. Belief

Alters (1997) opined that the terms "accept" and "believe" are, for practical purposes, essentially equivalent—both being words used to express the degree of confidence held by an individual with regard to some idea. In support of this view, Alters quoted various instances in which scientists have used the word "believe" and its cognates in the same way in which others may use various forms of the word "accept," and he bolsters his argument with the assertion that students would not likely distinguish between these two terms (Alters, 1997).

Other science educators and researchers maintain different meanings for these two words (Ingram and Nelson, 2006; National Academy of Sciences, 1998;

National Academy of Sciences, 2008; Smith, 1994; Smith and Scharmann, 1999;

Southerland and Sinatra, 2003; Southerland, Sinatra, and Matthews, 2001;

25 Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, and Demastes, 2003). Among those who distinguish belief from acceptance, beliefs are described as subjective and are regarded as being based on personal conviction. Acceptance, on the other hand, is defined as being based on a "systematic evaluation of the evidence" (Sinatra et al., 2003, p. 512). Nehm and Schonfeld (2007) maintain this distinction; however, like Alters, they caution that:

such solid distinctions dissolve in many research and classroom contexts

because research participants may be (a) unaware of the differences in the

meanings of these terms and (b) unlikely to recognize that their beliefs are

irrational or not based on evidence, thus rendering the distinctions

between belief and acceptance meaningless in self-reports, (p. 719)

These two researchers further assert that it is likely that scientists "believe, rather than accept, much of their scientific knowledge" (p. 719), especially knowledge outside of their particular discipline. However, I would argue that scientists, by virtue of being acquainted with the rigor and scrutiny under which scientific knowledge is generated, may still accept such knowledge from outside of their own specialty, recognizing the vetted work of other scientists as credible evidence. Furthermore, student understanding of the nature of science may be effectively addressed through teaching students about the belief/acceptance demarcation (Southerland, Sinatra, and Matthews, 2001). Smith (1994) posits that the distinction between belief (when meaning subjective and based on personal conviction) and acceptance (when meaning a systematic evaluation of the evidence) is a crucial aspect of understanding the nature of scientific knowledge.

26 Sinatra et al. (2003) warned that the use of "belief' in the context of science education research, especially around the topic of evolution, "has the potential for blurring the distinctions between scientific knowledge and religious belief (p. 512). An earlier development of this theme (Southerland et al., 2001) included similar reasons for demarcation between belief and acceptance but added a further argument based on ethical concerns. The authors concluded that teaching with the objective of student "belief in evolution may suggest to students that they should abandon their previous religious convictions, and it might further imply that they should do so without sufficient examination of the evidence. Hence, teaching toward student "acceptance of evolution as the best scientific explanation currently available" (p. 341) is a more ethically defensible educational goal as long as it is not required of students (Southerland et al.,

2001).

For these reasons, and for the sake of clarity, I will, for the purposes of this research, maintain a distinction between belief and acceptance. Under the conditions outlined by Southerland et al. (2001), I will assume "acceptance" of evolution as "the best scientific explanation currently available" (p. 341) to be an appropriate goal of science education. For the purposes of this research, I will avoid using "belief with regard to evolution, and will assume, as in Sinatra et al.

(2003), that acceptance "refer[s] to a learner's personal assessment of the validity of a construct" (p. 512). Additional Conceptual Assumptions

Additionally, implicit in the investigation described herein is the assumption that the participants who were interviewed are able to assess and accurately express their relative levels of acceptance of evolution, how these acceptance levels have changed over time, and to what extent various factors may influence their acceptance or rejection of evolution. In determining the effects of the treatment (though the assumption that students' levels of acceptance of evolution is measurable and quantifiable has surely been validated by the substantial amount of research that has centered on measuring these variables), this study nonetheless further assumes both that the instrument employed can be reliably used to discern changes in acceptance levels (as its developers and others have asserted) and that students' levels of acceptance of evolution may be affected by means of instruction.

Outline of the Remainder of the Dissertation

The remainder of this dissertation is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature that has heretofore described various aspects of evolution education specifically related to students' acceptance of evolution.

Chapter 3 describes the methods and procedures employed during the collection and analyses of data for this investigation. Chapter 4 presents the results of the data analyses and a discussion of the findings. Finally, a summary of the dissertation, concluding remarks, and recommendations for practice and further study are offered in Chapter 5. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

Prior Research on the Teaching and Learning of Evolution

The overall paucity of research related to the teaching and learning of evolution has been noted and lamented (Alters and Nelson, 2002; Cummins,

Demastes, and Hafner, 1994; Woods and Scharmann, 2001), although evolution education has been a topic of popular debate in North America since the issue blazed onto the stage of public awareness amid the media frenzy surrounding the infamous "Scopes Monkey Trial" {Scopes v. State, 1925). Questions regarding the teaching and learning of evolution have been of interest to the education research community at least since the early post-Scopes era work of Dudycha

(1934). During the rest of the 20th century and into the new millennium, there have been waves of research on evolution education, generally provoked by several other well-publicized legal battles over the teaching of evolution in public schools (i.e., Epperson et al. v. Arkansas, 1968; McLean v. Arkansas Board of

Education, 1982; Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987; Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area

School District, 2005). Courts in the U.S. have seen such litigation when attempts have been made to stifle the teaching of evolution in public schools or to have it

"balanced" with explanations of life's history rooted in religion. It is more than apparent that much of the public, as well as student, rejection of evolution stems from perceived conflict with religious teachings. Woods and Scharmann (2001) found that theological factors (i.e., "the Bible, God, religion, and church"

29 [Summary and Discussion section]) were foremost in shaping students' attitudes about evolutionary theory.

Creationism

The most well-known religious doctrine that has occasioned tension with the science of evolution is that of creationism. Creationism, like evolution, can be both broadly and narrowly defined. Under its broad meaning, creationism is a component of many religious faiths, and it "refers to the idea that a supernatural force created" (Scott, 2004, p. 51) the universe, Earth, and life. The (U.S.)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) broadly defines a creationist as "someone who rejects natural scientific explanations of the known universe" in favor of explanations involving creation "by a supernatural entity" (National Academy of

Sciences, 2008, p. 37). More narrowly, and yet more commonly in North

America, the term creationism:

connotes the theological doctrine of special creationism: that God created

the universe essentially as we see it today, and that the universe has not

changed appreciably since that creation event. Special creationism

includes the idea that God created living things in their present forms, and

it reflects a literalist view of the Bible. (Scott, 2004, p. 51)

Scott (2004) has presented an assortment of variations of creationism along a continuum of belief structures from least accepting to most accepting of evolutionary science, and there are those who accept the scientific description of evolution while still maintaining a religious belief in a Creator not at all in conflict with science, which does not examine the existence of God or other supernatural constructs. It is only those who fall under Scott's narrow definition of creationism who are at odds with the overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe, Earth, and life have in fact evolved over many millions of years. As such, it is these creationists who are often the most vehement deniers of evolution and vocal opponents of evolution education. Hence, for their discussion of creationism as it relates to issues of science education, Alters and Alters (2001) extended their working definition of creationism to encompass anti-evolution positions holding that:

(1) evolution should not be taught in science courses, (2) evolution

instruction should be greatly diminished in science courses, or (3)

evolution instruction should be modified to include supernatural cause (or

nonsupernatural intelligent designees]) as an explanation in science

courses instead of, or in addition to, evolutionary theory, (p. 9)

For the sake of this research, I will generally use creationism and creationist under the definitions used by the Scott and the NAS and, by extension, Alters and

Alters.

Why Students Accept (or Reject) Evolution

Religious adherence to creationism, however, is not the only factor that has been discussed in the relevant literature as potentially affecting student acceptance of evolution. In their explanation of why students reject evolution,

Alters and Alters (2001) divided such factors into religious and non-religious reasons, although they recognized that some of these reasons are sometimes difficult to pigeonhole as exclusively religious or not. (For example, many

31 misconceptions about evolution may not be based on religion in and of themselves, but they may be propagated by creationists in their churches, hence lending them the weight of religious authority.) These categories were later modified as mostly religious or mostly non-religious (Alters, 2005). Noting, as did Alters and Alters, the sometimes nebulous division between these designations, I will retain their former wording for the structure of my discussion and endeavor to make note of the more important areas of ambiguity as they arise.

I will further subdivide the list of non-religious factors that may influence student acceptance of evolution into those that are scientifically based (i.e., student understanding of the evidence for evolution or of the mechanisms of evolution) and non-scientifically based (i.e., social and emotional factors), again with the caveat that these distinctions may often be nebulous.

Religious Factors

Students think about science and religion in a variety of ways, ranging from regarding them as incompatibile or even hostile, to regarding them as completely separated, to regarding them as complementary or even integrated

(Asghar, Wiles, and Alters, 2007a; Asghar, Wiles, and Alters, 2007b; Dagher and

BouJaoude, 1997; Esbenshade, 1993; Jackson et al., 1995; Meadows, Doster, and

Jackson, 2000; Shipman, Brickhouse, Dagher, and Letts, 2002). Many students are able to adopt non-confrontational views similar to that described by Gould

(1997), who explained the compatibility of acceptance of evolution and religious faith via the separation of science and religion as "non-overlapping magisteria"

(p. 1622). However, a comparatively small, but far from negligible, number of students find religion and science to be in direct conflict (Shipman et al., 2002), and individuals who find science and religion to be in conflict or in tension may be resistant to learning about evolution (Meadows et al., 2000).

As previously mentioned, Woods and Scharmann (2001) found religious factors to rank at the top of those affecting high school students' attitudes toward evolution. Many students interpret scripture literally (Lawson and Weser, 1990;

Lawson and Worsnop, 1992), and adherence to a fundamentalist faith in scripture as both inerrant and literally true is closely linked with rejection of evolution

(Alters and Alters, 2001; Miller, Scott, and Okamoto, 2006). When science and a literal interpretation of scripture disagree, creationist students will often, if not always, side with their understanding of scripture (Alters and Alters, 2001), which

"supersedes any scientific finding or interpretation" (Miller, Scott, and Okamoto,

2006, p. 765). Alters and Alters (2001) discuss this conflict in terms of biblical scholarship, explaining that students may often reject evolution based on what they think the biblical explanation may be whether or not they know the actual content of the scripture.

Trani (2004) suggests that a "factor which appears to relate to acceptance of evolutionary theory is professed religious convictions that lead individuals to reject the theory of evolution" (p.420). In a study among university students who were not science majors, Bishop and Anderson (1990) found that such professed religious convictions may affect student acceptance of evolution more profoundly than their level of knowledge of evolutionary theory or of science in general.

33 This is consistent with the findings of other studies among biology majors

(Downie and Barron, 2000) and biology teachers (Aguillard, 1999; Osif, 1997).

The religious convictions discussed most often in relation to evolution are, of course, those of creationism. In the United States and in Canada, a dominant form of anti-evolutionism is "creation science," the pseudo-scientific apologetics of what is usually called Young-Earth Creationism. Creation science holds that

Earth and the universe are about 6,000 to 10,000 years old. It also accepts flood geology—the idea that Noah's flood was a historical worldwide event responsible for the fossil record and for major geological features like the Grand Canyon.

Furthermore, accepting a particular literal reading of the Genesis account (or other scriptural references from the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament, or, among Muslims, the Qur'an), it insists that evolution is impossible except within a very limited range, for God created living things to reproduce "after their own kind" (Wiles, 2006a). The religious doctrine of Young-Earth Creationism and its so-called creation science are at the root of many students' rejection of evolution

(Alters and Alters, 2001; Dutch, 2002). The difficulty with labeling many misconceptions generated by creation science as religious or non-religious lies in the fact that creationists often teach the claims of creation science in their churches, Bible schools, and other religious outlets, which may lead some students to believe in these flawed notions as fervently as they would believe their religious leaders' teachings about religious principles. Nonetheless, I will address these misconceptions in the "Scientific Factors" sub-section of the "Non-religious

Factors" section below.

34 There is one misconception often furthered by the efforts of creationists, however, which warrants discussion within this section. Students who hold this misconception believe that in order to accept evolution, one must reject any faith in God or religion altogether, or, conversely, that any true believer in God must reject evolution. The dichotomy is, of course, a false one. This is clearly evident by the diversity of religious beliefs held by individuals who accept evolution. A striking example is afforded by the signers of the Clergy Letter, over 11,000 priests, ministers, pastors, and other religious leaders who affirm the validity of evolutionary theory and its compatibility with their faith (Zimmerman, 2004).

Changing students' understandings of religious doctrine is not the bailiwick of teachers in public school science classrooms. However, students, perhaps especially high school students, are often epistemological dualists, and teachers are right to help their students develop a generally more flexible mode of scientific thinking. According to Woods and Scharmann (2001), "transform[ing] their dualistic view of evolutionary theory" (Summary and Discussion section) appears to be a very important step toward achieving student acceptance of evolution. This assessment is in agreement with, and in part built upon, the work of a number of previous researchers (Nelson, 1986; Perry, 1970; Scharmann and

Block, 1992; Smith and Scharmann, 1999).

Non-religious Factors

Scientific Factors

Overall knowledge of evolutionary theory. Student understanding of evolution has been studied in detail, and usually with regard to specific misconceptions about evolution that students often hold. Examples of such alternative conceptions include Lamarckian ideas of inheritance of acquired traits (Banet and

Ayuso, 2003; Brumby, 1984; Dagher and BouJaoude, 1997; Deadman and Kelly,

1978; Filisky, 1999; Hallden, 1988; Jensen and Finley, 1996; Jimenez-

Aleixandre, 1992; Lawson and Thompson, 1988), teleological notions that evolution is somehow driven by the needs of organisms (Bishop and Anderson,

1990; Brumby, 1984; Clough and Wood-Robinson, 1985; Jensen and Finley,

1996; Jimenez-Aleixandre, 1992; Zimmerman, 1986), impressions that organisms adapt by means of a conscious choice to do so (Clough and Wood-Robinson,

1985; Hallden, 1988), and the particularly confounding, yet common, misconception that humans evolved from modern apes or monkeys (Dagher and

BouJaoude, 1997; Woods and Scharmann, 2001).

Perplexingly, studies assessing the degree to which student understanding of evolution is related to acceptance have returned inconsistent results. Overall understanding of evolutionary theory was found to correlate with acceptance by some (Rutledge and Warden, 1999; Rutledge and Warden, 2000; Trani, 2004).

However, Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, and Demastes (2003) found no evidence of a relationship between understanding evolution and its acceptance, which is consistent with other findings (Bishop and Anderson, 1990; Demastes-

Southerland, Settlage, and Good, 1995; Lord and Marino, 1993). Ingram and

Nelson (2006) similarly conclude that neither acceptance nor understanding of evolution are "a prerequisite nor necessary condition of the other" (p. 10). Evidence of evolution. Student knowledge of the physical evidence of evolution was found by Woods and Scharmann (2001) to be a factor that shapes students' attitudes about evolutionary theory. Alters and Alters (2001) discuss several evidence-related misconceptions that cause students to reject evolution, including perceived problems regarding gaps in the fossil record or "missing links"; erroneous reports of human and dinosaur tracks within the same geologic strata; unwarranted criticisms of or misunderstandings regarding the dating methods used to determine the age of fossils, rocks, Earth, and/or the universe; and denial of plate tectonics or continental drift. These misconceptions, although ultimately rooted in misunderstanding of science, are often perpetuated, if not entirely fabricated, by creationists. A number of researchers have shown that increased acceptance of evolution can be achieved by presenting students with a direct comparison of various naive misconceptions associated with creationism (though without explicitly labeling them as creationist or otherwise religious misconceptions) to explanations which are more consistent with scientific evidence (Alters, 2005; Alters and Nelson, 2002; Ingram and Nelson, 2006;

Nelson, 2007; Scharmann, 2005; Scharmann et al., 2005; Verhey, 2005; Wilson,

2005).

Other stumbling blocks regarding the natural history of life that may hinder students' acceptance of evolution involve uncertainties about the origin of life (Alters and Alters, 2001), which science has not fully explained. Some students may see this as a failure of science that necessitates rejection of evolution in favor of a supernatural creator. Along these lines, students may have difficulty

37 accepting evolution because they may think it is mathematically improbable; that it may violate the laws (specifically the second law) of thermodynamics; or that organisms and/or their components are too complex to have evolved naturally, and must therefore have been "intelligently designed" (Alters and Alters, 2001;

Patterson, 1983; Strickberger, 2000). For an extensive list of misconceptions which students may hold, largely dealing with evidential issues, see Isaak (2006).

With regard to evidence, it appears to be important that students are exposed to many and varied sources of information. According to Pigliucci

(2002), acceptance of evolution may increase with repetition and with the number of sources and formats of information about evolution and its evidence.

Mechanisms and patterns of evolution. Some researchers have suggested that student acceptance or rejection of evolution may be related to their understanding of the mechanisms by which evolutionary change occurs. Miller, Scott, and

Okamoto (2006) report strong correlations between understanding of modern genetics and acceptance of evolution. Alters and Alters (2001) describe differential student acceptance of "horizontal" evolution (change within a species or "kind") versus "vertical" evolution (evolution of new species associated with evolutionary descent with modification), otherwise known as microevolution and macroevolution respectively. Misconceptions regarding natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms, as well as alternative understandings of the interplay between competing theories on the mode and tempo of evolution, such as Darwinian gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium, have also been linked to students' acceptance or rejection of evolution (Alters and Alters, 2001; Alters and

McComas, 1994).

Finally, students' attitudes toward science and their understanding of the nature of science have been discussed at length by many researchers. It seems that in most cases, a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of science is correlated with acceptance of evolution (Alters and Alters, 2001; Rutledge and

Warden, 2000; Trani, 2004), with an exceptional case being found among a population of university-level non-biology majors in which instruction in the nature of science elicited no significant change in acceptance of evolution (Bishop and Anderson, 1990).

Non-scientific Non-religious Factors

Social and emotional factors. Woods and Scharmann (2001) found that the second most important factor (behind religious belief) shaping students' attitudes about evolution is personal relationships (parents, teachers, friends, etc.). They found that students often accept or reject evolution based on an appeal to authority (i.e., church, parents, teachers, etc.), which is consistent with the findings of Demastes, Good, and Peebles (1995). In their stirring account of their own eventual acceptance of evolution, former creationists Steven Godfrey and

Christopher Smith (2005) discuss the importance of their personal relationships with their families, friends, teachers, and leaders in the clergy in terms of shaping their attitudes toward evolution. Some have taken the importance of personal relationships and students' appeal to authority as a call for science teachers to be

39 particularly respectful. It is important for teachers not to alienate students

(Woods and Scharmann, 2001; Smith, 1994; Smith and Scharmann, 1999).

Students may also reject evolution for emotional reasons such as fear of or discomfort with perceived implications of evolution. For example, when asked about the cosmological concept that the universe is expanding, an observation central to "Big Bang" theory and evolution in the broad sense, many Americans expressed fear of unknown change and danger to Earth (Lightman and Miller,

1989). Such concerns were also found among high school students (Lightman,

Miller, and Leadbeater, 1987). Brem, Ranney, and Schindel (2003) found that most groups among their study population of college students believed that evolutionary theory might lead to a variety of social or personal consequences.

Students who accepted evolution were more likely to hold that evolutionary theory would have no social or personal impact, but students who rejected evolution (including creationists) consistently expressed the belief that evolutionary theory would lead to heightened selfishness and racism as well as diminished spirituality, sense of self purpose, and self-determination.

Furthermore, students who perceived such potential repercussions of evolutionary theory viewed these consequences as decidedly negative.

Critical thinking, epistemological views, and cognitive dispositions. Critical thinking skills, described by some as "logical thinking" or "logical reasoning" skills, appear to be associated with higher levels of acceptance of evolution.

Woods and Scharmann (2001) found a significant correlation between logical thinking skills and acceptance of evolution, and they reported that logical reasoning skills accounted for 10% of the common variance in acceptance of evolution among their students. This is consistent with the findings of Lawson and Thompson (1988), Lawson and Weser (1990), and Lawson and Worsnop

(1992). Critical thinking is considered to be a key aspect of learning about, understanding, and accepting evolution, according to Alters and Nelson (2002) and Pigliucci (2007).

Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, and Demastes (2003) found that students with more sophisticated epistemological views and more flexible cognitive dispositions were more likely to accept evolution. These researchers measured students' levels of acceptance of evolution, epistemological beliefs, and cognitive dispositions, reporting that higher levels of epistemological sophistication reflecting an understanding of knowledge as "tentative and subject to change" (p. 521) corresponded to greater acceptance of human evolution.

Furthermore, they found that students who exhibited more open-minded cognitive dispositions were also more likely to accept human evolution. They concluded that acceptance of evolution is affected by a student's willingness to "entertain knowledge change intentionally" (p. 521). This corresponds to Lawson's (1983) assertion that a student's cognitive disposition can interfere with subsequent learning.

Demographic factors. Several demographic factors have been explored with respect to student understanding and acceptance of evolution. Researchers have found little to no difference among the levels of acceptance or knowledge of evolution with regard to gender (Grose and Simpson, 1982; Lord and Marino, 1993; Woods and Scharmann, 2001), race (Woods and Scharmann, 2001), and academic major (Grose and Simpson, 1982; Johnson and Peeples, 1987).

Higher academic standing has been associated with higher levels of acceptance of evolution (Dudycha, 1934; Fuerst, 1984; Lord and Marino, 1993), and although a national poll discussed by Brumfiel (2005) suggested that individuals achieving higher levels of education are more likely to accept evolution, these polls reveal that it is only among those individuals with college degrees that slightly more than half (52%) of the respondents accept evolution.

Among those with only "some college education" (p. 1062, Figure 1), the proportion of respondents accepting evolution is less than one-third. However,

Alters and Nelson (2002) suggest that current educational practices appear to make little, if any, difference with regard to evolutionary misconceptions citing several supporting examples. This seeming paradox may make more sense in the light of epistemological beliefs, which are related to educational level

(Schommer, 1993). Essentially, individuals achieving higher levels of education are not necessarily more likely to understand evolution, but are probably more likely to accept evolution as a function of having more sophisticated epistemological views.

Conclusion and Gaps in the Literature

Writing on students' decision making processes in relation to evolution,

Pigliucci (2002) developed an ideal model for student critical thinking that may lead to acceptance of evolution. This model incorporates elements of study, understanding, deferral of judgment, collection of further evidence, and finally the formulation of a more informed and reasoned acceptance (or rejection). In his discussion of this model, the author suggests that the stage involving deferral of judgment, which affects a student's ability to evaluate any further evidence, is often lacking or absent in the way students actually go about making decisions regarding acceptance of evolution. This period of deferred judgment appears to be a critical area of concern when teaching with acceptance of evolution as a goal.

The question is, essentially, how does one bring students who reject evolution into a position of deferred judgment in order to allow these students to learn about and evaluate evidence, thus facilitating the goals of increased understanding of evolution and potential acceptance?

In considering this question, it may be useful to review Pigliucci's model

in light of the proposed factors I have drawn from the literature above. Religious

factors, social factors, and emotional factors, as well as students' attitudes toward science and their understanding of the nature of science, are likely to be key factors involved in accessing deferral of judgment. Factors related to critical thinking skills, epistemological views, and cognitive dispositions are probably

similarly important. Although factors related specifically to religion may not be the province of science teachers, other factors listed here may be addressed in the context of science courses, and probably should be addressed prior to, and in preparation for, exposure to material on the scientific factors involving the

evidence for and the mechanisms of evolution.

The reviewed current literature is ambiguous regarding the effectiveness

of courses containing evolutionary content with regard to increasing student

43 acceptance of evolution. Furthermore, although some have reported changes, and others no change, in students' levels of acceptance of evolution as a result of instruction, there appear to be no reports of the effectiveness of a treatment course or experience designed to address an inventory of suspected factors which may influence student acceptance of evolution. Additionally, much of the relevant research has been conducted in college or university settings. There are few reports monitoring changes in the levels of acceptance of evolution among high school students, and there have apparently been no studies exploring the levels of acceptance of evolution among high school students as they transition to post- secondary education. Finally, there is an apparent dearth of information regarding what students consider to be important factors affecting their positions of acceptance or rejection of evolution.

This study addresses these gaps and areas of ambiguity in the literature by measuring changes in students' evolution acceptance levels following a treatment designed around factors identified herein as potentially influencing students' acceptance of evolution. Furthermore, students' perceptions of their acceptance of evolution and any changes therein are explored, and insight is sought regarding the factors which participants perceive to influence their acceptance of evolution.

44 CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Sample

Participants and Location of Research

Data were collected in a secondary level public education setting in

Arkansas, a state located in the American mid-south along what is commonly referred to as the "Bible Belt." The topic of evolution is of particular interest in

Arkansas, in part due to formal attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution in the state's public schools. These efforts go back as far as the Scopes era, and

Arkansas has played an inglorious part in the national debate as state laws undermining evolution education have repeatedly been struck down in the federal courts {Epperson et al. v. Arkansas, 1968; McLean v. Arkansas Board of

Education, 1982). Even given the fates of these laws from decades past, more anti-evolution bills have recently been introduced in the Arkansas legislature

(Arkansas House Bill 2548, 2001; Arkansas House Bill 2607, 2005). Local school districts have also played a role; for example, a warning label was for years affixed to biology textbooks in the state's Beebe Public School District, where they were recently removed after the American Civil Liberties Union of

Arkansas warned the district of imminent legal perils (National Center for Science

Education, 2005). Moreover, even in the absence of such formal pressure, there is a generalized climate of hostility to teaching evolution in Arkansas that results in the frequent downplaying or omission of evolution in its public school science classrooms (Wiles, 2006b; Wiles, 2008), and the state's official education standards regarding evolution have earned failing marks time and again (Gross et

45 al., 2005; Lerner, 2000). Hence, it is unsurprising that many of the participants reported the treatment course in evolution was their first exposure to a coherent discussion of evolution and the evidence for it.

Participants in this research project were students of the Arkansas

Governor's School (AGS), a high-school-level summer program of the Arkansas

Department of Education. The students of AGS are selected to attend the six- week program from a pool of applicants from across the state, whether they attend public schools, private schools, or home schools. All AGS students have completed their junior year of high school (Grade 11) and are considered to be

'rising' seniors (entering Grade 12). Thus, they are generally between the ages of

16 and 17 when they attend the program. Data were collected through surveys

(the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution [MATE] instrument

[discussed later]; n = 81 for pre-course and post-course measurements, n = 37 for longitudinal measurements), interviews (n = 27), and from archived materials from the treatment course and a total of three years of prior iterations of the course. The archived materials included informal, pre-course surveys administered by the course instructor (n = 323) and formal, anonymous student evaluations of the course administered by AGS staff (n = 318). Some (n = 9) of the research subjects who participated only in interviews were AGS alumni who had graduated from high school and were engaged in post-secondary education at various public or private colleges and universities ranging in size, geographic location, and religious affiliation. Most AGS students have been identified as gifted, and those who take the course on evolution generally exhibit high aptitude

46 and motivation in science. The student population to which the survey was administered comprised a moderate majority of females (58%) over males (42%).

A wide range of racial, ethnic, religious, and socio-economic diversity was represented.

Treatment

The treatment involved the academic experience to which the participants were exposed during the AGS program. The majority of the scientific and related components of the treatment were contained within a course on evolutionary science, with supporting components being addressed in other AGS courses, seminars, and by semi-weekly guest speakers. AGS is an ideal setting for treatment incorporating the range of factors identified during a review of the literature as potentially affecting student acceptance of evolution, largely due to: the opportunities afforded by daily extracurricular seminars and semi-weekly guest speakers; the core curriculum which all students experienced; and the inclusion of a course on evolution taken by all AGS students concentrating on studies in the natural sciences. The treatment course on evolutionary science was specifically designed to address scientific and related factors that may influence student acceptance of evolution. However, it is a matter of fortunate chance that the core curriculum of AGS and the presentations of guest speakers addressed other factors that are associated with acceptance of evolution that may not be best introduced in a science course. Factors Treated in Various Settings

Extracurricular Seminars and Semi-weekly Guest Speakers

The daily AGS schedule includes two extracurricular seminars that are conducted by AGS faculty or staff members, invited professionals, or occasionally by the students themselves. Additionally, the weekly schedule includes two opportunities for students to attend presentations by nationally and internationally recognized guest speakers. With regard to this study, two of the seminars and two of the guest speakers' presentations were of particular importance concerning evolution acceptance factors identified in the literature.

Treatment of the false dichotomy between science and religion. In order to address students' potential misconception that acceptance of evolution necessitates rejection of religious faith, a factor which may arguably not be within the proper scope of a science course, students in the treatment course on evolutionary science were encouraged to attend an extracurricular seminar on the question of the compatibility of evolution with religious faith. Although attendance was voluntary, 100% of the treatment group attended this seminar session, which addressed the various views of individuals representing a variety of religious traditions as they related to evolution and their personal faith. All religious faiths known to be represented by the students in attendance (i.e.,

Catholic, various Protestant and evangelical Christian denominations, Muslim,

Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) were addressed. Scott's (2004) evolution/creationism continuum was used to demonstrate a range of views of individuals who accept evolution to varying degrees within their frameworks of faith. Also, students were allowed to search the list of over 11,000 priests, ministers, pastors, and other religious leaders signatory to the Clergy Letter, all of whom affirm the validity of evolutionary theory (Zimmerman, 2004), for clergy members who represent leadership within the students' particular denominations.

Students' dualistic views of evolution versus religion were also challenged by one of the speakers in the semi-weekly forum. Dr. Jay McDaniel, a prominent local theologian and Professor of Religion at Hendrix College, presented a message and led discussions addressing a variety of faith traditions. In his presentation and discussion sessions, he affirmed the idea that there need be no conflict between acceptance of evolution and faith in the divine, and he called for reconciliation of any perceived tension between science and religion.

The perceived problem of evolution and racism. The literature regarding emotional factors influencing how students think about evolution includes a discussion of possible negative implications of students' perceptions of an association between evolutionary science and increased racism (Brem, Ranney, and Schindel, 2003). In an effort to address this issue, students in the treatment course were asked to attend a presentation on evolution and race which included a screening of a documentary film entitled Race—The Power of an Illusion: The

Difference Between Us. With appearances by notable evolutionary biologists such as Joseph Graves, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Lewontin, the film authoritatively deplored the eugenics movement and "racist science," revealed the fact that the biological differences between groups of humans often categorized into separate "races" are scientifically superficial at best and largely insignificant;

49 demonstrated that evolutionary science emphasizes that the human population is overwhelmingly interrelated; and dispelled the misconception that evolutionary science supports racist ideology (California Newsreel, 2003). All research participants attended the presentation, and a majority participated in the discussion that followed.

Additional attention to misconceptions rooted in physics. Dr. Ben Schumacher, an accomplished physicist who studies relationships between quantum mechanics, information theory, computation, thermodynamics, and black hole physics, delivered a presentation at one of the semi-weekly guest speaker sessions. During the discussion period that followed, students from the treatment course on evolutionary science engaged the speaker with questions related to evolution. Dr.

Schumacher attempted to dispel misconceptions pertaining to the laws of thermodynamics, so-called intelligent design theory, "Big Bang" theory, and the age of the universe. He assured students that there is nothing to be found within modern physics that would contradict evolution. Rather, he explained, the science of physics supports evolution impressively.

AGS Core Curriculum

Students attending AGS spend the majority of the academic day in classes pertaining to their primary area of study. The participants in this research project attended AGS with a focus in the natural sciences. However, whether they primarily study the natural sciences, drama, social science, or any of the other seven areas of focus (referred to as their "Area I" study), all AGS students are

50 additionally enrolled in two core courses called "Area II" and "Area III," both of which address factors which may influence their acceptance of evolution.

Area II is a course on epistemology. Among the aims of the Area II curriculum are helping students to develop logical thinking skills, to develop an ability to weigh the validity of theories, and to understand new ways of thinking.

According to the Area II course description, it is hoped that students "will have an appreciation for well-formed and solidly-supported ideas even if they differ from their own" (Arkansas Governor's School, 2007). The Area II course touched on at least three factors associated with acceptance of evolution: critical thinking, epistemological disposition, and progression beyond cognitive dualism. This last factor is also broached in Area III, which is a course on personal and social development. This course encourages personal reflection and exploration of the importance of community and civic responsibility. However, within this context,

Area III "fosters the development of both the personal and social awareness the students will need as their knowledge expands and they encounter diverse worldviews" (Arkansas Governor's School, 2007), and calls students to value individuals who are different from themselves and ideas that are different from their own.

Treatment Course on Evolutionary Science

All participants in this research project attended AGS with a concentration in the natural sciences. As part of this curriculum, these students were enrolled in a course on evolution. This course was designed to address scientific and related factors identified in the literature as potentially affecting student acceptance of

51 evolution. The course was multidisciplinary in nature and included instruction on the nature of science and the tentative quality of scientific knowledge; the history of evolutionary theory; a survey of methods used in determining the chronology of cosmological, geological, and biological history; evidence of evolution drawn from the earth and space sciences and from the biological sciences; evolutionary mechanisms; current theories regarding the pre-biotic Earth and the origin of the first organisms; and practical applications of evolutionary science such as those in the fields of medicine and agriculture. Efforts were made to encourage critical thinking, and students were challenged directly to compare preconceptions associated with creationism (though without explicitly referring to such alternative conceptions as creationist or religiously based ideas) with explanations that are more consistent with scientific evidence, as suggested by Alters and

Nelson (2002) and by Nelson (2007). Common student arguments regarding perceived problems for evolution such as those based on misunderstanding of mathematical probability, misapplication of the second law of thermodynamics, and claims of biological "irreducible complexity" and subsequent pseudoscientific inference of "intelligent design" were also addressed.

Also, in keeping with Pigliucci's (2002) assertion that acceptance of evolution may increase with the number of sources and formats of information about evolution and its evidence, a number of delivery methods were employed and guest experts were invited throughout the course. Formats of instruction included videos, computer based resources, hands-on activities incorporating fossil and anatomical specimens, assigned readings, student discussions, and field

52 trips. Expert guests included a professional geologist from the Arkansas

Geological Survey who led the students on a fossil collecting and geological interpretive excursion exposing the students to first-hand evidence of evolutionary history, and a biological anthropologist from the University of Arkansas who presented a mass of compelling fossil and anatomical evidence of human evolution.

Procedures and Treatment Administration

Although the treatment course on evolutionary science was conducted with more conscious attention toward addressing the range of factors identified in the literature as having potential influence on student acceptance of evolution than previous iterations of the course had been, the treatment was essentially part and parcel of the AGS curriculum for natural science students. Hence, administration of the treatment largely proceeded through the usual operation of the AGS program and the natural science course on evolution. However, implementation of the curriculum as an experimental treatment necessitated additional procedures related to entry to the site and access to students for research purposes.

Permission to conduct the research during the AGS session was requested via a letter to the school's director (Appendix A). Permission was graciously granted. Furthermore, as the participants were mostly minors, informed consent by the students' parents was required in almost all cases. Students who are minors were brought through the AGS registration process by their parents or legal guardians on the opening day of the program, and the AGS administration allowed a special station to be set up for natural sciences students during the

53 registration process. At this station, parents or guardians were presented with formal letters (Appendix B) explaining the nature of the research, and they were allowed to ask questions if they had concerns or wanted further information.

Consent was freely given by the parents or guardians of all participants who were minors. Student participants were also informed about the nature of the research via a similar letter (Appendix C), and all subjects granted their voluntary assent.

Students and alumni who were age 18 or over gave their own consent (Appendix

D) without the requirement of parental approval. All procedures were conducted in accord with the certification issued by the Ethics Review Board of the McGill

University Faculty of Education (Appendix E).

Instrumentation

Students' Levels of Acceptance of Evolution

There are several measures of acceptance of evolution, such as the

Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) instrument (Rutledge and Warden, 1999); a process for measuring acceptance of evolution described by

Sinatra et al. (2003); and the Evolution Attitudes Survey developed by Brian

Alters and employed with modification by Ingram and Nelson (2006). In selecting an instrument appropriate for measuring acceptance of evolution among the participant population, it was important to consider their changing academic level over the course of the research. Because the participants were recruited as high school students but would also be surveyed after they had matriculated to various colleges and universities, it was necessary to select an instrument that has

54 been validated for measurements of evolution acceptance among both secondary and post-secondary students.

Although the MATE instrument was originally developed and validated for use with high school biology teachers, it has subsequently been validated and successfully employed for measuring evolution acceptance among populations of university students (Rutledge and Sadler, 2007) and high school students

(Donnelly, Kazempour, and Amirshokoohi, 2007). Furthermore, the MATE has been recommended as a tool for measuring the effectiveness of instructional strategies and curricula with regard to changes in student acceptance of evolution

(Alters and Nelson, 2002; Rutledge and Sadler, 2007). Hence, the MATE instrument was adopted as the primary tool for measuring acceptance of evolution and changes therein.

The MATE instrument consists of 20 statements related to various aspects of evolutionary theory, its validity, and misconceptions commonly held by individuals who reject evolution. Participants are asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with these statements on a 5-point Likert scale.

Output is in the form of a score between 20 and 100, which indicates a participant's level of acceptance of evolution. The MATE items and scoring instructions are given in Appendix F, and published score ranges for relative categories of evolution acceptance are listed in Table 1. Students' Perceptions of Evolution Acceptance, Changes Therein, and Factors

Involved

A subset of participants who were actively enrolled in AGS at the time this research was conducted, as well as a subset of AGS alumni who had experienced the AGS curriculum and prior iterations of the evolutionary science course in previous years, were interviewed. These participants were asked to report on their own perceptions of their levels of acceptance of evolution, any perceived changes in their evolution acceptance, and the relative importance of factors they perceived as influencing their acceptance of evolution. Also, participants who responded to the one-year-post-treatment survey were presented with open-ended questions about their perceptions of their acceptance of evolution, how their acceptance levels might have changed during the previous year, and what factors they thought had influenced their acceptance of evolution.

Additionally, although they were not formally designed as instruments for the purpose of research, archived materials from the treatment course and from a total of three previous AGS sessions were also analyzed. These materials include pre-course surveys and post-course evaluations that revealed information about students' prior educational experiences regarding evolution, students' self- reported levels of prior knowledge about evolution, and their attitudes toward evolution and the AGS Natural Science course on evolution.

Reliability and Validity

The validity and reliability of the MATE instrument have been repeatedly

measured and reported (Donnelly et al., 2007; Rutledge and Sadler, 2007; Rutledge and Warden, 1999). In all cases and with all population types studied, the MATE instrument has been shown to be a valid and reliable instrument for measuring acceptance of evolution. Evaluation of the MATE instrument has returned high scores with regard to both test-retest reliability and internal consistency reliability (Rutledge and Sadler, 2007; Rutledge and Warden, 1999).

Additionally, the MATE instrument was compared to a similar instrument developed by Alters, and measurements of evolution acceptance returned through implementation of both instruments were positively and highly correlated (Ingram and Nelson, 2006). That these instruments, which were independently designed to measure the same construct, produce such similar results supports the validity of the MATE. Finally, the MATE instrument was reviewed by a panel of evolutionary scientists and science education researchers and was determined to have a high level of content validity and to be appropriate for use with the participant population.

Double coding (Miles and Huberman, 1994) was employed during the evaluation of the qualitative data collected through recorded interviews, open- ended survey questions, and course materials in an effort to increase reliability.

That is, the data were coded twice, and the separate coding results were compared to monitor intra-coder reliability. Validity was also increased through comparison of the data gathered using the MATE instrument, from interviews, and from course materials prior to drawing conclusions about the qualitative data.

Conclusions were reviewed by other science education researchers.

57 Procedures in Instrument Administration

Administration of the MATE Instrument

The MATE instrument was administered prior to treatment, immediately after treatment, and one year after treatment. Participants were informed that participation was entirely voluntary and there were no consequences for non- participation. Because participants were assured anonymity, pre- and post- treatment surveys were linked according to participants' self-assigned

"codewords." Participants were instructed to construct a codeword, which could contain letters, numbers, or other symbols found on a computer keyboard, that they would be sure to remember but would not identify the participant (so they were told not to use their name or nickname as their codeword). Participants marked their surveys with their codeword but not with their names or other identifying information. A list of the codewords was compiled after the pre- treatment survey so that students could review the list as a reminder in the event that they had difficulty recalling their codeword at the time of the post-treatment surveys. The pre- and immediate post-treatment surveys were completed in a classroom setting, and the long-term post-treatment survey was administered by

Survey Monkey, an internet-based survey tool, which also provided participants with an opportunity to respond to several additional open-ended items separate from the MATE instrument. Administration of Interviews

Participation in the interview process was also entirely voluntary, and participants were assured anonymity. No identifying information was contained in the recordings of the interviews.

Students and former students were selected to participate in the interview process based on several criteria. For participants who were actively enrolled in

AGS at the time of the treatment, appointments for interviews were made according to the academic schedules and availability of those who had indicated on the signed response to the informed consent letter that they were willing to participate in interviews and to have their interviews recorded. As many participants as possible were interviewed, given the constraints of time and participant availability. For alumni, participants were selected based on criteria aimed at collecting data from students with a variety of experiences. Three former students from each of the three prior AGS sessions were interviewed.

Three participants were entering their first year of post-secondary study, three were entering their second year of college, and three were rising juniors at universities. Archived course materials were reviewed, and potential alumni participants were contacted based on responses to items that indicated possible changes in their assumed levels of acceptance of evolution. Other factors in the selection of alumni participants included the researcher's ability to contact potential participants and their proximity to the research site, which affected scheduling availability. Interview participants were invited to choose the setting for their interview session in which they felt most comfortable. Selected settings included classrooms, restaurants and coffee shops, participants' homes, a bookstore, a designated campus prayer room, and a small Christian chapel.

The semi-structured interviews were typically 45 minutes to one hour in length. The survey questions mainly focused on exploring participant acceptance of evolution and the factors they perceived as influencing their acceptance.

Although specific questions related to participants' acceptance of evolution were asked in all cases, participants were encouraged to elaborate on their understandings of evolution, on how their religious beliefs may influence their thoughts about evolution and on their ideas, feelings, and concerns about evolution. All interviews were recorded to audio tape. Audio tapes have been securely stored in a locked cabinet within the Evolution Education Research

Centre at McGill University, and are to be destroyed within one year of the completion of the study.

Data Analyses

Statistical analyses of the quantitative data associated with the MATE instrument were performed using SPSS, a statistical software package originally called Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. A dependent t-test (repeated measures) was conducted to examine differences in the participants' levels of acceptance of evolution represented by MATE scores measured prior to treatment and immediately after the treatment course on evolution. This design reflects a standard one-group pretest-posttest design as described by Campbell and Stanley (1966) and listed by Isaac and Michael (1997) as one of eight "commonly used designs" in education research (p. 70). Among the subset of participants who responded to the survey one year after the AGS experience as they entered into post-secondary education (n = 37), a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to analyze evolution acceptance longitudinally. Differences between groups representing different categories of relative acceptance of evolution were also explored. Additionally, independent t-tests were conducted to compare the previous MATE scores of the subsets of the population that did or did not participate in the third measurement taken one year after the AGS experience.

Qualitative data (interviews; open-ended responses to the informal, pre- course survey; and the formal course evaluations) were analyzed through coding, constructing profiles, and thematic and cross-case analyses to examine patterns of similarities and differences (Maxwell, 2005; Miles and Huberman, 1994). The constant comparative method was also employed during analysis of the interview data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Methodological Assumptions

Because most AGS students have been identified as gifted, and because the participants exhibited high aptitude and motivation for study in the natural sciences, the sample is not representative of high school students in general.

However, it is reasonable to assume that the sample is similar in most respects to students in typical advanced placement, honors, or accelerated science courses at the secondary level and/or in transition to the post-secondary level. Statistical procedures involved the usual assumptions for the tests conducted: that the sample sizes were sufficiently large; that the data were normally distributed, although with even moderate sample sizes departures from normality appear to make little practical difference in conclusions derived from t- tests (Hays, 1981); and that the variances between groups are equal.

The qualitative portion of this study is not presumed to be generalizable to any larger population. Participants' responses to interview questions are indicative only of their own experiences and understandings. However, it is reasonable to assume that the ideas and attitudes expressed by the participants in this study bear similarities to those of many students in typical secondary and early post-secondary classrooms, especially in advanced placement or honors courses. Finally, it is assumed that the participants accurately expressed their positions and their true perceptions of their experiences and that the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the qualitative data reflect the actual understandings and intentions of the participants. All possible measures were taken to ensure that this was indeed the case.

62 CHAPTER IV ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Analyses of Findings

In the following section, the findings of this investigation are presented in corresponding order to the research questions set forth in Chapter 1.

Pre- and Post-treatment Measures of Students' Acceptance of Evolution

Prior to the treatment course, participants' acceptance of evolution was measured by the MATE instrument as described in Chapter 3. Recall that the

MATE instrument returns a whole-number score between 20 and 100, and that higher scores indicate higher levels of acceptance of evolution. Score bands defining categories of acceptance levels are listed in Table 1.

The mean pre-course MATE score across participants was 72.89 (n = 81), which corresponds to the "moderate acceptance" band. However, the MATE scores obtained from individual participants revealed a wide range of acceptance levels. Pre-treatment scores spanned almost the entire MATE scale from a low score of 36 to a high of 98. According to category bands, 14% of the participants' scores indicated "very low acceptance," 10% "low acceptance," 33% "moderate acceptance," 21% "high acceptance," and 22% "very high acceptance."

The mean post-treatment MATE score was 85.88, indicating an average gain over pre-treatment scores of about 13 points (16.25%, or just over one sixth, of the 80-point MATE scale). Limited to participants whose original MATE scores fell within the "very low acceptance" to "low acceptance" range, the average gain over pre-treatment scores was about 21 points (26.25%, or just over one quarter, on the 80-point MATE scale). A dependent t-test (repeated measures) was conducted to compare the pre-treatment and post-treatment scores, and the difference was indeed significant (t = 11.242, p < .001). The mean participant scores on the MATE instrument for pre- and post-treatment measurements are graphically compared in Figure 1.

Post-treatment scores returned extreme values similar to those of the pre- treatment measurement. However, although the least-accepting participant maintained their initial score of 36, on the other end of the scale, more than 10% of the participants scored 100, the maximum value of acceptance that the MATE instrument can return. By category band, 1% of the participants scored in the

"very low acceptance" range, 5% "low acceptance," 18% "moderate acceptance,"

25% "high acceptance," and 51% "very high acceptance." A comparison of pre- and post-treatment scores by category band is provided in Figure 2. Average gain in MATE score by category band is reported in Table 2.

Longitudinal Measurements of Acceptance of Evolution

Post-treatment and After Participants' Final High School Year

Of the 81 original participants, 37 (about 46%) responded to the survey administered one year post-treatment, which included the MATE instrument and several open-ended questions. The response rate may seem somewhat low, but it is most likely that difficulties relating to the method of contact, rather than self- selection based on differential acceptance or attitudes toward evolution, were the primary factor in attrition rates. For the students in the participant population, the timeframe of the follow-up survey was during a transitional period as they had graduated from high school and were entering various colleges or universities.

Contact was initiated by e-mail, and more than 25% of the outgoing e-mails returned error messages. Many of the contact e-mails left by the students were connected to the high schools that they no longer attended. Additionally, it is likely that the recruitment messages were quarantined by several would-be participants' junk-e-mail filters. However, comparisons between those participants who responded to the follow-up survey and those who did not were conducted by means of t-tests for pre-treatment scores, post-treatment scores, and gains between measurements. There were no significant differences in any of these fields between responders and non-responders to the follow-up survey.

For those participants who responded to the follow-up survey, a repeated measures one-way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences in their MATE scores between the three times of measurement (F = 47.35, p < .001).

Fisher's LSD (least significant difference) comparisons revealed that the pre- treatment MATE scores (M = 71.2) differed significantly from immediate post- treatment MATE scores (M = 83.0) and from the follow-up MATE scores (M =

83.9). However, there was no significant difference between the immediate post- treatment and the follow-up MATE scores. Longitudinal comparisons of mean scores on the MATE instrument are rather dramatically illustrated in Figure 3, and shown with quartiles and extreme values in Figure 4.

65 How do students perceive their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution changing in their final high school and early university years?

Open-ended Responses from Participants in the One-year-post-treatment Survey

Of the 37 participants who responded to the follow-up survey administered just over one year after their AGS experience, 36 individuals who had just graduated from high school answered the following question: "Do you think your level of acceptance or rejection of evolution has changed in the last year?" Of the participants responding, 69% perceived no change in their level of acceptance or rejection of evolution during their senior year of high school, 28% thought that they had become more accepting of evolution, and 3% reported that they were less accepting of evolution than they had been a year earlier.

Interviews With AGS Alumni in Various Stages of Post-secondary Education

In this section, I present summaries of interviews with participants who had attended AGS one year, two years, or three years prior to the interviews.

Hence, these AGS alumni had just completed their final year of high school and were entering post-secondary education as freshmen (n = 3), had completed one year of studies at university and were rising college sophomores (n = 3), or had completed two years of college and were entering their junior year of post- secondary study (n = 3). Participants have been given pseudonyms to protect their anonymity.

Perceived Changes in Acceptance of Evolution Among Recent High School

Graduates Entering Post-secondary Study: Becky, Tim, and Rachel Becky accepts evolution "more firmly. " Becky did not recall ever having doubted evolution, for most organisms at least, although she had not been aware of its evidence and mechanisms for much longer than a year. After having learned more about evolution, she described herself as "more firm" in her acceptance of evolution now that she had "evidence to back it up."

In her unprompted discussion of the rationale by which she accepts evolution, she mentioned several lines of evidence including "the fossil record,"

"similarities between organisms that are related to each other," and "DNA evidence" and gave clear descriptions of how these lines of evidence support her acceptance of evolution. When asked which type of evidence she found to be most compelling, she responded, "They're all about equal. They all fit together.

The fact that all of the different kinds of evidence agree, that they all support evolution, that's the most compelling thing to me."

However, Becky mentioned that there is one "thing about evolution" that still "gives me some trouble." When discussing human evolution, Becky described it as difficult to accept although she thinks evolution should apply to all organisms equally:

I think species can evolve into other kinds of species over time, and I

know it's a double standard, I mean, if one organism can evolve then why

can't another, but when it comes to humans evolving from something else,

I'm not sure what to believe. But I'm still thinking about it.

Tim is becoming more accepting of evolution . . . to some extent. Tim described himself as "becoming more accepting" of evolution. He said, "I've been opening my mind to the possibility of evolution on some level..." largely because he

"was able to talk to people and read the Bible with them." He continued, "I'm beginning to see that religion and evolution can work together."

Tim claimed that he had come to accept "micro-evolution" because "the fossil record shows that evolution has happened," but only within the same "kind" of organism. He related this to his experience working with animals in a pet store, especially amphibians, saying, "I can see more aquatic salamanders as being possible predecessors to more land-dwelling types, but they're still amphibians." He appealed to his understanding of the fossil record, but he did not find other types of evidence to be compelling, explaining that "similarities in body structures or cells, or even DNA, could just be evidence that they were created by the same designer."

But Tim reported that he was still studying the matter. He intended to enroll in a biology course during his first term at college, and he was interested in learning more about "how scientists say that new species are formed." This appeared to be the leading edge of his "growing acceptance of evolution." In his words:

I don't know if one species can evolve into another species. I know

scientists say yes, and I want to say yes, but that clashes sometimes with

my religion. So, I have trouble at that point, and also with them saying

that man evolved from apes.

Rachel still rejects much of evolutionary theory. Rachel says she used to reject

"everything about evolution." "But," she said, "I've learned a lot about evolution

68 in the past year or so, but I'm still not sure if I believe it all." Although she

"didn't believe" in evolution prior to taking the course on the subject at AGS, she said:

I thought it was interesting because it was a different view than my own.

And because of AGS, when we studied evolution in my high school the

next year, I went into it with an open mind.

Rachel explained that she has come to accept some things about evolution, such as, "Polar bears and grizzly bears and black bears might have come from one kind of bear." But she did not think that "one kind of organism can evolve into a completely different kind of thing," and she was quick to add, "and I don't think humans came from monkeys."

Rachel had also reconsidered the way she thought about the age of Earth.

She reported that she "used to think the Earth was only six thousand years old," but had begun to think that "Earth might be millions of years old, but not billions." When asked why "not billions", she framed her reasoning in terms of both her understanding of physical evidence and her religious faith:

Well, the fossils do show that animals have been around a long time, so

thousands sounds like not long enough. So, maybe millions, but my

background is as a Christian, so it can't be too old.

Perceived Changes in Acceptance of Evolution Among Students Who Have

Completed One Year of Post-secondary Study: Cindy, Angela, and Robert

Cindy accepts evolution even more. Cindy wanted to make clear before discussing her level of acceptance of evolution that she is a Christian, but she went on to say, "I have always tried to keep science and religion separate." Cindy was thenceforth quite eager to discuss her acceptance of evolution, beginning:

I have to admit, my family pretty much accepts evolution, but I think I've

always just thought that creationism doesn't make much sense. At least, it

doesn't make as much sense as gradual change over time.

Cindy reported that she did not learn very much about evolution in the

"very small" high school she attended, explaining, "The biology teacher just said,

'Some people believe in evolution. If you want to know more about it, it's in the textbook. We won't discuss it in class.'" However, she went on to defend the quality of science education at her alma mater with regard to "non-evolution topics." She described a science curriculum which "really stressed experimentation and scientific exploration." Apparently, such experiences played a large role in her understanding of the nature of science and her attitude toward evolutionary science:

My school was really big on science fairs, and even though it's a small

school, we compete at the national level in big science fair competitions.

That taught me a lot about how science works, and I've seen how much

work goes into being able to make and support a scientific claim. To get

professional scientists to agree with any idea takes a great deal of work

and evidence, so that's why I usually trust science. That goes for

evolution too.

Although Cindy is not a science major, she enrolled in two science courses

(biology and astronomy) during her first year in her small, public university, and

70 she said "I learned even more about evolution than I knew after AGS." She listed several types of evidence that she claimed to have influenced her "stronger acceptance" of evolution including "fossils," and "observations of small scale changes in things that are around today" which, she explained, "could lead to really big changes over billions of years." Cindy also presented a concise, but clear, explanation of the "Big Bang" theory and of methods used to calculate the age of the universe and the age of Earth.

However, Cindy said, "Human evolution is less clear. We didn't come from monkeys that are around today, but we definitely came from something more primitive." When asked to clarify what she meant by "more primitive", she admitted that she did not "know much about human evolution, but I'm not sure what exactly would have come before what we would call human. I just don't know enough to say."

Angela is becoming more accepting of evolution. "The first time I heard about evolution, I thought it was weird—and I didn't really see myself coming from a monkey," said Angela, who described the community in which she was raised as

"small and conservative. We all went to the same church, basically." Angela was

"raised not to believe in evolution and things the church disagreed with. I always thought I had to hate everything the church hated." However, she explained that

"a lot of my views have changed since I went into a new community. When I went to college, I learned I can think for myself." Speaking specifically about evolution, Angela said:

71 It was uncomfortable at first, but now I think it's cool that God could

make a timeline that scientists could follow. I thought it wasn't right that

the church fought it so hard because science just has more proof that

evolution happened.

Angela reported that she "can agree with scientific evidence like the fossil record," and she said, "we can see animals and things changing now." After explaining that she did not know as much about fossils as she would like to know, she added "I don't think that scientists would forge fossils, and there's really a lot of proof there." Angela concluded the interview after a moment of reflection, saying:

I guess I've come a long way since back in Governor's School. The

evidence I've heard supports evolution, and I accept most of it. For

people though, I think our bodies keep up with the times, and that's

evolution, but I still don't think we came from monkeys.

Robert still rejects evolution, for the most part. Robert was home-schooled until he entered the public school system at the high school level. He describes his reasons for rejecting evolution saying, "I believe in creationism because that's what I was raised to believe," adding, "My mom is a biology teacher, and she's heard a lot about why evolution is probably wrong."

However, Robert explains that "some parts of evolution are real though.

Animals adapt, but I don't believe in species evolution." When asked about what types of evidence informed his rejection of evolution, he said he did not know of any scientific evidence "off the top of my head, but I don't really know of any evidence for evolution either." Asked what kind of evidence it would take to convince him that evolution had occurred, he said, "I'd need actual data, maybe even photographs of a species in its evolution process, which is probably impossible since it's supposed to take thousands of years."

Robert had taken a course on astronomy during his first year at a large, public university. He reported that the course had included "a lot about the 'Big

Bang' and evolution of stars and galaxies and planets." Although he once believed that "all of creation was made only a few thousand years ago," he had recently "stretched" his conception of cosmological time, saying "the universe may be a couple million years old," and that "Earth is maybe several hundred thousand years old." Asked upon what evidence he had based his ideas of the age of Earth, he replied:

My Christian beliefs, mostly. We know that humans have been around for

a few thousand years, but there's no proof that they've been around for

millions of years. So, if I don't believe in human evolution, there's no

cause for me to believe that the Earth could be millions of years old.

Perceived Changes in Acceptance of Evolution Among Students Who Have

Completed Two Years of Post-secondary Study: Samantha, Bill, and Mitch

Samantha has accepted evolution since elementary school. Samantha was a biology major at a small, private university. Surprisingly, she attributed her decision to major in biology, at least in part, to the lack of teaching of evolution in her high school. She reported that her "high school biology teacher was a creationist, but that didn't affect my thoughts about evolution because my parents

73 taught me a little bit about it," adding, "but we're Catholic, so evolution's OK with us. I keep science separate from my spiritual life." Returning to her discussion of her high school experience, she explained that not learning about evolution in high school "made me want to know more about evolution, especially after AGS", so she "took biology in college and ended up majoring in it."

Unsurprisingly, Samantha exhibited an impressive grasp of the scientific evidence for evolution and was very knowledgeable about the mechanisms of evolution. When asked if she had always accepted evolution, she said she had

"never really rejected evolution," and added that "the evidence would have been enough to convince me anyway." However, recalling memories of her ideas "in elementary school," she said:

I think I believed in Adam and Eve and the creation story when I was

little, but when I learned about evolution, it was like when I learned about

sex. It was new, I guess, but it still seemed right. It didn't bother me.

Actually, I was starting to wonder about how Adam and Eve could have

worked with all the incest there would have been.

Bill accepts evolution even more, but he has "stopped being an atheist. " Bill claimed to have always accepted evolution, but, he explained, "it was mostly because I was an atheist. What else was I going to believe?" "But," he noted,

"I've learned a lot in the past few years about evolution and the 'Big Bang', and everything I've learned about it in college has just kept confirming it." Bill very clearly explained the "Big Bang" theory and its supporting evidence, including "the use of Doppler shift to calculate the age of the universe according to how long it has been expanding." He conveniently listed the evidence he thought was in support of evolutionary theory in order of which were most compelling to him.

These were "DNA" (which he considered to be "very obvious"), "changes in bacteria and viruses," "the fossil record," "the presence of vestigial features in living organisms," "evidence from developmental biology," and his understanding of "radiometric evidence that the Earth is several billion years old."

Bill concluded the interview by saying that he thought it was important to note that he was no longer an atheist and that this was a recent development. He said:

I was an atheist for a long time, but I like to base my positions on proof. I

realized that I didn't have any proof that there is no God, so I couldn't rule

it out. Now I believe in God, but only to the extent that I think he only set

up the universe so it could run on its own. Evolution happened within the

natural laws, and I don't think God would have to push it along.

Mitch has decided to withhold judgment. Mitch described his changed position on acceptance of evolution by saying:

At one time, I was a very dogmatic creationist. Now, I honestly don't

know if evolution is real. I'm withholding judgment until sometime in the

future when I can look at all the evidence better and get a clearer idea.

Mitch was a biology major at a large, elite, secular, private university, but he had attended a small, private, religious high school. He reported that the

majority of what he had learned about evolution in high school was from "an anti-

75 evolution, creationist perspective," which was also the perspective held by his parents. However, he had taken several courses in the life sciences at his university, and all of them had been "taught from evolutionary perspectives."

Reflecting on his high school and university experiences, he said:

I had always looked at the evidence against evolution I'd always been

taught, and I just rejected [evolution] as a scientifically invalid idea. I

realize now that it's more complicated than I originally thought it was.

Mitch explained, with clarity and detail, what he referred to as "micro- evolution" and concluded:

To argue against micro-evolution is just silly. So, I accept micro-

evolution, but I'm not yet sure if that implies macro-evolution. I sort of

gather that it does, but I'm remaining undecided until I can look at the data

myself. I'm a Christian, and I believe in the Bible. I need to know if

Genesis is an allegory, so I'll have to study that. If it is, then it's possible

that God used macro-evolution to create life's diversity.

Mitch was also "withholding judgment" on the question of the age of

Earth. "How old is the Earth? I don't know. It's at least 20 years old." (He laughed. Mitch was 20 years old.) "When I was a more dogmatic creationist, I really believed the Earth was about six thousand years old. Now I'm not totally certain." When asked why he was no longer certain, Mitch explained that he had begun to question whether or not Genesis had been intended to be read literally and that he had become "more open-minded about radiometric dating methods" for determining the ages of rocks, and therefore Earth. Mitch described his "decision to withhold judgment" as "intentional."

"Before I decided to withhold judgment," he said, "I would come up with personal theories to explain away the evolution arguments, but I realized they weren't valid until I actually looked at the data myself." He also discussed what he thought had been the hardest part of tentatively relaxing his staunch creationist position, saying, "It was difficult at first just because I had been arguing against evolution for so long. The possibility that I might be wrong hurt my intellectual pride."

Secondary Research Questions

In the following section, I present results from student interviews and from open- ended questions that were included with the follow-up survey administered online to participants just over one year after their AGS experience. These results are arranged as they pertain to the secondary research questions set forth in Chapter 1.

A) What factors do students perceive as influencing their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution?

The following results are arranged according to their relevance to specific factors and according to whether the data were gathered through interviews or from open- ended survey questions.

Religious Factors

77 or what makes you unsure."

Seven of the respondents framed their answers to this item in terms of their religious beliefs. The following excerpts are typical of participants' responses involving religion:

"I'm just unsure about it and my religion makes a large part of the

argument."

"Because of my religion, I don't believe that humans evolved from

monkeys, but I believe that they have evolved enough to survive in the

habitat they live."

"Even though I was exposed to evolution, and a lot of the theories make

sense, I am not truly convinced. In addition, my religion has played a

factor in my reasoning, and it also makes things a little more confusing

because it's hard to decide which one I believe."

Thirteen individuals also responded to this open-ended question: "If your level of acceptance of evolution has changed, what factors (reasons) do you think influenced the change?" Of these respondents, three individuals made reference to religion. Two of these students had become more accepting of evolution. One reported looking for "a way to reconcile my old religious views and my acceptance (NOT blind faith) of evolution" and another reported believing that

"God let everything evolve." The third individual who mentioned religion as a factor influencing a change in acceptance of evolution reported that the writings of several creationist authors had led him or her to a position of decreased acceptance of evolution. Responses from interviews. Twenty out of the twenty-seven participants interviewed framed a portion of their discussion about their acceptance or rejection of evolution around their religious views.

For some, acceptance of evolution was reported to arise, at least in part, due to lack of a religious background. Responses typical of this position were:

"My family isn't religious, so, there was never a time when I was shocked

by evolution. I just figured the evidence was there even before learning

about it."

"I'm not religious, maybe God ultimately put us here, but I don't need to

believe we didn't evolve."

And recall Bill's quip, "I was an atheist. What else was I going to believe?"For others, rejection of evolution largely, if not entirely, stemmed from resistance rooted in religion. Representative comments of this nature included:

"They taught me in church that my faith would be challenged by

evolution, but not to give in to the beliefs of the world."

"Scientists don't have the answers for everything. Some things they can't

prove, but I know God has the answer for this. I'm open to listening, but I

will never change my beliefs." Students also frequently described how their religious faith was not threatened by their acceptance of evolution, and many of these participants felt that evolution and their religion could be "intertwined."

Responses like these were quite common:

"Why can't God create through evolution?" I m a Christian, but I think that evolution was a good way for God to

create everything."

"I think you can intertwine creation and evolution. I think that evolution

is a continuous process, and I still believe in God."

A few students explained their increasing acceptance of evolution by pointing out that they had found flaws with their previous religious beliefs about evolution, including this student's comment about "Intelligent Design":

The most compelling argument for me is how many things that are

supposed to be "intelligently designed" still have flaws. They could be

more perfect, so why aren't they?

And several students reported that they were wrestling, some with great difficulty, with reconciling the evidence for evolution with their religious faith.

These students often made comments like the following:

"I haven't always been open to giving evolution a chance. I want to

believe it, but I want to believe in my religion too. The will always be in

conflict, and I just can't see a way to make them fit. Sometimes I feel like

I can accept part of evolution, but I still can't accept all of it."

"I see the evidence, and I'm trying to figure out, could [evolution] be real?

It's kind of conflicting with my beliefs, and it's kind of confusing."

80 "I didn't believe in evolution before AGS, but now I'm struggling because

the scientific evidence I'm learning about points toward evolution. And

that's confusing because of my faith."

Non-Religious Factors

Evidence

Open-ended questions from the follow-up survey. Of the 37 participants who responded to the follow-up survey administered just over one year after their AGS experience, 36 individuals answered the following open-ended item: "Please explain the reasons why you accept evolution, why you do not accept evolution, or what makes you unsure." The most often cited reasons offered in response to this item were those related to evidence. Twenty-five participants (about 70% of respondents) framed their reasons for accepting evolution around evidence

(specific types of evidence mentioned were "the fossil record," "genetic evidence," "embryology," etc.), and three participants mentioned "evidence against evolution" or "lack of evidence for" evolution among their reasons for rejecting evolution.

Additionally, with regard to changes in students levels of acceptance of evolution, 13 individuals responded to this open-ended question: "If your level of acceptance of evolution has changed, what factors (reasons) do you think influenced the change?" Seven of these participants reported that "evidence" or

"further study of evidence" was influential in increasing their level of acceptance of evolution, and another participant cited "lack of evidence" as a reason he or she had become less accepting of evolution.

81 Responses from interviews. Interview participants were all asked what evidence might have led them to their position of acceptance or rejection of evolution.

Participants who accepted evolution tended to list specific lines of evidence they found to support evolution. The most frequently cited line of evidence was "the fossil record" with the fossil remains of various ancestors of horses and whales being commonly offered as examples, followed in order of frequency of report by "genetics" or "DNA evidence," "vestigial features" or

"vestigial structures," "comparative anatomy," "comparative embryology" or

"developmental similarities," "biogeography," and "observation of changes" in extant organisms, especially "viruses and bacteria."

Participants who were becoming more accepting of evolution often cited a specific example of evidence which "got my attention" or "really made me have to stop and think." Among these were "fossils that showed real transitional change, like the whales or Archaeopteryx," "things like the lobefin fish that show things that are in between," "how the differences in the cytochrome-c protein were greater for things that were less related," and "when we looked at the different kinds of eyes that showed how something like our eyes could have evolved."

Participants who did not accept evolution tended to be less familiar with evolutionary evidence, although most did find at least some form of evidence of evolution to be at least somewhat "compelling" or "difficult to reconcile."

Evolution rejecters sometimes cited lack of evidence or "proof of evolution or mentioned that they thought there was "too much evidence against evolution." Others doubted the fossil record:

I don't believe that fossils have anything to do with evolution. It just

means that whatever that's a fossil of existed previously. It doesn't mean

it turned into something else.

And some questioned the honesty of paleontologists in general:

I think sometimes about fossils, what if scientists are just adding a bone

here or there, and that makes it look like evolution?

The most resolute evolution deniers also made comments indicating that they may be unable or unwilling to objectively evaluate the evidence;

"No evidence could ev«er convince me of evolution."

"I don't think any evidence could ever change my beliefs about

evolution."

Mechanisms

Open-ended questions from the follow-up survey. In response to an open-ended question on the follow-up survey, 3 out of 36 respondents claimed that their understanding of one or more evolutionary mechanisms influenced their acceptance of evolution. Natural selection was mentioned by all of these participants, and genetic drift was discussed by one.

Responses from interviews. During the interviews, several participants made statements indicating that "learning how evolution works" was an important factor leading to their assessment of the validity of evolution. All participants were asked to explain their ideas about the mechanisms of evolution, and those who accepted evolution were generally more likely to provide more detailed

83 descriptions of evolutionary mechanisms. However, participants who rejected

"macro-evolution" but accepted "micro-evolution" often gave very clear and accurate descriptions of the mechanisms through which evolutionary change occurs.

Nature of Science

Open-ended questions from the follow-up survey. In response to an open-ended question on the follow-up survey about reasons they accept or reject evolution, 6 out of 36 respondents framed some portion of their responses around ideas related to the nature of science. Three of these students referenced the explanatory power of evolutionary theory as reasons for accepting it as "scientifically valid." Three others provisionally accepted evolution because they viewed it as the only

"scientifically testable theory" currently available.

Responses from interviews. Only 7 out of the 27 interviewees discussed their acceptance or rejection of evolution in relation to aspects of the nature of science.

Cindy, one of the university students interviewed, cited her understanding of the scrutiny to which claims are subjected in the scientific community as a reason she accepts the consensus of scientists on the matter of evolution. Most others broaching this line of discussion merely described evolution as "the best scientific explanation" even if they personally held views which they realized were "based on faith" and "not scientifically testable." Three interviewees addressed the limitation of science to matters of the "physical" or "natural world," and two of them stressed the importance of keeping "religious" or "spiritual" ideas "separate from" science. One participant added, "Evolution is a matter of science, not an

84 alternative to religion."

Critical Thinking and Cognitive Disposition

Open-ended questions from the follow-up survey. In response to open-ended

questions on the follow-up survey about reasons they accept or reject evolution, 8

out of 36 respondents framed some portion of their responses around ideas related to critical thinking. Most of these participants found evolution to be acceptable

after "thinking about it logically" and critically comparing evolution to other

explanations, concluding that evolution "makes more sense." Additionally, two

students reported having become more accepting of evolution as a result of becoming "more open-minded."

Responses from interviews. A substantially larger proportion of the interviewees

discussed their cognitive dispositions. Ten of these participants identified having

"become more open-minded" as an important factor in their position on

acceptance of evolution. This exchange is representative of such responses:

Participant: "Before, I didn't want to learn about evolution, and I'd just

get upset. I just felt inside that when somebody said something about

evolution, well, I'd just have to defend my views. But now I've learned to

be more open-minded, and I'm thinking that maybe the Earth is older than

I thought and maybe things can change."

Interviewer: "What helped you become more open-minded?"

Participant: "Just seeing how many other people have different views,

because where I'm from, pretty much everyone has the same view."

However, one participant's conception of what it meant to be "open-minded" was

85 somewhat less encouraging:

I'm open to listening, but I will never change my beliefs. I won't just

walk out of the class if you start talking about evolution, and that's what I

mean by being open-minded.

Social and Emotional Factors

Open-ended questions from the follow-up survey. In response to open-ended questions on the follow-up survey about reasons they accept or reject evolution, 7 out of 36 respondents discussed the influence of people with whom they had social relationships. Five of these appealed to the authority of teachers or scientists, and two others mentioned the importance of their parents' beliefs.

Responses from interviews. Over two-thirds of the interviewees discussed the impact their parents' positions on evolution had in shaping whether they accepted or rejected evolution. This trend held true for both acceptors and rejecters.

Several participants perceived entire communities (towns, schools, "where I'm from") as being rather homogenous with regard to rejection of evolution and described societal pressure to conform to such views. The following excerpts are representative of such comments:

In my town, it's really small, and so, we all believe basically the same

way. If you believe differently, it's like, you're kind of weird. So, I've

always just accepted what people told me.

I come from one of those places where it's really conservative, and you

just don't talk about evolution. No one would ever talk about it, so I

thought it was one of those things you just weren't supposed to believe. Other students described interactions among their peers in school and church. One participant explained:

We got a new youth leader at church who was very anti-evolution. I

started to change to not believing in evolution to make everybody happy.

But when we learned about it in school, I wanted to see if I really thought

it was real, so I had to avoid ever talking about evolution with my friends

because they were all creationists. I kept it to myself because I was afraid

of what they would think, and I felt really guilty. I didn't want to be

ridiculed either.

Feelings of guilt were commonly expressed by students who were beginning to become more accepting of evolution. According to one student, "I understand now that there is a massive amount of evidence supporting evolution.

The guilt comes in when I begin to accept it."

Other emotions students expressed in association with their "struggle" with evolution were "frustration," "discomfort," and of course Mitch's damaged sense of "intellectual pride". "Discomfort" or "feeling uncomfortable" or

"struggling" were also all reported by students who claimed no particular religious objection to evolution and indeed accepted evolution, with one important exception. Students often expressed these emotions in response to the idea that humans have evolved from non-human ancestors, usually framed in terms of "man from monkeys." Fully half of the students who reported that they

"accept evolution" stopped short of acceptance of human evolution. Although most of them cited religious beliefs as the reason for this exception, several appealed entirely to emotional discomfort with the notion of sharing a common ancestor with "monkeys," "apes," or "chimpanzees."

Emotional disturbance was also voiced by participants who accepted evolution and by those who were curious about evolution. Several students who, for various reasons, were eager to learn about evolution expressed "frustration,"

"anger," and "feeling cheated" by what they perceived to be a hindrance, if not a total obstruction, to opportunities to learning about evolution in their schools and communities. A shocking proportion of participants reported that their high school science teachers had avoided, "watered down," or completely omitted evolution, and fully one-third of the interviewees described their high school biology teachers as "creationist." Even some teachers who reportedly taught about evolution were alleged to have told their students that "it's wrong," or "I don't believe it."

B) How do students perceive these factors to rank in order of influence on their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution?

Open-ended Questions from the Follow-up Survey

Of the 37 students who participated in the follow-up survey, 29 responded to the following question: "Of the reasons you gave for acceptance/rejection of evolution, please rank them in the order of importance (from most important to least important) they have on your level of acceptance or rejection of evolution."

By far the most common and highly ranked responses to this item were related to evidence of evolution with ten participants listing evidence as the most important reason that they accept evolution, five listing evidence as the second most important factor, and two others quoting evidence as the third most important factor supporting their acceptance of evolution. However, two more participants reported that they rejected evolution due to what they perceived to be a lack of evidence.

Understanding of the mechanisms of evolution was the next most often listed and highly ranked factor. Religious factors and appeals to the authority of scientists followed next, each being listed by four students as having the most influence on their acceptance levels. Interestingly, half of those who listed religion as the most important factor gave it as a reason that they accept, rather than reject, evolution, one participant saying:

I'm a Christian, and I believe that the Bible actually does back up most of

the evolution theory. ... I think if people delved a little deeper in to

Genesis 1,1 think they would find a lot of similarities between it and

evolution theory. This is very important in my acceptance of evolution.

Although several participants simply listed "evidence" as an important and high-ranking factor influencing their acceptance of evolution, many made specific reference to particular lines of evidence. The most commonly listed and highly ranked line of evidence was "the fossil record," followed by evidence related to comparative embryology, with evidence from genetics or biochemistry and direct observation of changes in modern populations of organisms being equally frequently reported and highly ranked.

In terms of factors students perceived to have had an influence toward changing their level of acceptance of evolution, nine participants responded to the

89 following open-ended item on the follow-up survey: "Of the factors you listed as

influencing any change in your level of acceptance of evolution, please rank them

in the order of importance (from most important to least important) they have had

in causing any change in acceptance of evolution." The most often cited and

highly ranked factor listed by these participants was "further study" of the

evidence and mechanisms of evolution. Social factors involving the importance

of the ideas and views of friends and family were the next most commonly

reported response to this item. Other responses included "being more open

minded" and, in the case of the one participant who reported having become less

accepting of evolution, "reading The Case for a Creator," a book of creationist

apologetics by Lee Strobel (2004).

Responses from Interviews

Though few interviewees who accepted evolution listed religious or social

factors among their ranked catalogues of reasons for accepting evolution, most of

them did reference the compatibility of their religious beliefs and their parents'

positions on evolution as having had an influence on their acceptance levels.

When ranking their reasons for accepting evolution, the majority listed factors

related to evidence for evolution, with the "fossil record" being the most

frequently cited and highly ranked line of evidence reported, followed by (in order of rank and frequency of report); "DNA" or "genetic evidence,"

"comparative anatomy," "vestigial features," "observing" or "seeing" changes in

"organisms living today," "evidence from embryology," and "biogeography."

Interviewees who reported having become more accepting of evolution offered a similar list of ranked evidence, but were more likely to list having become "more open-minded" as the primary reason that they were less resistant to evolutionary ideas, and most of these attributed the change in their cognitive disposition to "seeing" or "realizing" that "evolution and religion" or "evolution and faith" or "evolution and Christianity" were not incompatible. Others cited

"listening to" or "considering" other people's "views" or "ideas" as having contributed to the opening of their minds regarding evolution.

Interviewees who rejected evolution also sometimes referred to evidence as a factor influencing their acceptance of evolution; however, this was usually to say that there was a "lack of evidence" or "holes in the evidence" or "not enough proof." Participants who rejected evolution were more likely to list "the Bible" or

"religious beliefs" as the chief factor affecting their position regarding evolution, and the second most frequently and highly ranked factor cited by evolution rejecters was that they had been "taught" or "raised" not to believe in evolution.

C) What patterns arise among students' articulations of why their level of acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution has changed?

Perhaps the most striking pattern emerging from the analyses of these data is that the landscape of factors students report as influencing their changing levels of acceptance of evolution is complex and individualized. Each student represents a different blend of prior knowledge, family background, religious belief, community history, level of interest, and cognitive disposition, and their reasons for accepting or rejecting evolution can differ greatly between

91 individuals. Also, many factors appear to be intertwined. However, there are trends among the participants' reports.

It appears that students who accept evolution appeal more strongly to evidence than those who are unsure about or reject evolution.

Surprisingly, most students appeal to their religion as a factor influencing their level of acceptance of evolution whether they accept evolution, reject evolution, or are becoming more accepting of evolution.

Another trend that appears to emerge across positions on acceptance of evolution is the difficulty students have with the evolution of humans from non- human ancestors. Over half of the interview participants expressed such difficulty, even those who "fully accept" evolution as "scientifically factual" and

"definitely true," in both the broad and narrow sense, and whether the "difficulty" is rooted in religion or merely in emotional "discomfort." One participant offered insight into an aspect of the treatment course that had allowed her to consider human evolution as "possible." She explained, "When we learned that humans didn't come from chimpanzees or monkeys that we have today, but that we had common ancestors with them, that really helped."

Students who reported having become more accepting of evolution tended to report their positions in terms of what "God," in their understanding, "could have done." For example:

"God could have created everything using evolution as a tool."

"God could have created environmental conditions for things to change, so

evolution could happen."

92 "God could have created the first cells and kind of just let it go from

there."

Other trends among students who reported an increase in their level of acceptance of evolution included "stages" of changed acceptance. Generally, the first concessions involved the age of Earth and/or of the universe. The majority of students who reported having initially believed in Young-Earth creationism later reported "progressing" to "Day-Age" creationism, under which they interpreted the six days of the Genesis creation story to represent vast periods of time rather than six literal days, or to accepting an increasingly long natural history. About half of the self-professed creationists interviewed claimed to have entered the treatment course already accepting "micro-evolution," and several more came to accept "small-scale changes" or "adaptation." Many of these participants reported that they had expanded what they could accept about

"species evolution" and "macro-evolution."

Additional Findings

Lack of Teaching of Evolution in High Schools

A glaring trend emerged from the analysis of the interview data regarding participants' prior experiences with evolution education. Although 7 out of the 27 participants reported that evolution had been covered "very well" or "very thoroughly," in their education to date, almost two-thirds of the interviewees reported that evolution was not taught "properly" or "effectively"—in some cases, not "at all." Many of them reported that their teachers "didn't discuss" evolution or that they "didn't mention the 'e-word,'" often, the students suspected, because

93 they "didn't want to offend anyone." One participant reported that her "biology

teacher talked about it for a while," but that "we weren't tested over it. It made a

lot of people not care because they wouldn't be tested, so they didn't listen."

An alarming proportion of participants reported that their high school biology teachers said that they "didn't believe in evolution" or made comments about evolution such as, "it's not my view, but you have to learn it"; another participant offered that his biology teacher regarded evolution as "just plain crazy." Describing the treatment of evolution in her high school biology class, one participant said, "My teacher covered evolution in less than seven minutes.

She said she didn't believe it and we didn't have to either."

Additionally, even participants who reported that their science teachers did teach evolution told the interviewer that their teachers "affirmed" their

"Christianity" or "faith in God," sometimes "repeatedly," in the context of teaching evolution.

These reports were consistent with students' responses to an open-ended question that appeared on an informal, pre-course survey that had been administered to students in the treatment course as well as three previous iterations of the course on evolution at AGS. The question read, "How well is evolution covered in your high school classes?" Although about one-third of the students reported that they thought evolution had been covered "pretty well," or

"very well," that they "spent" a number of "weeks" or "days" on evolution, or that they "had a whole unit on the topic," it was more common for students to respond

94 with answers like, "not at all," "barely touched on it," or, with a bit of pre-college humor, "diddly squat."

Concerns of Students at the Beginning of the Course

Another item on the pre-course survey invited students to express any concerns they might have about the course about which the instructor ought to know. By far, the majority of the students responded that they had no particular concerns, although students did report sundry concerns every year. Among these were comments like:

"I'm a very religious and devout Christian, and I believe in Creation."

"I would like to know the whole story about evolution, and not just a

biased account."

"I'm concerned that evolution might be forced on me as a belief."

"I hope that all the holes in evolutionary theory are also presented."

And one rather vocal and confident student who was a creationist offered that he was "concerned that I might get in trouble for proving that evolution is false!"

Students Overwhelmingly Reported that They Were Respectfully Treated

An open-ended item on the formal course evaluations administered by

AGS staff asked students, "How effectively and respectfully did the instructor interact with students in the class?" Not a single student in the treatment course, nor any of the students evaluating the course as it had been taught during the three previous years, reported that the instructor was disrespectful to them or their views. Representative comments included:

"He was very respectful and treated everyone equal." "[The instructor] is very, very, very respectful of other opinions,

specifically when teaching about a topic (evolution) which brings forth so

many controversies."

"Students were treated with utmost respect. Different opinions were

always welcomed."

"[The instructor] was very respectful and listened to the entire class."

"I found the course to be tiber interesting and engaging because we've

never learned much about evolution because they're too scared at my high

school to teach it. But it was taught in a non-offensive way."

Enjoyment and Appreciation

Other items on the formal course evaluation asked students about how interesting they found the course to be and how the class had contributed to their

AGS experience. Responses to these items were overwhelmingly positive. For example:

"I never had the slightest interest in evolution until now. I found it VERY

interesting. It was a class I looked forward to."

"The material was intriguing and well-covered. Evolution is so cool now!

It broadened my views on our world and how it came to be. I looked

forward to this class everyday."

"I didn't know much about evolution because I'm Christian and just

rejected it. But now I embrace it. This class really changed my

perspective not only on evolution, but on life. I now have a totally

different view on life. I'm going to miss this class."

96 Furthermore, the final item on the course evaluation asked, "Do you have any other comments about this class and/or instructor?" One of the most frequent types of response to this question involved students thanking the instructor for having taught the course, many of them saying that they appreciated the opportunity to learn about evolution because it is not taught in their high schools.

Is It Important to Learn about Evolution?

All interviewees were asked whether or not they thought it was important to learn about evolution. All of these participants, even those who resolutely rejected evolution, reported that they thought it was important to learn about evolutionary science.

Discussion

The results of the pre- and post-treatment measurements using the MATE instrument indicate a significant increase in students' levels of acceptance of evolution. Furthermore, longitudinal analyses including measurements taken just over one year post-treatment suggest that gains in acceptance of evolution were maintained during their final high school year.

Increased acceptance of evolution was seen across all categories of acceptance, as illustrated in Figures 1, 2, and 4. Interestingly, although the least accepting student did not appear to have become more accepting of evolution immediately after the treatment (represented by the "outlier" mark in Figure 4), this participant apparently increased his or her acceptance of evolution by ten

MATE scale points within the following year. With regard to students' perceptions of how various factors may influence their acceptance of evolution, each factor identified through the review of previous literature was mentioned by at least some of the participants as having influenced their position.

Students who accepted evolution prior to the treatment course leaned heavily on evidence as the most influential factors, but many of them also cited their parents' or other social acquaintances' acceptance of evolution or the compatibility of their religious views with evolution as supporting factors influencing their acceptance of evolution.

Students who had become more accepting of evolution often discussed having become "more open-minded" about their religious interpretations or about evolution in general before they mentioned scientific factors like evolutionary evidence, and some of these participants attributed their increased receptiveness to new ideas to having been introduced to people whose views differed from their own. A few students listed factors related to critical or "logical" thinking or to the nature of science, the limitations of science, or "how science works." These data suggest that religious factors, social factors, and emotional factors, as well as students' attitudes toward science and their understanding of the nature of science, are likely to be key factors involved in accessing the deferral of judgment regarding acceptance of evolution for which Pigliucci (2002, 2007) suggested science educators should seek. Factors related to critical thinking skills, epistemological views, and cognitive dispositions are apparently similarly important, and perhaps, therefore, ought to be addressed prior to, and in

98 preparation for, exposure to material on the scientific factors involving the evidence for and the mechanisms of evolution.

Students who continued to reject evolution largely reported that their positions were based on religious beliefs, which, aside perhaps from those that are directly tied to scientific misconceptions, lie outside of science teachers' sphere of responsibility. However, even these students, given time, may eventually, and gradually, accept more aspects of evolutionary science, as in the case of Mitch, who has "decided" to "withhold judgment" pending further study. And indeed, it can take a great deal of further study to effect large-scale change in a creationist student's level of acceptance of evolution, as described by Godfrey and Smith

(2005).

Creationists who do transition to higher levels of acceptance of evolution apparently do so, at least in several instances described herein, through a series of concessions which are common across cases. These concessions include acceptance of older ages for Earth and/or the universe (whether through perceived

"gaps" in religious accounts or through "Day-Age" interpretations), acceptance of

"micro-evolution" and associated expansion of what that can include, and more flexible religious notions of what "God could have" done. These stages appear to coincide with various points along Scott's (2004) creation/evolution continuum.

The evolution of humans from non-human ancestors is apparently the most difficult aspect of evolutionary science for many students to accept, and it is often the final point of rejection among students who otherwise accept evolutionary science.

99 Finally, with regard to the widespread public rejection of evolution expounded in Chapter 1 as a problem indicating the need for this study, it is reasonable to speculate that much of the general population's misunderstanding of and subsequent resistance to evolution may well be due to how evolution is treated, or rather, is not treated, in public school science classes. Although many of the participants in this study reported satisfactory treatment of evolution in their schools, the frequency of reports from participants alleging downplaying, omission, or even denigration of evolution by their science teachers is deplorable.

But such practices are apparently not uncommon. These student accounts are consistent with previous reports about evolution education in Arkansas (Wiles,

2006c), other states (Moore and Kraemer, 2005; Weld and McNew, 1999), and across North America (National Science Teachers Association, 2005; Wiles,

2006a; Wiles, 2006d; Wiles and Branch, 2008).

Some participants speculated that their high school teachers avoided or omitted evolution out of "fear" or because they did not want to "offend anyone."

These concerns are apparently shared by teachers across America, according to a poll reported by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) (2005) indicating that almost one-third of responding science educators felt "pressured" to "include creationism, intelligent design, or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classroom" and to "de-emphasize or omit evolution or evolution-related topics from their curriculum." Furthermore, the majority of these teachers perceived most of the pressure to come from their students.

100 However, the results of this study seem to indicate that, although students may initially have concerns, evolution can be taught effectively, even to students who are creationists, with positive results. None of the participants in this study, not even the most resolute evolution rejecters, reported feelings of offense or having been treated with disrespect, even though they were provided ample and anonymous opportunities to report such. Even those who questioned evolution indicated interest in the topic and enjoyment of the course, and many extended sincere gratitude to the instructor, unprompted and anonymously on course evaluations, for having taught them about a topic their high school teachers may have been intimidated to broach. It bears repeating that all interview participants, including those who did not accept evolution, indicated that it is important to learn about evolution, and the only students who reported any sort of regret concerning evolution education were those who were "frustrated" or otherwise offended by not having been taught evolution in their schools.

101 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

Background

A review of the previous literature pertaining to evolution education revealed ambiguities regarding the effectiveness of courses containing evolutionary content toward increasing student acceptance of evolution.

Moreover, although some researchers had reported changes, and others no change, in students' levels of acceptance of evolution as a result of instruction, there were apparently no reports of the effectiveness of a treatment course or experience designed to address an inventory of factors which may influence student acceptance of evolution. Additionally, much of the relevant research had been conducted in college or university settings. There were few reports tracking changes in the levels of acceptance of evolution among high school students, and there had apparently been no studies exploring the levels of acceptance of evolution among high school students in transition to post-secondary education.

Finally, there was scant information regarding what students consider to be important factors affecting their positions of acceptance or rejection of evolution.

This study narrowed these gaps in the literature by measuring changes in students' evolution acceptance levels after a treatment designed around factors identified as potentially influencing students' acceptance of evolution.

Furthermore, students' perceptions of their acceptance of evolution and any changes therein were explored, and insight was sought regarding the factors which participants perceived to have influenced their acceptance of evolution. Purpose

The purpose of this investigation was to determine to what extent

students' acceptance of evolution may change during and after a treatment

designed to address an inventory of factors identified in the literature as

potentially influencing evolution acceptance. It further sought to probe secondary

and post-secondary students' perceptions of changes in their levels of acceptance

of evolution and the relative importance of any factors they identified as having

influenced their evolution acceptance levels.

Research Questions

Primary question #1:

To what extent do students' levels of acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of

biological evolution change (a) after taking a course on evolutionary evidence in

the summer prior to their senior year and (b) during their final high school year?

Primary question #2:

How do students perceive their acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of

biological evolution changing in their final high school and early university years?

Secondary questions:

A) What factors do students perceive as influencing their acceptance or rejection

of the occurrence of biological evolution?

B) How do students perceive these factors to rank in order of influence on their

acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution?

103 C) What patterns arise among students' articulation of why their level of acceptance or rejection of the occurrence of biological evolution has changed?

Methods and Procedures

Data were collected in a secondary level public education setting in Arkansas, a mid-southern American state in which the topic of evolution is of particular interest. The treatment, instrumentation, and data analyses proceeded as described in the previous chapters and as summarized in this section.

Treatment

The treatment involved the academic experience to which the participants were exposed while attending the Arkansas Governor's School (AGS). The majority of the scientific and related components of the treatment were contained within a course on evolutionary science, with supporting components being addressed in other AGS courses, seminars, and by semi-weekly guest speakers.

AGS was an ideal setting for treatment incorporating the range of factors identified by means of a review of the literature as potentially affecting student acceptance of evolution, largely due to the opportunities afforded by daily extra curricular seminars and semi-weekly guest speakers, the core curriculum which all students experience, and the inclusion of a course on evolution which was taken by all AGS students concentrating on studies in the natural sciences. The treatment course on evolutionary science was specifically designed to address scientific and related factors that may influence student acceptance of evolution.

Also, the core curriculum of AGS and the presentations of guest speakers occasioned additional exposure to other factors which are associated with acceptance of evolution that may not be best introduced in a science course.

Instrumentation

The primary tool for measuring acceptance of evolution and changes therein was the MATE instrument (Rutledge and Sadler, 2007; Rutledge and

Warden, 1999), which consists of 20 statements related to various aspects of evolutionary theory, its validity, and misconceptions commonly held by individuals who reject evolution. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with these statements on a 5-point Likert scale, which generated output in the form of a score between 20 and 100 indicating a participant's level of acceptance of evolution.

Qualitative data were collected through recorded interviews, open-ended survey questions, and from archived course materials.

Data Analyses

Statistical analyses of the quantitative data associated with the MATE instrument were performed using SPSS, and qualitative data were analyzed through coding, constructing profiles, thematic and cross-case analyses to examine patterns of similarities and differences (Maxwell, 2005; Miles and

Huberman, 1994), and using the constant comparative method (Glaser and

Strauss, 1967).

Selected Findings

Participants' pre-treatment scores on the MATE instrument spanned almost the entire scale from a low score of 36 to a high of 98. According to

105 category bands, 14% of the participants' scores indicated "very low acceptance,"

10% "low acceptance," 33% "moderate acceptance," 21% "high acceptance," and

22%o "very high acceptance" of evolution.

Immediate post-treatment MATE scores indicated an average gain over pre-treatment scores of about 13 points (16.25%, or just over one sixth, of the 80- point MATE scale). Limited to participants whose original MATE scores fell within the "very low acceptance" to "low acceptance" range, the average gain over pre-treatment scores was about 21 points (26.25%), or just over one quarter, of the 80-point MATE scale). A dependent t-test (repeated measures) revealed that the difference between pre- and post-treatment mean scores was indeed significant (t = 11.242, p < .001). The mean participant scores on the MATE instrument for pre- and post-treatment measurements are graphically compared in

Figure 1.

Post-treatment scores returned extreme values similar to those of the pre- treatment measurement. However, although the least-accepting participant maintained his or her initial score of 36, on the other end of the scale, more than

10%o of the participants scored 100, the maximum value of acceptance that the

MATE instrument can return. By category band, 1% of the participants scored in the "very low acceptance" range, 5%» "low acceptance," 18% "moderate acceptance," 25%> "high acceptance," and 51% "very high acceptance." A comparison of pre- and post-treatment scores by category band is provided in

Figure 2. Average gain in MATE score by category band is reported in Table 2. Longitudinally, a repeated measures one-way ANOVA revealed that there were significant differences in participants' MATE scores between the pre-, immediate post-, and one-year-post-treatment administrations of the instrument (F

= 47.35, p < .001). Fisher's LSD (least significant difference) comparisons revealed that the pre-treatment MATE scores (M = 71.2) differed significantly from immediate post-treatment MATE scores (M = 83.0) and from the follow-up

MATE scores (M = 83.9). However, there was no significant difference between the immediate post-treatment and the follow-up MATE scores. Longitudinal comparisons of mean scores on the MATE instrument are illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Additionally, there is a complex and individualized landscape of factors that students perceive to influence their acceptance of evolution. Although most of them referenced the compatibility of their religious beliefs and their parents' positions on evolution as having had an influence, the majority of participants who accepted evolution ranked factors related to evidence most highly among those leading to their acceptance. The fossil record was the most frequently cited and highly ranked line of evidence reported, followed by evidence from genetics, comparative anatomy, observation of recent changes, developmental biology, and biogeography. Participants who had become more accepting of evolution offered a similar list of ranked evidence, but were more likely to list having become

"more open-minded" as the primary influencing factor. This change in cognitive disposition was largely attributed to perceived compatibility between science and religion or to social factors involving exposure to people with diverse ideas.

107 Participants who rejected evolution were more likely to list "the Bible" or

When discussing evidence, they were more likely to refer to their perceptions of its insufficiencies.

Patterns and trends common among groups of participants emerged from the qualitative data. Among these trends it appears that students who accept evolution appeal more strongly to evidence than those who are unsure about or reject evolution; that students often appeal to their religion as a factor influencing their level of acceptance of evolution whether they accept evolution, reject evolution, or are in transition; that students may have difficulty with the evolution of human beings even if they accept all other aspects of evolution; and that students often come to terms with evolution by revising what they believe "God could have done." Other trends suggest that students who become more accepting of evolution may go through "stages" of changed acceptance involving acceptance of increasingly ancient ages for Earth and universe and expanding limits within which they accept that evolution can occur.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Within the scope of the investigations described in this thesis, it can be said that there was a significant change in participants' evolution acceptance levels following a focused academic experience designed to incorporate an inventory of factors which were suspected to influence student acceptance of

108 evolution. Furthermore, student reports confirmed that the suspected factors

addressed by the treatment did indeed influence their acceptance of evolution.

Should these results be further confirmed through future investigations, the

implications are at once encouraging and potentially far-reaching.

Recommendations for Future Research

The conclusions of this research would be strengthened, if not modified,

upon further exploration incorporating both greater control of variables and a

larger, more diverse sample size. To that end, it is recommended that similar

studies be carried out in situations under which differential treatment of

participant samples is conducted, not necessarily through random placement into

experimental student treatment groups, which may carry ethical implications, but

perhaps by collection of data from courses taught at various institutions in which

different curricula are employed.

Additionally, further exploration of the relative influence various factors

may have on student acceptance of evolution should be explored by means of a

standardized instrument administered to a much larger sample across student

populations in varying geographic locations, institution types, academic majors,

and academic levels.

Finally, insight should be sought through further dialogue with students

who are resistant to evolution and students who have been identified as potentially

becoming more accepting of evolution. Conversations with such students may

give teachers at all levels more insight into what methods may work and whether

109 their efforts may impact these students, even if the effects may not be immediately manifest.

110 References

Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada. (1985). Position statement

on "scientific creationism" and the teaching of evolution. Geotimes,

November 1985, 21.

Aguillard, D. (1999). Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: A decade

following Edwards v. Aguillard. The American Biology Teacher, 61(3),

182-188.

Alters, B. (1997). Should student belief of evolution be a goal? Reports of the

National Center for Science Education, 17(1), 15-16.

Alters, B. (2005). Teaching biological evolution in higher education:

Methodological, religious, and nonreligious issues, Sudbury MA: Jones

and Bartlett.

Alters, B. & Alters, S. M. (2001). Defending evolution in the classroom: A

guide to the creation/evolution controversy. Sudbury, MA: Jones and

Bartlett.

Alters, B. & McComas, W. F. (1994). Punctuated equilibrium: The missing link

in evolution education. The American Biology Teacher 56(6), 334—346.

Alters, B. & Nelson, C. E. (2002).Teaching evolution in higher

education. Evolution: InternationalJournal of Organic Evolution, 56(10),

1891-1901.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for

science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Ill American Institute of Biological Sciences. (1994) Board resolution. Retrieved

October 16, 2007, from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2712_

statements_from_scientific_an_ 12_ 192002. asp#aibs.

Amici Curiae. (1986). Amicus curiae brief of 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state

academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations. Edwards v.

Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). Retrieved April 20, 2008, from

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus 1 .html.

Angus Reid. (2007). Creationist museum opens: Do Canadians believe in

evolution or Creationism? Retrieved November 10, 2007, from

http://www.angus-reid.com/uppdf/ARS_Evo_Cre.pdf.

Arkansas House Bill 2548. (2001). Retrieved January 23, 2008, from the website

of the Arkansas State Legislature: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/

ftproot/bills/2001/ htm/HB2548.pdf

Arkansas House Bill 2607. (2005). Retrieved January 23, 2008, from the website

of the Arkansas State Legislature: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/

ftproot/bills/2005/public/HB2607.pdf.

Arkansas Governor's School. (2007). The AGS Curriculum. Retrieved January

23, 2008, from http://www.hendrix.edu/ags/ags.aspx?id=l 1184.

Asghar, A. & Wiles, J. R. (2007a). Canadian preservice elementary teachers'

conceptions of biological evolution and evolution education. McGill

Journal of Education 42(2): 189-209.

Asghar, A., Wiles, J. R. & Alters, B. (2007b). Discovering international

perspectives on biological evolution across religions and cultures.

International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities, and

112 Nations, 6(4): 81-88.

Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and

evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of

Science Education, 25, 373^4-07.

Bell, G. (1996). Selection: the mechanism of evolution. New York & London:

Chapman & Hall.

Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural

selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 27,415-427.

Branch, G. (2008). Creationism as a global phenomenon. In R. Robbins & M.

Cohen (Eds.), Darwin and the Bible: The cultural confrontation (pp. 137—

151). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Branch, G. & Scott, E. C. (2008). Overcoming obstacles to evolution education:

In the beginning. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 53-55.

Brem, S., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived consequences of

evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social impact

in evolutionary theory. Science Education, 87: 181-206.

Brown, S. D. & Delodder, J. (2003). When is a creationist not a creationist?

Appreciating the miracles of public opinion polling. Canadian Journal

of Communication, 28 (1): 111-119.

Brumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by

medical biology students. Science Education, 68, 493-503.

Brumfiel, G. (2005). Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students'

minds? Nature 434, 1062-1065.

113 California Newsreel. (2003). Race—The Power of an Illusion: The Difference

Between Us. [Documentary motion picture]. United States: California

Newsreel. (VHS or DVD available at www.newsreel.org). Transcript

retrieved January 23, 2008, from: http://www.newsreel.org/transcripts

/race 1.htm.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental

designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Co.

Carroll, R. L. (1997). Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chinsamy, A. & Plaganyi, E. (2007). Accepting evolution. Evolution: The

International Journal of Organic Evolution. Online Early Articles.

Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http.V/www.blackwell-

synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/J.1558-5646.2007.00276.X?

prevSearch=allfield%3A%28Chinsamy%29.

Christensen, J. (1998, November 24). Teachers fight for Darwin's place in U.S.

classrooms. The New York Times, p. D3.

Clough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). How secondary students interpret

instances of biological adaptation. Journal of Biological Education, 19,

125-130.

Cobern, W. W. (1994). Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 583-590.

Compas. (2000). Hot button issues in the federal campaign. Retrieved January 20,

2008, from http://www.compas.ca/data/001124-NPostHotButtonFederal

114 Election-EP.pdf.

Cornish-Bowden, A. & Cardenas, M. L. (2007). The threat from creationism to

the rational teaching of biology. Biological Research, 40, 113-122.

Cummins, C. L., Demastes, S. S., & Hafner, M. S. (1994). Evolution: Biological

education's under-researched unifying theme. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 31, 445-448.

Darwin, C. (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection.

London: John Murray.

Darwin, C. (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London:

John Murray.

Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of

college students: the case of biological evolution. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 34, 429-445.

Dawkins, R. & Coyne, J. (2005, September 1). One side can be wrong. The

Guardian, pp. 4-6.

Deadman, J. A., & Kelly, P. J. (1978). What do secondary school boys understand

about evolution and heredity before they are taught the topics? Journal of

Biological Education, 72,7-15.

Demastes, S., Good, R., & Peebles, P. (1995). Students' conceptual ecologies and

the process of conceptual chance in evolution. Science Education, 79,

637-666.

Demastes-Southerland, S., Settlage, J., & 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, 535-550.

115 Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of

evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.

Donnelly, L. A., Kazempour, M., & Amirshokoohi, A. (2007). Student

perceptions of evolution instruction: Understanding, acceptance, and

learning experiences. Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the

National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans,

LA: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Downie, J. R., & Barron, N. J. (2000). Evolution and religion: Attitudes of

Scottish first year biology and medical students to the teaching of

evolutionary biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 139-146.

Dudycha, G. J. (1934) The beliefs of college students concerning evolution.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 18, 85-96.

Dutch, S. I. (2002) Religion as belief versus religion as fact. Journal of

Geoscience Education, 50(2), 137-144.

Esbenshade, Jr., D.H. (1993). Student perceptions about science and religion. The

American Biology Teacher, 55, 334-338.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

Epperson, et al. v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97; 89 S. Ct. 266; 21 L. Ed. 2d 228; 1968

U.S. LEXIS 328 (1968).

Filisky, M. (1999). Frameworks of reference: How (some) college students think

about biological evolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard

University.

Flammer, L. (2001). Several texts use evolution approach. The American Biology

116 Teacher, 63{9), 642.

Fuerst, P. A. (1984). University student understanding of evolutionary biology's

place in the creation/evolution debate. Ohio Journal of Science, 84, 218-

228.

Futuyma, D. J. (1986). Evolutionary biology (2d ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer

Associates.

Futuyma, D. J. (Ed.) (2000). Evolution, science, and society: Evolutionary

biology and the national research agenda. Piscataway, NJ: Office of

University Publications, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:

Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldie.

Godfrey, S. J. & Smith, C. R. (2005). Paradigms on pilgrimage: Creationism,

paleontology, and biblical interpretation. Toronto, ON: Clements

Publishing.

Gould, S. J. (1983). Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes. New York: W. W. Norton.

Gould, S. J. (1997). Non-overlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106, 1622.

Gould, S. J. (2001). Foreword. In B. Alters & S. Alters, Defending evolution: A

guide to the creation/evolution controversy. Sudbury, MA: Jones &

Bartlett. pp. 1-4.

Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA &

London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Grose, E. C. & Simpson, D. (1982). Attitudes of introductory college biology

students toward evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19,

117 15-24.

Gross, P., Goodenough, U., Haack, S., Lerner, L. S., Schwartz, M., & Schwartz,

R. (2005). The state of science standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B.

Fordham Institute.

Hays, W. L. (1981). Statistics. (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: CBS College

Publishing.

Hallden, O. (1988). The evolution of species: pupil perspectives and school

perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 541—552.

Ingram, E. & Nelson, C. E. (2006). Relationship between achievement and

students' acceptance of evolution or creation in an upper-level evolution

course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 7-24.

Inter-Academy Panel (2006). Inter-Academy Panel (IAP) statement on the

teaching of evolution. Retrieved October 16, 2007, from

http: //www. interacademies.net/Obj ect. File/Master/6/15 0/

Evolution%20statement.pdf.

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1997). Handbook in research and evaluation for

education and the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA:

EdITS/Educational and Industrial Testing Services.

Isaak, M. (2006). Index of Creationist Claims. Retrieved January 21, 2008, from

the TalkOrigins Archive: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.

Jackson, D. F., Doster, E. C, Meadows, L., & Wood, T. (1995). Hearts and minds

in the science classroom: the education of a confirmed evolutionist.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 585-611.

118 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 Teaching, 33, 879-900.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (1992). Thinking about theories or thinking with

theories?: A classroom study with natural selection. International Journal

of Science Education, 14, 51-61.

Johnson, R. L. & Peeples, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in

college. The American Biology Teacher, 49, 93-98.

Kearney, P. S. (1999). Accepting evolution as an idea. Reports of the National

Center for Science Education, 19(\), 13-14.

Kitzmiller et. al v. Dover Area School District et al. 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D.

Pa. 2005).

Lawson, A.E. (1983). Predicting science achievement: The role of developmental

level, disembedding ability, mental capacity, prior knowledge, and beliefs.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 117-129.

Lawson, A. E., & Thompson, L. D. (1988). Formal reasoning ability and

misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 25, 733-746.

Lawson, A. E., & Weser, J. (1990). The rejections of nonscientific beliefs about

life: effects of instruction and reasoning skills. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 27, 589-606.

Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting

119 a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior

knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 29, 143-166.

Lerner, L. S. (2000). Good science, bad science: Teaching evolution in the states.

Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Lewontin, R. C. (1981). Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth.

Bioscience, 31, 559.

Lightman, A. P. & Miller, J. D. (1989). Contemporary cosmological beliefs.

Social Studies of Science, 19: 127-136.

Lightman, A. P., Miller, J. D., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1987). Contemporary

cosmological beliefs. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Misconceptions and

educational strategies in science and mathematics, Vol. 3 (pp. 309-321).

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lord, T. & Marino, S. (1993). How university students view the theory of

evolution. Journal of College Science Teaching, 22, 353-357.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mayr, E. (1970). Populations, species, and evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: The science of the living world. Cambridge,

MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark.

1982).

120 Meadows, L., Doster, E., & Jackson, D. F. (2000). Managing the conflict between

evolution and religion. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 102-107.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C, & Okamoto, S. (2006) Public acceptance of evolution.

Science, 313: 765-766.

Morse, P. M. (2001). A Review of Biological Instructional Materials for

Secondary Schools. American Institute of Biological Sciences. Retrieved

January 20, 2008, from http://www.aibs.org/bookstore/resources/

TextbookReview.pdf.

Moore, R. & Kraemer, K. (2005). The teaching of evolution & creationism in

Minnesota. The American Biology Teacher, 67(8), 451—466.

Muller, H. J. (1959). One hundred years without Darwin are enough. School

Science and Mathematics, 59, 304-305.

National Academy of Sciences. (1984). Science and creationism: A view from the

National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academy

Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature

of science. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Academy of Sciences. (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Association of Biology Teachers. (2004). Statement on teaching

121 evolution. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.nabt.org/

sites/S l/index.php?p=65.

National Center for Science Education. (2002). Voices for Evolution. Retrieved

October 16, 2007, from http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=2.

National Center for Science Education. (2003). Project Steve. Retrieved October

15, 2007, from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_

steve_ 2_16_2003.asp.

National Center for Science Education. (2005). Uncertainty about the Beebe

disclaimer. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from: http://www.ncseweb.org/

resources/news/2005/AR/737_uncertainty_about_the_beebe_di_2_18_

2005.asp.

National Center for Science Education. (2006). National academies of science

around the world support evolution education. Retrieved October 16,

2007, from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/XX/538_

national_academies_of_science 6212006. asp.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (2003). NSTA position statement: The

teaching of evolution. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from

http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx.

National Science Teachers Association. (2005). Survey indicates science teachers

feel pressure to teach nonscientific alternatives to evolution. Retrieved

April 20, 2008, from http://www.nsta.org/publications/survevs/survey 20050324.aspx.

Nehm, R. H. & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher

knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater

preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science

Teacher Education, 75,699-723.

Nelson, C. E. (1986). Creation, evolution, or both? A multiple model approach. In

R.W. Hanson (Ed.), Science and creation: Geological, theological, and

educational perspectives (pp. 128-159). New York: Macmillan Publishing

Company.

Nelson, C. E. (2007). Teaching evolution effectively: A central dilemma and

alternative strategies. McGill Journal of Education, 42(2), 265-283.

Numbers, R. L. (1992). The creationists: The evolution of scientific creationism.

New York, NY: Knopf.

Numbers, R. L. (2004). Creationists and their critics in Australia. In: S. Coleman

& Carlin, L. (Eds.) The cultures of creationism: Anti-evolutionism in

English-speaking countries (pp. 109-123). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists: From scientific creationism to intelligent

design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Osif, B. (1997). Evolution and religious beliefs: A survey of Pennsylvania high

school teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 59(9), 552-556.

Patterson, J. W. (1983). Thermodynamics and evolution. In L. R. Grodfrey (Ed.),

Scientists Confront Creationism. (Chapter 6). New York: Notron.

Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college

years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

123 Pigliucci, M. (2002). Denying evolution: Creationism, scientism, and the nature

of science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Pigliucci, M. (2007). The evolution-creation wars: Why teaching more science

just is not enough. McGill Journal of Education 42(2), 285-306.

Rutledge, M. L. & Sadler, K. C. (2007). Reliability of the measure of acceptance

of the theory of evolution (MATE) instrument with university students.

The American Biology Teacher, 69(6), 332-335.

Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (1999). The development and validation of the

measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument. School

Science and Mathematics, 99, 13-18.

Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of

science & high school biology teachers: critical relationships. The

American Biology Teacher, 62, 23-31.

Sagan, C. (1980). Cosmos. New York, NY: Random House.

Scharmann, L. C. (1990). Enhancing an understanding of the premises of

evolutionary theory: The influence of a diversified instructional strategy.

School Science and Mathematics, 90, 91-100.

Scharmann, L. C. (2005). A proactive strategy for teaching evolution. The

American Biology Teacher, 67, 12-16.

Scharmann, L.C., & Block, T. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding,

concerns, and instructional approach alternatives. Kansas Biology

Teacher, 2, 13-15.

Scharmann, L. C, Smith, M. U., James, M. C, & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: evolution, intelligent design, and

umbrellalogy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27-41.

Schommer, M. (1993). The influence of age and schooling on epistemological

beliefs. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 406-411.

Scopes v. State, 152 Tenn. 424, 278 S.W. 57 (Tenn. 1925).

Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Scott, E. C, Matzke, N. J., Branch, G. & 443 "Steves". (2004) The morphology

of Steve. Annals of Improbable Research, 10(4), 24-29.

Shipman, H., Brickhouse, N., Dagher, Z., & Letts, W. (2002). Changes in

student views of religion and science in a college astronomy course.

Science Education, 86, 526-547.

Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F. M., & Demastes, J. W.

(2003). Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of

biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510-

528.

Smith, M. U. (1994). Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 591-597.

Smith, M. U. & Scharmann, L.C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of

science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science

educators. Science Education, 83, 493-509.

Sonderstrom, M. (2000). Australopithecus or Adam's rib? McGill News, 80: 16-

20.

125 Southerland, S., & Sinatra, G. (2003). Learning about biological evolution: A

special case of intentional conceptual change. In: G. Sinatra & P. R.

Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 317-348). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Southerland, S., Sinatra, G. & Matthews, M. (2001). Belief, knowledge, and

science education. Educational Psychology Review, 13(A), 325-351.

Strobel, L. (2004). The case for a creator. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Strickberger, M. W. (2000). Evolution (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett

Publishers.

Trani, R. (2004). I won't teach evolution; it's against my religion. And now for

the rest of the story... The American Biology Teacher, 66(6), 419-427.

Verhey, S. D. (2005). The effect of engaging prior learning on students' attitudes

towards creationism and evolution. BioScience, 55, 996-1003.

Weld, J., & McNew, J. C. (1999). Attitudes toward evolution. The Science

Teacher 66(9), 26-31.

Wiles, J. R. (2006a). A threat to geoscience education: Creationist anti-evolution

activity in Canada. Geoscience Canada, 33(3): 135-140.

Wiles, J. R. (2006b). Is evolution Arkansas's "hidden curriculum"? Reports of

the National Center for Science Education, 25(1-2): 32-36.

Wiles, J. R. (2006c, 23 March). The missing link. The Arkansas Times. Retrieved

January 29, 2008, from http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer

.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e 1 -ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91.

Wiles, J. R. (2006d). Evolution in schools: Where's Canada? Education Canada, 46(4): 37-41.

Wiles, J. R. (2008, 11 January). The Huckster's artful dodging on evolution.

Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from

http://\vww.insidehighered.com/views/2008/01/ll/wiles.

Wiles, J. R., Asghar, A., & Alters, B. (2005). Evolution Education Research

Centre. Humanist Perspectives, 154: 10-13.

Wiles, J. R. & Asghar, A. (2007). An effort to encourage dialogue around the

teaching and learning of evolution. McGill Journal of Education, 42(2),

167-175.

Wiles, J. R. & Branch, G. (2008). Teachers who won't, don't, or can't teach

evolution properly: A burning issue. The American Biology Teacher,

70(1): 6-7.

Wilson, D. S. (2005). Evolution for everyone: How to increase acceptance of,

interest in, and knowledge about evolution. Retrieved January 29, 2008,

from Public Library of Science Biology: http://biology.plosjournals.org/

perlserv/?request=get-document&doi= 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030364.

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Woods, C. S., & Scharmann, L. C. (2001). High school students' perceptions of

evolutionary theory. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2).

Retrieved July 2, 2006, from http://unr.edu/homespace/crowther/ejse/

woodsetal.html.

Zimmerman, M. (1986). The evolution-creation controversy: opinions from students at a "liberal" liberal arts college. Ohio Journal of Science, 86,

134-139.

Zimmerman, M. (2004). The Clergy Letter Project. Retrieved January 2, 2008,

from http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_

collaboration.htm. Table 1

Relative Acceptance Category MATE Score Very High Acceptance 89-100 High Acceptance 77-88 Moderate Acceptance 65-76 Low Acceptance 53-64 Very Low Acceptance 20-52

Relative categories of acceptance of evolution according to MATE score. Reproduced from Rutledge and Sadler (2007). Table 2.

Pre-treatment Acceptance Approximate Average Gain Category on Post-treatment MATE Score Very High Acceptance 5 points High Acceptance 10 points Moderate Acceptance 15 points Low Acceptance 17 points Very Low Acceptance 24 points

Table 2. Average gain over pre-treatment MATE scores as measured by post-treatment re-administration of the MATE instrument. Figure 1.

Change in Mean MATE Scores Pre- and Post- Treatment

Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Time of Measurement Error bars indicate 1 standard deviation from the mean.

131 Figure 2.

Change in Students' Acceptance of Evolution by Category

40 jft # £• „^ b-"^ o 35 - O) | - * Yi 3 30 ...... •••:,*„* ^ c p. 1% ic 25 I Pre a> •a I Post 3 20 .-M 3 4 E " * 3 10 - - z *i *

-• •• 5 - ^-•- tftl; £_ _*l K>* [(••'fe' 0 - '*-•:" , ^-\J i-i'A , , ff'ii'5.' Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Level of Acceptance of Evolution as Measured via the MATE Instrument

132 Figure 3. Longitudinal Change in Students' Acceptance of Evolution

Pre-Treatment Immediate Post-Treatment 1 Year Post-Treatment Time of Measurement

133 Figure 4

Longitudinal Change in Students' Acceptance of Evolution

T T YU~- - ?'.tl * ~-k : •*T-:, -vci >s. Si? 1 <"-"= 5C-.?> 1 m ' * JL^ -"; IS<**«£ *?*- i-:»»<•

£\££lxf.$!£ C*S

Pre-Treatment Immediate Post-Treatment 1 Year Post-Treatment Time of Measurement Boxplots represent means, quartiles, and extreme values. Circles are outliers.

1 Appendix A

Letter Requesting Permission for Access to Research Site

Dear AGS Director, I am pursuing doctoral studies in science education at McGill University. I am currently engaged in a research project in which I seek to better understand how past and present students of the Arkansas Governor' School understand fundamental principles of the field of biology as well as some of the basic concepts of geology and astronomy. I hope that this work will help scientists, educators, and curriculum developers to better support students' learning by improving science curricula.

I would greatly appreciate being able to conduct my study with the Area I Natural Science students at AGS in order to learn about their understanding of these important concepts, and I would like to ask for your permission to conduct this study in your school. For this research, I will collect data from the Natural Science students on the first and last day of the course I will be teaching. This research will involve administration of a questionnaire, which has been my practice in previous years of teaching at AGS. I also intend to conduct brief interviews (an hour or less) with approximately 6 students on an entirely voluntary basis.

Every effort will be made to protect the privacy of the participants. Students' participation in this study will be completely voluntary which means that they can withdraw at any time during the study. If you are willing to allow me to conduct this research at your school, I would also appreciate an opportunity to talk with you about this study and any concerns you may have about the proposed activities.

This study has implications for future curriculum development in the natural sciences. Your help is crucial and I hope that you will be willing to allow me to conduct this study at your school. I look forward to your response or questions. Please feel free to contact me or Dr. Brian Alters, my advisor at McGill.

Sincerely yours,

Jason R. Wiles, Department of Integrated Studies in Education McGill University 3700 rue McTavish Montreal, QC Canada H3A 1Y2 Phone:(514)398-5469 Fax:(514)398-4529 Email: [email protected]

135 Dr. Alters may be reached at the above physical address, by phone at (514) 398- 5151, or via e-mail at [email protected].

The McGill University Faculty of Education maintains an Ethics Review Board for studies using human subjects. Any complaints or problems concerning any research project may, and should, be reported to the board at 514-398-7039.

136 Appendix B

INFORMED CONSENT LETTER (PARENTS)

Dear Parent of an AGS Natural Science Student,

I am pursuing doctoral studies in science education at McGill University. I am currently engaged in a research project in which I seek to better understand how past and present students of the Arkansas Governor' School understand fundamental principles of the field of biology as well as some of the basic concepts of geology and astronomy. I hope that this work will help scientists, educators, and curriculum developers to better support students' learning by improving science curricula.

I hope to work with your son/daughter as a part of this study. For the purposes of the research I would like to ask for your permission to work with your child to collect data. This research will involve administration of conceptual questionnaires, and perhaps an individual interview if your AGS student would like to donate about an hour of their free time for the interview activity. It might be helpful for me to record interviews via audiotape, so please indicate if you are willing to allow your child to participate in an interview, and if so, if you are also willing to allow me to tape the interview. Interview tapes will be erased after careful transcription, and students' identities will not be associated with the transcripts.

The identity of your child will not be disclosed in any reports or published articles. Your child's participation in this study will be completely voluntary which means that she/he can withdraw at any time during the study. I do not foresee any potential risks or discomfort to your child as a result of participating in this study. I may use the data in my future studies for which I am also asking your permission. The identity of your child will always be kept anonymous in future writing as well. I would greatly appreciate your cooperation and support in this regard.

I will be more than happy to share our findings with participants, and my results may be used to inform future research to be submitted as part of my dissertation, as well as for possible publication in professional journal(s) and/or newsletters.

Thank you for considering this request. I would greatly appreciate your cooperation in this endeavor. If you have any questions about this study or future studies, please contact me or Dr. Brian Alters, my advisor at McGill University.

Sincerely,

Jason R. Wiles, Department of Integrated Studies in Education McGill University 3700 rue McTavish Montreal, QC Canada H3A 1Y2 Phone:(514)398-5469 Fax:(514)398-4529 Email: [email protected]

137 Dr. Alters may be reached at the above physical address, by phone at (514) 398-5151, or via e-mail at [email protected].

I have discussed with the parents of (participant's name) the procedures listed in the Informed Consent Form explicitly pointing out potential risks or discomforts. I have asked whether any questions remain and have answered these questions to the best of my ability.

Date Investigator's Signature

Participants, please make sure you agree to the following statements before giving consent to participate, and indicate below how you choose to participate.

• I understand the purpose of this study and know about the risks, benefits and inconveniences that this research project entails. • I understand that I am free to withdraw at anytime from the study without any penalty or prejudice. • I understand that this research will not affect my grades or evaluation of my work. • I understand how confidentiality will be maintained during this research project. • I understand the anticipated uses of data, especially with respect to publication, communication and dissemination of results.

I have read the above and I understand all of the above conditions. I freely give consent and voluntarily agree to allow my child to participate in this

study if they wish to do so.

I will allow my child to fill out the questionnaires.

I will allow my child to participate in an interview.

I will allow my child's interview to be audiotaped.

Name (please print)

Signature Date

139 Fax:(514)398-4529 Email: [email protected]

Dr. Alters may be reached at the above physical address, by phone at (514) 398-5151, or via e-mail at [email protected].

I have discussed with (participant's name) the procedures listed in the Informed Assent Form explicitly pointing out potential risks or discomforts. I have asked whether any questions remain and have answered these questions to the best of my ability.

Date Investigator's Signature

Participants, please make sure you agree to the following statements before giving assent to participate, and indicate below how you choose to participate.

I have read the above and I understand all of the above conditions. I freely give assent and voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

I will fill out the questionnaires.

I will participate in an interview.

I do not mind having my interview audiotaped.

Name (please print)

Signature Date

142 The MATE Instrument and Scoring Instructions

(Slightly modified from: Rutledge and Warden, 1999; Rutledge and Sadler, 2007.)

The MATE Instrument

For the following items, please indicate your agreement/disagreement with the given statements using the following scale. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

1. Organisms existing today are the result of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

2. The theory of evolution is incapable of being scientifically tested. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

3. Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes which have occurred over millions of years. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

4. The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

5. Most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

6. The available data are ambiguous (unclear) as to whether evolution actually occurs. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

7. The age of the earth is less than 20,000 years. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

8. There is a significant body of data which supports evolutionary theory. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

9. Organisms exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E 10. Evolution is not a scientifically valid theory. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

11. The age of the earth is at least 4 billion years. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

12. Current evolutionary theory is the result of sound scientific research and methodology. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

13. Evolutionary theory generates testable predictions with respect to the characteristics of life. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

14. The theory of evolution cannot be correct since it disagrees with religious scriptures about creation. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

15. Humans exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

16. Evolutionary theory is supported by factual, historical, and laboratory data. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

17. Much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

18. The theory of evolution brings meaning to the diverse characteristics and behaviors observed in living forms. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree A B C D E

19. With few exceptions, organisms on earth came into existence at about the same time. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree ABC D E

20. Evolution is a scientifically valid theory. Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree ABC D E

150 Scoring Instructions for the MATE

To account for positively and negatively phrased items, the scaling of responses must be appropriately reversed so that responses indicative of a high acceptance of evolutionary theory receive a score of 5 while answers indicative of a low acceptance receive a score of 1.

Step 1: Scoring of items 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 20 is as follows: Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 Undecided = 3 Disagree = 2 Agree = 1

Step 2: Scoring of items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 19 is as follows: Strongly Agree = 1 Agree = 2 Undecided =3 Disagree = 4 Strongly Agree = 5

Step 3: An individual's score on the MATE is equal to the sum of the scaled responses to all 20 items.

151