Does the Nature of Science Influence College Students' Learning of Biological Evolution?: Wilbert Butler Jr

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2009 Does the Nature of Science Influence College Students' Learning of Biological Evolution?: Wilbert Butler Jr.

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

DOES THE NATURE OF SCIENCE INFLUENCE COLLEGE STUDENTS‘ LEARNING OF

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION?

WILBERT BUTLER, JR.

A Dissertation submitted to the School of Teacher Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2009

The members of the Committee approved the Dissertation of Wilbert Butler, Jr. defended on

December 4, 2008.

______Sherry Southerland Professor Directing Dissertation

______Frederick Davis Outside Committee Member

______Alejandro Gallard Committee Member

______Jon Stallins Committee Member

Approved:

______Walt Wager, Chair, School of Teacher Education

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above named committee members.

Dedicated to:

My wife, my mother, and my sister

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Over the years, I have come to the realization that I have been blessed with many talents and for that I am thankful especially to God for what he has made possible.

I would like to express my gratitude for my diligent committee members – Sherry

Southerland, Frederick Davis, Alejandro Gallard, and Jon Stallins – for the role that they played in my professional growth and development as an aspiring educator. I appreciate the strengths and candor that each committee member exhibited in our discussions which helped me tremendously in the development and conducting of my research. My committee members were supportive in allowing me to be open with my ideas but firm on points important to maintaining the credibility of my study. I am especially thankful to my major professor for breaking bread with me and putting her foot down with diplomacy.

Furthermore, I am forever thankful to God for placing three important women in my life.

First to my wife, LaMonica, who with an open heart was very supportive and considerate of what

I was trying to accomplish. I thank her for the meals, ideas and the love notes left on my pillow when I came to bed late. My sister and mom whom I talked with everyday were great sounding boards even when they pretended to understand and showing patience when I couldn‘t talk.

Many thanks go out to my son, Austin, who never complained when I couldn‘t do something because of my studies. He never made me feel that I was neglecting him.

Furthermore, I must thank the graduate students that I collaborated with as we ventured through school, and to Calandra Walker that proof-read, made corrections when I couldn‘t and helped me figure out options in Microsoft Word to get things done. And let me not forget Carol

Zimmerman for setting up my classes for my research twice and TCC for helping me financially.

Last but not least, my gratitude goes out to Felicia Moore Mensah for her support and

iv inciting me to attend graduate school. Other supporters in their different ways were Frank

Brown, Vera Mack, Donmetrie Clark, Kenya Thompkins, Leigh Brown, Brenda Jarmon, Dallas

Williams, Eddy Stringer, Patricia Green-Powell, Joi Walker and the student participants.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ………...... xi

List of Figures ...... xii

Abstract ……...... xiii

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Significance of the Study ...... 6

Research Questions ...... 7

Limitations of the Study...... 7

Definitions of Terms ...... 8

2. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………… 10

Introduction ...... 10

What is Scientific Literacy? ...... 10

What is Understanding? ...... 12

Introducing the Nature of Science ...... 13

Importance of Understanding the Nature of Science ...... 14

Why do Students lack NOS Understanding? ...... 15

Research on NOS in the Post Secondary Setting ...... 17

Assessment of Students‘ Conceptions of the NOS ...... 22

Development, Use, and Assessment of NOS ...... 25

Introduction of Evolution ...... 26

Students‘ Understanding of Evolution ...... 30

Research on Students‘ Understanding of Evolution ...... 32

Role of NOS in the Understanding of Evolution ...... 33

Intersection of Knowledge, Belief and Acceptance ...... 34

3. METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………… . 36

Methodological Approach ...... 36

Quasi-Experimental Design ...... 37

Setting ...... 37

Participants ...... 37

Benefits of Being a Teacher-Researcher ...... 38

Instruction/Activities Presented ...... 39

Description of Instrumentation ...... 44

Data Analysis ...... 47

Steps to Ensure Rigor of Research ...... 54

Steps for the Methodology ...... 54

Personal Perspective ...... 55

Limitations of Methodology ...... 56

4. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 58

Students‘ Conceptual Framework of Microevolution ...... 58

Differences in Conceptions of Evolution between the NOS Rich and Implicit NOS Classes ...... 58

Comparison of Change in Understanding of Evolution ...... 59

Trends Observed in Analysis of CINS Data ...... 65

Students‘ Acceptance of Evolution ...... 69

Summary ...... 72

5. ANALYSIS OF THE QUALITATIVE DATA ...... 74

vii

Use of Specific Conceptions of Evolution: Comparison of Students‘ Understanding of Evolution across Courses ...... 74

Comparison of Informed Conceptions of Evolution across each Course ...... 79

Assessment of Students‘ Understanding of Evolution using a Biological Phenomenon ...... 82

Students‘ Understanding of the Nature of Science ...... 84

Data from Course Writings ...... 85

Data from Interviews ...... 86

Data from a Survey of Students‘ Understanding of NOS and the VNOS-B ...... 86

Summary Comparison of Change in Understanding ...... 91

The Role of NOS in Understanding Evolution ...... 94

Summary ...... 95

6. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION ...... 96

Assertion 1 ...... 96

Assertion 2 ...... 98

Assertion 3 ...... 99

Assertion 4 ...... 100

Implications ...... 102

Limitations of Study ...... 103

Suggestions for Further Research ...... 104

7. APPENDIX……………...... 106

Appendix A ...... 106

Appendix B ...... 107

viii

Appendix C ...... 109

Appendix D ...... 117

Appendix E ...... 120

Appendix F ...... 130

Appendix G ...... 135

Appendix H ...... 140

Appendix I ...... 145

Appendix J ...... 147

Appendix K ...... 149

Appendix L ...... 152

Appendix M ...... 161

Appendix N ...... 180

Appendix O ...... 188

Appendix P ...... 189

Appendix Q ...... 190

Appendix R ...... 191

Appendix S ...... 192

Appendix T ...... 200

Appendix U ...... 202

Appendix V ...... 216

Appendix W ...... 218

Appendix X ...... 219

Appendix Y ...... 220

8. REFERENCES ………………………………………………………… ..... 222

9. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………… .. 240

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Comparison of instruments used to assess NOS ...... 24

Table 3.1: Sequence of lecture topics and/or activities ...... 44

Table 3.2: Codes used for determining participants‘ conceptions of NOS ...... 48

Table 3.3: Illustrative examples of responses to VNOS items ...... 49

Table 4.1: Test of Between-Subjects Effects on CINS Pretest Data ...... 59

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics for CINS Students‘ Scores ...... 60

Table 4.3: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts of CINS Scores ...... 61

Table 4.4: Comparison of Percentage Correct on CINS Responses ...... 67

Table 4.5: CINS Responses based on ―need‖ ...... 68

Table 4.6: Pre-instruction MATE Data Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ...... 70

Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics for MATE Data Pre- and Post-Instruction ...... 70

Table 4.8: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts of MATE Data ...... 71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: View of NOS Questionnaire, Form B ...... 45

Figure 4.1: Explicit, Reflective NOS Pretest ...... 62

Figure 4.2: Explicit, Reflective NOS Posttest ...... 62

Figure 4.3: Implicit NOS Pretest ...... 63

Figure 4.4: Implicit NOS Posttest ...... 63

Figure 4.5: Comparison of Pre- and Post- Mean CINS Scores...... 64

Figure 4.6: Comparison of Pre- and Post- Median CINS Scores ...... 64

Figure 4.7: Comparison of Pre- and Post- Mean MATE Scores ...... 71

Figure 5.1: Comparison of the Number of Coded Responses Observed across Classes ...... 75

Figure 5.2: Percentage of Informed Responses Compared across Weeks and across Treatment Groups ...... 80

Figure 5.3: Assessment of Biological Phenomenon (Aloe Plant)...... 84

Figure 5.4: Comparison of Select Nature of Science Codes in Students‘ Writings ...... 86

Figure 5.5: Comparison of Informed Responses to Nature of Science Survey ...... 87

Figure 5.6: Comparison of Informed Responses to Nature of Science Questionnaire ...... 88

xii

ABSTRACT

Evolutionary theory is considered by many to be an important cornerstone to the entire discipline to biology. Despite its recognized importance by biologists, public understanding of evolution is considered to be woefully lacking. There is a robust and diverse research literature that addresses teaching and learning issues in evolution education. This research has been reviewed and summarized several times highlighting important insights gained from existing work (see for example Alters & Nelson, 2002; Demastes-Southerland, Trowbridge, & Cummins, 1992; Rowe, 1998; Smith, Siegel, & McInerney, 1995). Despite the volume of research on evolution education and the progress that has been made in describing some of the barriers to effectively teaching and learning it, evolutionary biology remains a problematic area for science education (Hammer & Polnick, 2007; Wenglinsky & Silverstein, 2007). This quasi-experimental, mixed-methods study assessed the influence of the nature of science (NOS) instruction on college students‘ learning of biological evolution. In this research, conducted in two introductory biology courses, in each course the same instruction was employed, with one important exception: in the experimental section students were involved in an explicit, reflective treatment of the nature of science (Explicit, reflective NOS), in the traditional treatment section, NOS was implicitly addressed (traditional treatment). In both sections, NOS aspects of science addressed included is tentative, empirically based, subjective, inferential, and based on relationship between scientific theories and laws. Students understanding of evolution, acceptance of evolution, and understanding of the nature of science were assessed before, during and after instruction. Data collection entailed qualitative and quantitative methods including Concept Inventory for Natural Selection (CINS), Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) survey, Views of nature of Science (VNOS-B survey), as well as interviews, classroom observations, and journal writing to address understand students‘ views of science and understanding and acceptance of evolution. The quantitative data were analyzed via inferential statistics and the qualitative data were analyzed using grounded theory. The data analysis allowed for the construction and support for four assertions: Assertion 1: Students engaged in explicit and reflective NOS specific instruction significantly improved their understanding of the nature of science concepts. Alternatively, students engaged in instruction using an implicit approach to the nature of science did not

xiii improve their understanding of the nature of science to the same degree. The VNOS-B results indicated that students in the explicit, reflective NOS class showed the better understanding of the NOS after the course than students in the implicit NOS class. The increased understanding of NOS demonstrated by students in the explicit, reflective NOS class compared to students in the implicit NOS class can be attributed to the students‘ engagement in explicit and reflective NOS instruction that was absent in the implicit NOS class. Post VNOS results from students in the explicit, reflective NOS class showed marked improvement in the targeted aspects of NOS (empirical nature of scientific knowledge, inferential nature of scientific knowledge, subjective nature of scientific knowledge, the distinction between scientific law and theory, and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge) compared to the result of the pretest while the scores of students in the implicit NOS class demonstrated little change. Assertion 2: Students in the explicit, reflective NOS class section made greater gains in their understanding of evolution than students in the traditional class. The explicit, reflective NOS class demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in their understanding of biological evolution after the course, while the changes observed in the implicit NOS group were not found to be statistically significant--this despite that the manner in which evolution was taught was held constant across the two sections. Thus, the explicit, reflective NOS approach to the teaching of biological evolution seems to be more effective than many discussed in the literature in supporting student learning about evolution. Assertion 3: The conceptual gains by students in the explicit, reflective NOS course section were allowed by the affective “room” that a sophisticated understanding of the nature of the nature of science provides in a classroom. The data collected from this study collectively indicate that a sophisticated understanding of NOS allows students to recognize the boundaries of science. We argue that an explicit and reflective engagement of the NOS aspects helps the students understand the defining aspects of science better. Assertion #4: A change in students’ understanding of evolution does not necessitate a change in students’ acceptance of evolution. The results showed that students engaged in explicit and reflective NOS specific instruction significantly improved their understanding of NOS concepts and the understanding of evolution. However, there was not a significant change in acceptance of evolution related to the change in understanding These results demonstrate that the nature of science instruction plays an important role in

xiv the teaching and learning of biological evolution. Nevertheless, this NOS instruction must be explicit and reflective in nature. Students that engage explicitly and reflectively on specific tenets of NOS not only developed a better understanding of the NOS aspects but also a better understanding of biological evolution. Therefore, science teachers in elementary, middle, secondary and post-secondary education should consider implementing an explicit, reflective approach to the nature of science into their science curriculum not only for teaching evolution but for other controversial topics as well.

It ill befits our great people, four generations after Darwin and Wallace published their epochal discovery of evolution by natural selection, to turn their backs on it, to pretend that it is unimportant or uncertain, to adopt euphemistic expressions to hide and soften its impact, to teach it only as one alternative theory, to leave it for advanced courses in universities, where the multitudes cannot encounter it, or, if it is dealt with at all in a school biology course, to present it as unobtrusively and near the end of the course as possible, so that the student will fail to appreciate how every other feature and principle found in living things is in reality an outgrowth of its universal operation.

Muller, 1959 p. 305 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Since the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, biological evolution has provided explanations of natural phenomenon that have not been available through other scientific theories. Because of this, evolution has long been recognized as the conceptual cornerstone of the biological sciences (Dobzhansky, 1973; Mayr, 1982). Recent science education reform efforts have acknowledged its importance by emphasizing the need for students to develop a rich understanding of evolution, reasoning that such an understanding is necessary to integrate knowledge of the natural world (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1995). Since evolution is posed as the most single unifying theme within the discipline of biology, National Academy of Science (1998) argues that to teach biology without focusing on evolution deprives students of a powerful concept that brings great order and coherence to our understanding of life. The importance of understanding evolution is also stressed by the Benchmarks for Science Literacy that states, ―The educational goal should be for all children to understand the concept of evolution by natural selection, the evidence and arguments that support it, and its importance in history‖ (cited in NAS, 1998, p. 47). The increasing focus on evolution as a topic of educational research indicates its growing importance among scholars (Good, 1994). ―In the past decade, the academic community has increased considerably its activity concerning the teaching and learning of evolution‖ (Alters & Nelson, 2002, p. 1891). Some representative events include: the convening of the National Evolution Research Conference, which brought together educational researchers to identify and discuss critical issues in evolution education (Good et al. 1992); the establishing of a Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE) Education Committee, which organizes educational symposia at the SSE annual conferences and National Association of Biology Teachers‘ conventions (Eckstrand, 1998); the holding of a

recent National conference on Teaching Evolution (2000); and a host of National Science Foundation funded efforts. Despite these and numerous other related activities (i.e., research, curricula development, and informational websites), public understanding of evolution is considered woefully lacking by most researchers and educators. Regardless of the fact that evolutionary theory is extremely well-supported and non-controversial within the scientific community (NAS, 1998; Rutledge & Warden, 2000), several studies reveal that a sizable portion of Americans have little understanding of evolutionary theory and reject it as a valid explanation of the current state of life (NAS, 1998; Owen, 2006; Rutledge & Warden, 2000). Less than one- half of American adults believe that humans evolved from earlier species (National Academy of Sciences, 1998). This position presents problems not only for the teaching but also for the learning of evolution. The controversial nature of the subject has caused teachers to avoid or superficially teach evolution in the past (Affanato, 1986; Elgin, 1983; Hickman, 1992; Johnson, 1985; McCormack, 1982; Nelkin, 1982; Shankar, 1989; Skoog, 1992). I argue that this difference in understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory between the scientific community and the general public represents more than a lag between the generation of knowledge in a discipline and its dissemination to the public through the education system. Rather, it represents a gulf in understanding that has not been successfully bridged through a century of science education. Even though science education has focused on improving the public understanding of evolution, its efforts have been in vain with little effect on the science literacy of society. This lack of understanding affects evolution/science literacy, research, and academia in general (Alters & Nelson, 2002). As a result, the importance of science literacy has become a major focus of science education. In recent decades, reform efforts in science education have emphasized the goal of promoting scientific literacy for all students. According to the National Science Education Standards (NSES) (NRC, 1996), scientific literacy is ―the knowledge and understanding of science concepts and process required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity‖ (p. 22). Even though there has been an increase in the emphasis on students‘ understanding of evolution, the efforts of science education reformers to publicize the importance of evolution in understanding natural phenomena is minimal (National Academy of Sciences, 1998). The handbook includes a long term lamenting that ―many students receive little or no exposure to the most important concept in

2 modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things – biological evolution‖ (NAS, 1998, p. viii). In other words, the enthusiasm with which the importance of evolution to the biological sciences is embraced has historically not been matched by a scholarly attention (Rudolph & Stewart, 1998). Despite the relatively recent increased attention to this construct, evolution remains a relatively under-researched topic with the science education community (Cummins, Demastes, & Hafner, 1994). Much of the research designed to document student knowledge of central concepts in evolution have provided evidence that students‘ knowledge about evolution is often inconsistent with that accepted by evolutionary biologists. In every study with this focus, significant numbers of students were found to hold inaccurate knowledge of evolution before and after instruction (Blackwell, Powell, & Dukes, 2003; Brem, Ranney, & Schindel, 2002; Brumby, 1980; Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985; Jensen & Finley, 1996). Understanding evolutionary biology appears to be difficult for students, and even instruction specifically designed to address conceptual difficulties has had but limited success in leading to adequate understanding (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Blackwell, Powell, & Dukes, 2003; Brem, Ranney, & Schindel, 2002; Demastes-Southerland, Trowbridge, & Cummins, 1992). One of the most promising of the findings of research into the teaching of evolution focuses on the role of the nature of science in the teaching and learning of biological evolution (NAS, 1998; Scharmann, 1990). The nature of science has influenced science education for nearly a century (Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998). Typically, nature of science (NOS) refers to the epistemology of science as a way of knowing, or the values and beliefs inherent in the development of scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992). Although much debate continues on the more sophisticated, nuanced aspects of NOS, there is a group of ideas about NOS around which there is a consensus. These include that scientific knowledge is: 1. Tentative (subject to change with new observations and with the reinterpretations of existing observations); 2. Empirically based (based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world, however, it should be recognized that in addition to direct observation, strategies like logical reasoning and mathematical analysis can also provide empirical support for scientific assertions); 3. Subjective (science is influenced and driven by presently accepted scientific theories

and laws. The development of questions, investigations, and interpretations of data are filtered through the lens of current theory. This unavoidable subjectivity allows science to progress and remain consistent, yet also contributes to change in science when previous evidence is examined from the perspective of new knowledge. Personal subjectivity is also unavoidable. Person values, agendas, and prior experiences dictate what and how scientists conduct their work); 4. Partly the product of human inference, imagination, logical reasoning, and creativity (involves the invention of explanation); 5. Socially and culturally embedded (science is a human endeavor and, as such, is influenced by the society and culture in which it is practiced. The values and expectations of the culture determine what and how science is conducted, interpreted, and accepted); 6. Distinction between observations and inference in science (science is based on both observations and inference. Observations are gathered through the human senses or extensions of those senses. Inferences are interpretations of those observations. Perspectives of current science and the scientists guide both observations and inferences. Multiple perspectives contribute to valid multiple interpretations of observations); and 7. The functions of and relationships between scientific theories and laws (theories and laws are different kinds of scientific knowledge. Laws describe relationships, observed or perceived, of phenomena in nature. Theories are inferred explanations for natural phenomena and mechanisms for relationships among natural phenomena. Hypothesis in science may lead to either theories or laws with accumulation of substantial supporting evidence and acceptance in the scientific community. Theories and laws do not progress into one another, in the hierarchical sense, for they are distinctly and functionally different types of knowledge) (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Shavelson, & Towne, 2002). The NOS has been identified as a key element of science education reform as it is an integral factor that contributes to a student‘s development of scientific literacy (AAAS, 1989; 1993; NRC, 1996). Scientific literacy, which has been identified as a central goal of contemporary science education reform within the realm of biology, cannot be achieved without

4 an understanding of NOS and biological evolution (AAAS, 1993; BSCS, 1993; NRC, 1996). In order for someone to become scientifically literate, it is important for that individual to understand how scientific knowledge is generated. Thus, a scientifically literate person must develop an adequate understanding of NOS (Klopfer, 1969; NSTA, 1982). According to Lederman (1992), NOS is referred to as the epistemology of science or science as a way of knowing. Nature of science is a complex and abstract construct that involves reflecting on the scientific enterprise in ways not encouraged by typical textbook-based science curricular experiences (Bell, 2001). Lederman (1999) suggests that such an understanding of NOS is considered to be a significant aspect of scientific literacy. Even though students‘ understanding of the nature of science is currently being emphasized as an important educational objective worldwide (Lederman, 1992), there is much dissatisfaction with the levels of both teachers‘ and students‘ understandings of the nature of science (Duschl, 1990; Lederman, 1992). The literature suggests that understanding a scientific concept does not necessarily mean that an individual will acceptance the concept. The association of students‘ beliefs about the nature of science (NOS), beliefs about the nature of knowing, and their acceptance and understanding of evolutionary theory has been argued by many authors (Lawson, 1999; Smith & Scharmann, 1999; Southerland, 2000). In this line of reasoning, as students develop a more sophisticated understanding of the nature of science –understanding the fundamental assumptions of science and its methodologies, limitations, and boundaries – they are also more prone to accept evolutionary theory. Therefore, addressing the public‘s understanding and acceptance of biological evolution can be the key to bring about a change in the conceptual framework especially when the nature of science (NOS) is incorporated. There is empirical support for this relationship. As demonstrated by Johnson and Peebles (1987), Scharmann (1990), and Scharmann and Harris (1991), a sophisticated understanding of NOS is related to a learner‘s acceptance of evolutionary theory. It has been argued that a firm grasp of NOS concepts allows students to compare knowledge frameworks, to understand how and why knowledge produced through science is different from their religious beliefs (Settlage & Southerland, 2007). Scharmann and Harris (1992) successfully provided evidence to support the relationship between understanding the NOS and understanding of evolutionary theory. Despite the promise, NOS seems to hold for supporting the teaching of controversial and complex topics, teachers seem to not incorporate nature of science (NOS) instruction while

5 teaching complex processes such as genetics and evolution (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Abd-El- Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Bell, Lederman, & Abd-El-Khalick, 2000; Moss & Kochler, 2004; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). Likewise, while there has been robust body of research studies conducted in science education focusing on the teaching or learning of evolution (Alters & Nelson, 2002; NSTA, 2005), there has been little research studying the influence of nature of science on college students‘ conceptual understanding of evolution. It is the current challenge of science educators to move beyond process science where students learn skills similar to the so-called ―scientific method,‖ toward one that integrates cognitive abilities within a scientifically contextual situation to ultimately facilitate NOS understandings. The National Science Educational Standards (NRC, 1996) explicitly state that helping students develop adequate understanding of NOS should be one of the primary objectives for all science teachers. Developing an understanding of NOS has been the focus of much science education research over the past several decades, as understanding NOS is fundamental to promoting scientific literacy. However, barriers to implementing NOS in the classroom have been documented, and include: (1) constant pressure to cover content (Duschl & Wright, 1989), (2) classroom management issues (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995), (3) concerns for students‘ abilities to understand NOS (Duschl & Wright, 1989; Gess-Newsom & Lederman, 1995), (4) institutional constraints by administration (Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992), and (5) teaching experience (Brickhouse & Bodner, 1992; Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995). Research has indicated that NOS instruction must be explicit, reflective, and activity based in order to facilitate learning in this area (Abd-El-Khalid, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Bell, Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, 2000; Moss, Abrams, & Robb, 2001). Although scant work has been conducted at the post secondary level, given the success of explicit, reflective, and activity based instruction in K-12, it follows that providing instruction through the use of NOS with emphasis on explicit and reflective instruction may significantly improve college students‘ understanding of evolutionary processes. To date, much of the focus of research of influences of NOS instruction on the learning of evolution has focused on the philosophical aspect (Smith & Scharmann, 1999; Southerland, 2000), and there has been little empirical work addressing the influence of NOS on the learning of evolution. Significance of the Study The study is significant considering that there is scant research addressing college

6 students‘ understanding of evolution with an emphasis of NOS instruction. The information brought forth by this research will serve to provide information to college instructors as to one possible method of helping college students learn complex science processes such as evolution and genetics. It is my intention to examine the effectiveness of NOS instruction on the understanding of evolution. Mindful of the role a robust understanding of NOS may play in grappling with controversial issues; this research is focused on exploring the premise that there is a gap in the existing research that overlooks the students‘ understanding of NOS and its effect on the understanding of the processes of biological evolution. This study will attempt to close this gap in the research. Classroom teachers and science educators should be able to take the results of this work and use it to help determine which teaching approach should be used to present biological evolution to college students. Although, we cannot affect the controversial nature of this subject area, perhaps this research will be able to inform the teacher‘s efforts to allow students to grapple with this topic without undue personal stress and discomfort. The researcher‘s focus in this study is to examine the influence of NOS instruction on students‘ understanding of biological evolution. Research Questions

This research is designed to examine the influence of explicit, reflective, and activity based NOS instruction on students‘ understanding of biological evolution. The study is designed to elucidate the following questions: 1. Do college non-major students engaged in a biology course that includes an explicit and reflective approach to NOS have greater conceptual gains about biological evolution than students enrolled in a similar class without the NOS emphasis?

2. How does an understanding of the nature of science relate to students‘ understanding of evolutionary concepts (e.g., natural selection, adaptation, variation)?

Limitations of the Study Limitations are potential confounding factors of a study. The possible limitations identified for this study are: 1. Use of only one teacher. 2. The subjects will be aware of their involvement in a research experiment (Hawthorne effect).

3. The number of pre- and post-survey instruments could adversely influence participation, thus influencing the characteristics of the eventual participants. 4. Due to the controversial nature of the study, students may be reluctant to participate in the study or may not answer with candor. Thus, the results may not accurately reflect the opinions of all members of the intended population. Definition of Terms

Acceptance: Recognition of a scientific knowledge claim as representing the most powerful and most likely explanation for a phenomenon, a recognition based on a systematic evaluation of evidence. Assessment: Procedures, techniques and instruments used to determine how well students are achieving curricular goals; i.e. what students know and can do, and to what extent an instructional strategy or program is working. Belief: A subjective way of knowing and a personal truths as opposed to truths about the world. Belief is often extra-rational, that is, it is not based on evaluation of evidence, it is subjective, and it is often intertwined with affect. Curriculum: An comprehensive plan for instruction that details what students are to know, assessment procedures, teaching and learning methodologies, and the context in which teaching and learning occur. Creationism: Is the idea that a supernatural power or powers (God) created the universe and all that it is in it in essentially its present form at one time. Evolution: Refers to the theory of biological evolution, specifically that all life forms today are modified forms of past organisms, and that natural selection and genetic variation provide the mechanism and means for change over time. Fact: A natural phenomenon repeatedly confirmed by observation. Hypothesis: An explanation of one or more phenomena in nature that can be tested by observations, experiments, or both. In order to be considered scientific, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, which means that it can be proven to be incorrect. Inference: A conclusion drawn from evidence. Law: A description of how a natural phenomenon will occur under certain circumstances. Nature of Science: The values and assumptions inherent to the development of scientific

8 knowledge (Lederman & Zeidler, 1987). Science: A method of explaining the natural world involving the assumption that the universe operates according to regularities that can be systematically investigated and understood. Science emphasizes empirical data and the logical testing of natural phenomena and therefore cannot use supernatural causation in its explanations or make statements about supernatural forces (NSTA, 1997). Theory: A set of universal statements that explain the natural world. Theories change or are modified as scientists make new observations and discoveries or develop new frameworks to understand the data, but theories must be formulated and tested on the basis of observable evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power (NSTA, 1997). Ideas are not referred to as theories in science unless they are supported by large bodies of evidence that make the possibility of their abandonment very remote (NAS, 1998).

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

My major objective in this study is to determine the effectiveness of NOS instruction in student learning of biological evolution in a college classroom. The purpose of this literature review is to discuss: (1) scientific literacy; (2) understanding of science; (3) nature of science research; (4) students‘ lack of NOS understanding (5) NOS in general college science class; (6) assessment of students‘ conceptions of the nature of science; (7) development, use, and assessment of curricula designed to improve student conceptions of nature of science; (11) introduction of evolution; (12) students‘ understanding of evolution; (13) science education and understanding of evolution; and (14) nature of science and evolution. Additionally, I will situate and explain the place of the present study in these bodies of literature. What is scientific literacy? The primary goal for the current science education reform initiative is to prepare and develop a society that is scientifically literate (AAAS, 1989, 1993; NRC, 1996) who will be responsible for personal decisions that affect the local and global community (Bell, Lederman, & Abd-El-Khalick, 2000; Smith & Scharmann, 1999). Not all educators agree to the meaning of the term scientific literacy, and without a clear definition, science reform outcomes are vague, and often difficult to ascertain (DeBoer, 2000). The National Science Education Standards (NSES) holds that scientific literacy implies that a person can identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed (NSES, 1996). Scientific literacy means that a person can ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about everyday experiences. It means that a person has the ability to describe, explain, and predict natural phenomena. Scientific literacy entails being able to read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions. Scientific literacy implies that a person can identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed. A literate citizen should be able to evaluate the quality of scientific information based on its source and the methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate

arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately. (NSES, 1996, p. 22) The importance of a scientifically literate society is emphasized as social and political issues that have a strong scientific component have come to the forefront in the past decade, calling for "21st century skills" (Holbrook & Rannikmae, 2007; Walker & Zeidler, 2007). Issues related to reproductive technologies, the environment, and energy, for example, require a scientifically literate society for wise decision making in the coming years. We live in an age of constant scientific discovery where scientific issues are the subject of many debates. As a consumer, as a business professional, and as a citizen, individuals will have to form opinions about these and other science-based issues if they are to participate in modern society (Hazen, 2002). Yet the current scientific literacy of the American people is suspect. In a survey of Americans adults conducted by the National Science Foundation, only about a third could describe what it means to study something ―scientifically‖ (National Science Foundation, 2002). By any measure, the average American is not scientifically literate, even with a college degree: At a recent Harvard University commencement, an informal poll revealed that fewer than ten (10) percent of graduating seniors could explain why it is hotter in summer than in winter. A survey taken at George Mason University, where one can argue that the teaching of undergraduates enjoys a higher status than at some other institutions, shows results that are scarcely more encouraging. Fully half of the senior who filled out a scientific literacy survey could not correctly identify the difference between an atom and a molecule (Hazen, 2002). The problem, of course, is not limited to universities. Scholars who have researched the issue estimate the numbers of scientifically literate Americans to be: Fewer than 7% of adults 22% of college graduates 26% of those with graduate degrees The number of Americans who are scientifically literate by the standards of the research is distressingly low. Americans at all academic levels have not developed the basic scientific background they may need to cope with the life they will have to lead (Hazen, 2002).

Some profess that the general goal for scientific literacy is idealistic, and unattainable (Shamos, 1995). Shamos, however, supports relevant aspects of science when he calls for the general public to have a ―scientific awareness,‖ and argues that: Knowing science in the formal academic sense may not be a necessary condition to attaining scientific literacy in the social sense. Knowing what science is about, is a prerequisite to such literacy….We will never get the mass of our population to understand science in detail, but we may be able to instill some understanding of how the enterprise works, and how scientists‘ practice their discipline-enough, one hopes, to serve the societal purpose of scientific literacy. (p. 46) Science educators the world over have spent the last decade in an all-out effort on the problem of scientific literacy. Inclusive in efforts to improve scientific literacy is a better understanding of the NOS and biological evolution (National Academy of Sciences, 1998). This research will, hopefully, shed some light on effective means of addressing the level of scientific literacy of the future citizens of our society. What is understanding? At the heart of the discussion of teaching and learning evolutionary biology there needs to be an explicit exploration of what it means to understand evolution. That is, what do we expect students to know and what do we expect them to be able to do with that knowledge to demonstrate their understanding? Research in evolution education has been primarily with students‘ declarative knowledge of concepts, their familiarity with characteristics of science, and their recognition of certain worldview assumptions (Smith, Siegel & McInerney, 1995). These ideas are fragmentary in the sense that they are generally not coordinated within a cohesive framework of what it means to understand evolution. A more systematic way of thinking about understanding in evolutionary biology is provided below. Discussions of the nature of understanding and how to teach for understanding are an active area of scholarship in education research (NRC, 2000; Wiske, 1998). It is widely acknowledged that understanding involves more than the memorization of a set of facts or facility with specific skills. Understanding is built on knowledge and skills but it also entails structured knowledge in a disciplinary area that can be used to ―think and act flexibly with what one knows‖ (Perkins, 1998, p. 40). This notion of understanding as ―usable knowledge‖ (NRC, 2000, p. 8) involves a body of knowledge, or facts, that is organized around a disciplinary

12 framework for relating the facts to one another. From this perspective, understanding is said to be generative because acquiring knowledge with understanding implies that one is able to apply that knowledge to solve new problems and learn new topics (Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999). Thus, understanding is not a static attribute of one‘s knowledge but mental activity that employs that knowledge. Those mental activities may include a) constructing relationships, b) extending and applying knowledge, c) reflecting about experiences, d) articulating what one knows, and e) making knowledge one‘s own (Carpenter & Lehrer, 1999). Another feature of this view of understanding is that the knowledge and skills are considered context dependent, that is, understanding implies that one has a sense of when that knowledge, or those skills, might be useful in solving a particular problem. Having a richly structured information base, accompanied by performance skills, make it possible to engage in disciplinary activities such as planning tasks, recognizing patterns, and generating explanations. It is the lack of understanding that has contributed to inadequate degree of scientific literacy from a civic view (understanding public issues as good citizens); aesthetic view (understanding the laws of nature that helps us make sense of our everyday activities); and intellectual coherent view (understanding the discoveries of science that set the intellectual climate of the era) (Hazen, 2002). Introducing the Nature of Science

Research related to NOS, as Lederman (1992) points out in his comprehensive review of the research, ―can be conveniently divided into four related, but distinct, lines of research: (a) assessment of student conceptions of the nature of science; (b) development, use, and assessment of curricula designed to ―improve‖ student conceptions of the nature of science; (c) assessment of, and attempts to improve, teachers‘ conceptions of the nature of science; and (d) identification of the relationship among teachers‘ conceptions, classroom practice, and students‘ conceptions‖ (p. 332). My research addresses how the use of NOS instruction shapes students‘ understanding biological evolution. The nature of science has a rich history as an important element of science curricula (Duschl, 1990; Jenkins, 1996; Lederman, 1992; Rudolph, 2000). Attention on students‘ understanding of the nature of science raises epistemological issues in classrooms and is seen as a way to help students become more competent in science (Matthews, 1998). Economic, utilitarian, democratic, social, and cultural justifications have been used to support the teaching

13 knowledge about science--instead of a sole focus on teaching scientific knowledge (Duschl, 1990). These justifications are significant because very few students become scientists; most students will not study science beyond their years of compulsory schooling (Millar, 1996). However, there was a time in which the primary purpose of science teaching was thought to be helping students prepare for college science courses or careers in science and technology (Klopfer, 1969). For the most part, K-12 educational objectives in science are still aligned with the goal of preparing future scientists (Osbourne, Ratcliffe, Collins, Millar & Duschl, 2003). In many countries such as the United States, a single curriculum tries to address the needs of the future scientists as well as the future consumers of science. One perspective is that science curricula ought to be based on ideas that are most likely to enter the public discourse or influence personal actions (Millar, 1996), and these ideas should be evaluated based on their utility for most students (Osborne et al., 2003). Thus, this perspective concludes that the aim of public schooling in science is to produce more effective citizens, rather than focusing solely on producing future scientists (Smith & Scharmann, 1999). With this focus on preparing citizens knowledgeable about science, educators have argued for the inclusion of NOS in the science curriculum as a way to promote students‘ science literacy (Behnke, 1961; Klopfer, 1969; Meichtry, 1992, 1993; Settlage & Southerland, 2007). These American standards documents addressed NOS in much the same way that state and international documents have included NOS as goals for science education (McComas & Olson, 1998). However, even with this goal to teach students about science via emphasis on the nature of science, unfortunately teachers continue to adhere to teaching science as a body of facts (McComas, Almazroa, & Clough, 1998). Importance of Understanding the Nature of Science In addition to these broad discussions about how familiarity with the nature of science can affect understanding science generally, the role of the understanding the nature of science has been particularly prominent in discussions of teaching and learning evolution. The discussions within evolution education tend to focus on philosophical issues such as the demarcation of scientific and non-scientific approaches to understanding, and the use of specialized terminology such as theory, fact, and proof to describe the products of science (Scharmann & Harris, 1992; Smith, Siegel, & McInerney, 1995).

Some scholars argue that science education curriculum should help students understand more than science content; it should help them understand how science is related to larger cultures (Matthews, 2001). Clough (2000) maintains that science teaching is effective when it reveals to students the fundamental assumptions operative in the building of scientific knowledge so that students may cross into the scientific culture whenever they feel the need. Science is becoming an ever-increasing part of the daily lives of all people and an understanding of NOS is essential for engaging more fully with the issues science presents (Osborne et al., 2003). Consequently, there is an emerging consensus that NOS is ―…an essential and central element to the school science curriculum‖ (Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliffe, 2004, p. 655). A frequently repeated justification for teaching NOS to students is that NOS understanding is strongly related to the development of responsible decision-making and positive citizenship (Meichtry, 1992; Smith & Scharmann, 1999). These understandings of NOS have the potential to help students become intelligent consumers of scientific knowledge and to make thoughtful, informed decisions. Decision-making and citizenship goals are often associated with a science curriculum that is focused on the relationships among science, technology, and society (STS). In fact, NOS is ―implicitly associated‖ with STS in modern concepts of science education (Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2002, p. 2). The implicit argument is that in order for students to make better decisions about STS issues, they need an awareness of ethical problems and political challenges. Teaching NOS helps students understand the ways scientists‘ work is impacted by their morals and ethics (Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). Although a sophisticated understanding of the nature of science is an ambitious goal for science instruction, a variety of educators offer specific suggestions for achieving this goal (Shipman et al., 2003). I have incorporated much of what is known as important in teaching NOS in the lessons/activities in my research: NOS instruction employed in my experimental treatment section was explicit and reflective as described by Lederman et al., (2002), and it was situated within a science content area (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Johnston & Southerland, 2002; Olsen & Clough, 2001; Smith & Scharmann, 1999). Why do Students Lack NOS Understanding? Even though reform documents such as Benchmarks for science literacy (AAAS, 1993) and NSES (NRC, 1996) emphasize students‘ understanding of the NOS, research has illustrated that students possess inadequate knowledge and understanding of several aspects of the NOS

(Lederman & Lederman, 2004). Although these documents have highlighted the importance of teaching the NOS, a major gap still exists between policy and classroom practice (Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliff, 2004). Lederman and Lederman (2004) suggest that two major reasons contribute to this discrepancy. First, as stated earlier, there is still much division among educators as to what exactly NOS is and means. Secondly, teachers do not have familiarity with the many research-based resources that could facilitate NOS instruction in their classrooms. As a result, NOS receives scant attention in the K-12 classroom, as will be described. Furthermore, Bartholomew et al. (2004) argues that most science teachers focus on ―what we know‖ (p. 658), (i.e. scientific facts), at the expense of ―how we know‖ (p. 658), (i.e. the NOS). After conducting a historical review of the literature, McComas et al. (1998) concluded that both teachers and science curricula appear to be bound to imparting facts, the end products of service, but neglect any treatment of how this knowledge was constructed. In a study conducted with twelve teachers, Bartholomew et al. (2004) reported that many of the teachers stated that they felt obligated to teach factual content knowledge, as this would have the greatest impact on the students‘ examination performance. In addition, many of the teachers in this study expressed concern and frustration with how curriculum demands made it difficult to focus on developing their student‘s understanding of the NOS. In other words, because these teachers felt constrained by the reality of a high-stakes examination, they chose to focus on what would provide their students with the best chance of immediate success. This they ascertained to be the scientific content and not the scientific process. In a dissertation by Catherine M. Koehler (2006) entitled ―Challenges and Strategies for Effectively Teaching the Nature of Science: A Qualitative Case Study‖, the researcher follows three (3) experienced high school biology teachers who participated in a one year long qualitative case study in which each implemented NOS activities in their high school biology classrooms. The participants encounter similar, yet somewhat different, challenges while facilitating NOS understandings in their classrooms. Two participants, Allison and Phoebe, cite time management as their most significant challenge. Allison reports three major components to the time management: (1) length of class period (43 minutes); (2) students‘ use of class time; and (3) continuity of students‘ attendance. Of course, this lack of NOS instruction in K-12 education has its influence on the post-secondary classroom, as will be discussed.

Research on NOS in the Post Secondary Setting This section of the literature review explores the NOS understandings among students in general college science classes. Several studies (Bianchini & Colburn, 2000; Haukoos & Penick, 1983, 1985; Jones, 1969; Scharmann, 1990; Spears & Zollman, 1977) looked at NOS understandings in general science courses. The purpose of this review is to highlight results from the research that can shed light on the findings from this study. Many studies report several barriers as reasons for the teachers‘ lack of attention to NOS understanding during their student teaching experiences. Pre-service teachers‘ cite barriers that include: (1) lack of confidence in their scientific content knowledge and pedagogical practice (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002), (2) pressure to cover content (Abd-El- Khalick, et al., 1998; Dushl & Wright, 1999), (3) lack of classroom management experience (Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1995), (4) the context in which to teach NOS (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Moss & Koehler, 2004), and (5) discomfort with their own NOS understandings (Abd-El- Khalick, et al., 1998; Moss & Koehler, 2004). The issues are indicative of preservice teachers who lack the relevant experience and solid content knowledge necessary to successfully facilitate NOS understandings for students in the classroom. The findings of this research are supported by these studies. In a research study entitled ―Conceptual ecologies and their influence on nature of science conceptions: More dazed and confused than ever‖, the researchers focus on a graduate course in science education called ―The nature of science and science education‖. The class participants consist of 11 students, each of which is either a practicing teacher or a teacher on a sabbatical leave from a teaching position. These students are, as a group, experienced with a wide range of grade levels (K-12) and classes (e.g., general elementary classes, bilingual classrooms, middle school science, and high school biology. From the recommendations and previous successes of other NOS instructional efforts, Johnston and Southerland (2001) employ a series of readings, reflections, written responses, and discussions to enhance the learners‘ awareness of NOS concepts. Additionally, class sessions generally include mini science lessons (e.g., an activity using soap bubbles and their observation, an effort to understand a mechanism of the changing pitch of stirred hot chocolate, a session in which groups tried to build a model of the solar system based on observations, etc.) and explicit debriefing and discussion sessions to describe the NOS inherent in actually ―doing‖ science both

17 in the classroom and in the laboratory. When the science examples are not included in a class session, other explicit NOS activities are conducted that included card sorts of NOS terms (Gess- Newsome, 2002; Johnston & Southerland, 2001), discussion of whether or not certain questions and issues were ―scientific‖ (Smith & Scharmann, 1999), and the use of critical incidents (Johnston & Southerland, 2001; Nott & Wellington, 1998) –hypothetical situations that could take place in the classroom and the evaluation of how a teacher should react to such, and why. The course is structured based upon the following assertions from the science education literature related to NOS instruction. ―Research shows very clearly that NOS concepts must be taught deliberately and planned into a curriculum as a central theme‖ (Johnston & Southerland, 2002, p. 2). Specifically, the researchers highlight three (3) features of NOS instruction that have been shown to amplify the learning of NOS concepts: (1) NOS instruction must be explicit. Many have done work to show that NOS concepts are more readily understood by learners when such concepts are taught in an explicit manner (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Gess-Newsome, 2002; Lederman, 1999; Southerland & Gess-Newsome, 1999). (2) NOS concepts are best understood in the content of science content. Many concepts of the NOS might have some logical coherence to them on their own, but they really do not mean anything if they are not applied to science content itself. This has been suggested by others and curricular reforms and suggestions have been made as a result (Clough & Olsen, 2001; Smith & Scharmann, 1999). (3) NOS learning should be reflective. Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002) proposed that the explicit approach be augmented by the addition of a reflective component. While most studies conducted employed teachers as the subjects, the evidence garnered suggests that this approach could substantially improve learners‘ NOS views (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). When employing this approach, researchers explicitly introduced the subjects to certain NOS aspects and then provided them opportunities to reflect on these aspects. Data collected include field notes of all class sessions, the instructor‘s class notes, written reflections, and written comments on student papers, student responses to selected questions from VNOS questionnaire (pre- & post-), students‘ response papers, and students‘ final papers. The results show that the learners‘ development of NOS ideas is widely varied and largely

18 independent of one‘s scientific background. Despite some comparisons between seemingly ―opposite‖ learners, the authors offer no clear indicators of NOS learning success (Johnston & Southerland, 2002). Scharmann (1990) assesses the effects of a diversified instructional strategy versus a traditional lecture approach on freshman college students‘ understandings of the nature of scientific theories, amongst other things. Diversified instructional strategy includes combination of discussion, formal presentation, interactive question/answer section, and reflective summary. The design of the study is a nonequivalent control group. The experimental group differs from the control group in one dimension; they receive a diversified instructional strategy. After an introductory lecture on the unit topic of evolution, the investigator of this study was introduced to students and implemented the diversified instructional strategy during a period of 4.5 hours in which he provided the experimental group with an opportunity to discuss their individual and group positions regarding the theory of evolution. The control group received the same content information from the researcher, but the mode of instruction was a more traditional one. Data analysis reveals no significant differences for students‘ scores on the evolutionary content items of between-group posttest scores; however, there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores for both groups with respect to understanding of the nature of science and attitudes toward evolution. Scharmann (1990) reports that the potential reasons for not having a significant difference in an understanding of the evolutionary content might be that non-major science students are less concerned with learning the specific content of a course in general biology. He suggested that the implication of this finding might have direct influence on the curricular considerations for a non-major course. Even though both groups improved equally well in their understanding of the NOS, the author concludes that diversified instructional strategy is superior to the traditional lecture technique. Scharmann notes that the rationale behind his description of its effectiveness is that in the diversified instructional strategy students are guided to use empirical, logical, historical, and sociological criteria when attempting to establish the validity of scientific theories. However, Scharmann assumes that students will learn implicitly about these criteria and other NOS aspects just by participating in the classroom discussions. Years later, Schwartz, Lederman, and Crawford (2004) describe this view by stating that an implicit inquiry-based pedagogical approach relies on implicit messages about NOS embedded within the activities and investigations.

Scharmann (1990) reports in strictly qualitative terms that students‘ comments on the final reflections question varied considerably and a common response is that students do not realize there are so many competing ideas, values, opinions for the origins of life. Furthermore, students indicate that because of participating in the classroom discussions they were allowed to explain why they felt a certain way about the issue of the origins of life. Moreover, Scharmann reports that ―the discussion and follow up interactive instruction provided students with an opportunity to resolve potential misconceptions that may act as impediments to a more comprehensive understanding of science claims that possess potentially competing patterns of explanation‖ (p. 98). Bianchini and Colburn (2000) investigate the use of inquiry to teach about NOS to preservice elementary teachers during an inquiry-oriented general science course. The purpose of the study is to identify and characterize explicit instructional episodes and discussions related to NOS during the inquiry activities. This research is based on Schwab (1960) and other advocates of teaching science as inquiry to improve conceptions of NOS. Bianchini and Colburn (2000) investigate interactions that occur during an inquiry-based general science course in which the teacher purposefully introduces aspects of NOS in the context of the activities, instead of focusing solely on student outcomes. Interestingly, the two researchers hold different views of NOS that they felt should serve as the basis for inquiry instruction. Bianchini focuses on the social and cultural aspects of science, whereas Colburn expresses greater emphasis on the constructive values of science, such as science is empirical, creative, and supported through consensus. The authors describe their views of NOS as complementary to each other as well as overlapping. The researchers collected 20 hours of videotape, then transcribed and analyzed the data separately based on teacher and students‘ words and actions, in which they searched for explicit or implicit discussions of NOS. Bianchini and Colburn (2000) report that students do not raise NOS issues on their own, but rather respond to teacher questioning and comments by asking additional questions and offering examples from their own work. However, the study does not give any details of students‘ learning outcomes related to NOS, but provides examples on one teacher‘s approach to teaching NOS through inquiry. The findings from this study support the assertion that engaging in inquiry activities does not necessarily lead to better understanding of NOS. Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick (1998) argue that students‘ understanding of the NOS will not occur ―naturally‖.

They argue that it is essential for educators to guide learners explicitly if they are to develop a proper understanding of the NOS that supports the following results. The result suggest that if teachers want students to explicitly explore, debate, and reach consensus on NOS issues in their inquiry classes, then they must not only offer hands-on inquiry activities, but explicitly tell students for what conceptual purposes these activities are to be used and repeatedly engage students in discussions that connect the activities to ideas related to NOS. The authors describe that if NOS is a valued learning outcome, it must be given priority in instruction. If the desired impact on learners‘ conceptions of NOS is to be achieved, then it is imperative to explicitly target teaching the NOS (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). Furthermore, even with priority, the researchers argue that this study provides evidence of the difficulties associated with recognizing opportunities in different inquiry contexts. The study reveals that even if teaching about certain aspects of NOS is a goal of a course, and the teacher has knowledge of NOS aspects and is attempting to explicitly teach to NOS, difficulties still arise. The authors explain that there are always are some missed opportunities in teaching about NOS aspects. For example, explanations and guided discussions about NOS may not be as clear as intended initially. The participants‘ comments in this study revealed that even in a course in which NOS is an instructional goal, students rely on the teacher to lead them to discussions about NOS aspects in the different contexts. Students need the teacher to make connections from the inquiry activities to NOS aspects. Johnston and Southerland (2001) conclude several points relevant to the understanding of NOS. The purpose of their study was to show how four very different learners can, each in their own way and as a result of each respective conceptual ecology, come to a similar (yet flawed) understanding of science and science‘s way of knowing. The research further reinforces the idea that what is taught explicitly is not always directly translated into learning. Furthermore, the study supports that the understanding of the concepts are deeply connected to and interact with a learner‘s values and emotional commitments. Each of the studies described above focus on improving the students‘ understanding of the nature of science. All point to important points to consider and their outcomes may help me interpret my own findings. In my design of course instruction for the experimental treatment course, the explicit, reflective NOS course, I drew heavily from the assertions from this research into NOS instruction.

Assessment of Students’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science It is important that instruments used in this study were reliable as well as valid. Many of the instruments used in studies involved in the nature of science were originally ―objective‖, pencil, and paper assessments. This trend changed, however. Toward the end of the 1990‘s several researchers argued that traditional paper and pencil assessment are not adequate in fully explaining what needs to be known about teacher and student conceptions of the nature of science (Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998). These researchers suggest that interviews along with surveys with open-ended questions are required to fully and adequately describe NOS conceptions. Traditional evaluation strategies, which are usually known as summative assessments, rely heavily on paper and pencil test that rank the learning of pupils with scores and grades at a specific time in the term. These strategies include filling in the blanks for sentences and diagrams, matching components from different columns, judging items true or false, choosing the right answer from multiple-choice items, and giving short answers to questions, all of which are easy to administer and grade. However, Black (2000) describes that short, affordable and externally set and marked tests cannot produce a reliable and valid assessment of a student‘s NOS knowledge. Lowery (2000) further elaborates that these traditional strategies provide information about how well pupils recall knowledge and retain information, but do not allow for the expression of creativity or the development of original solutions to problems. Whereas open-ended questions are a form of formative assessment by which pupils are encouraged to reflect on their learning. This type of assessment has the potential to improve the conceptual understanding of pupils dramatically (Dougherty, 1997). Please note that this discussion in no way minimizes the importance of knowledge gained via rote memory; Indeed, such knowledge is important for the learner to move to other levels of knowledge such as conceptual knowledge in which the learner demonstrates the ability to apply the facts that he or she has learned. The VNOS by Lederman and O‘Malley (1990) is designed to address validity concerns about the previous paper and pencil assessments and how students interpret the questions. The VNOS uses interviews in addition to open-ended written responses to evaluate student understandings. The first version of the VNOS questionnaire contains seven (7) questions. Analysis of the semi-structure interviews with the students revealed that the researchers‘ interpretations of the meaning of students‘ written responses were inaccurate in three (3) of the

22 seven (7) cases. This finding led to a revision of the original VNOS and provided additional evidence for questioning the validity of earlier assessments (Lederman & O‘Malley, 1990). Following the first revision of the VNOS (VNOS-A), a second form was developed (VNOS-B) to assess the views held by pre-service teachers. Like form A, form B used written items followed by individual interviews. As before, participants were asked to clarify their written responses and explain their understandings of key terms in the questions. These interviews were also designed to clarify obscure answer and apparent conflicts in participants‘ views. After repeated testing with the instrument, researchers found that sufficient understandings of students‘ and teachers‘ views could be obtained with interviews from 15%- 20% of the participants (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998). Further modifications were made to the VNOS, five (5) of the items were adapted and five (5) more were added to the ones included in form B. Thus, VNOS-C produced similar findings to the earlier versions (Lederman et al., 2002). Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000), in their critical review of literature, state that results from several other studies (Aikenhead, 1973; Broadhurst, 1970; Lederman & O‘Mally, 1990; Rubba, 1977; Tamir & Zohar, 1991; Wilson, 1954) are consistent in their findings; this is, regardless of the assessment instruments used in the individual studies, students have not acquired adequate understanding of NOS. For instance, students understand scientific knowledge to be absolute, that scientists‘ main concern is to collect and classify facts in order to uncover natural laws, and that hypotheses can be proven true. Additionally, students have inappropriate conceptions of the role of creativity in science, the role of theories in guiding the scientific research, the difference between experimentation, models, hypotheses, laws, and theories, as well as inadequate conceptions of the interrelations and interdependence of the different areas of science. Even the most capable students and those most interested in science show lack of knowledge of the aspects of the nature of science. Researchers, therefore, argue that current science curricula are not successful in improving such knowledge (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2000). The following chart summarizes the instruments developed to measure NOS understanding in chronological order:

Table 2.1: Comparison of Instruments used to assess NOS

Mindful of the wealth of research conducted in this area, it is clear that there is still a need for improved assessments regarding both the teacher and student understandings of the nature of science. Development, Use, and Assessment of Nature of Science

In the early 1950‘s and 60‘s there were massive amounts of funding by the National Science Foundation for development of improved science curricula for pre-college science education (Duschl, 1985). However during the same period of time in which curricula for various science disciplines were being revised and rewritten by scientists to better teach students on how to operate and think like a scientist, the current ideas among historians and philosophers of science, such as Butterfield (1965), Kuhn (1962), and Schwab, (1960), about nature of scientific inquiry were being challenged and changed (Duschl, 1985). Thus, the new science curricula were developed without taking into account these new views about NOS. More recently, there have been a number of research efforts to design, implement, and test curricula aimed at transmitting accurate understandings of NOS. Several science curricula, geared toward conveying accurate conceptions of NOS, revealed that student‘s scores had significantly increased on post-tests that assessed their conceptions (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2000). These curricula, designed to promote adequate understanding of NOS among students, combined history and philosophy of science and stressed NOS in their instruction. Klopfer and Cooley (1963) developed the first curriculum explicitly designed to improve students‘ conceptions of NOS. The curriculum was called ―History of Science Cases for High Schools‖ (HOSC). The assumptions underlying the curriculum were that the use of materials derived from the history of science would help to relate important ideas about science and scientists. A sample of 108 geographically representative science classes, including biology, chemistry, and physics, with total number of 2,808 students enrolled in them, was used to assess effectiveness of the HOSC curriculum measured by the TOUS instrument. After a five-month treatment period, students participating in the HOSC curriculum exhibited significantly greater gains on the TOUS than the control groups. This result was consistent across disciplines. Conclusion was that the HOSC instructional approach was an effective way to improve students‘ conceptions of NOS. The larger sample size used in this study gave it much credibility and it was followed by widespread curriculum developed regarding the nature of science in science textbooks (Lederman, 1992).

However, such efforts dismissed the importance of the teacher as a variable. Researchers at the time concluded that students‘ gains in understanding of NOS were independent of the teachers‘ conceptions of NOS (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2000). The supposition was that when given the new improved curricula, the appropriate materials, and when shown how to use them, teachers would be successful in helping their students develop adequate understandings of NOS (Lederman, 1992). Later studies, however, projected doubts on such results and conclusions. Confusing results emerged, when variables such as pre-testing, teacher experience, and student prior knowledge were controlled for. The developed new NOS units and curricula appeared to give different results with different teachers (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2000). Science educators started to recognize the role of the teachers as the main mediators of the science curriculum (Brow & Clarke, 1960). More studies began to support the claim that teachers‘ understandings, interests, attitudes, and classroom activities influence to a large extent students‘ learning of NOS (Merill & Butts, 1969; Ramsey & Howe, 1969). Based upon the research, there has been a vigorous effort to understand NOS and its influence on understanding science processes. Research supports that the understanding of NOS is relevant for the understanding of science especially complex science process such as genetics and evolution. Introduction of Evolution The teaching of evolution in the United States‘ public schools is influenced by complex set of factors acting at a variety of levels. These include: (1) societal perceptions of science generally and evolution particularly; (2) national, state and local educational policy; 3) teaching and learning environments in classrooms; and, (4) individuals‘ beliefs about, and understanding of evolution. Across these levels, there are strongly worded messages from scientists and creationists voicing antagonistic agendas with respect to the status and value of evolution education in public school science classrooms. Science teachers stand at the center of this complex and often confrontational educational discussion. They are charged with negotiating these diverse influences while helping students develop an understanding of evolutionary biology. The public‘s knowledge about evolution and creationism ―is neither deep nor detailed,‖ but they hold their opinions with conviction (People for the American Way Foundation, 2000, p. 6). In the survey by People for the American Way, 50% of the respondents indicate that

26 evolution is far from being ―proven‖ scientifically (2000). Similarly, the National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators report that less than one-half of American adults believe that humans evolved from earlier species (National Research Council, 1996). This failure to understand and accept evolution is attributed to failures in public education (Volpe, 1984), and the impact of creationism (Alters & Alters, 2001). Whatever the cause, the lack of public understanding about evolution has long been recognized as influencing the ways that evolution is addressed in classrooms, thus the future public‘s lack of understanding in this area. In a 1959 paper commemorating the centennial of the publication of The Origin of Species, geneticist Hermann J. Muller equated students‘ lack of access to education on Darwinism and evolution to withholding vaccines from children. He used this powerful analogy to emphasize not only how the lack of access to resources presented a risk to the individual but that there was a risk to the population at large who might suffer from any ―impending epidemic‖ (Muller, 1959). National educational policy documents address evolution and creationism explicitly, defining what is, and what is not, appropriate material for science classrooms. The most specific policy regarding the teaching and learning of evolution has come from the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project 2061 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996). These documents lay out grade specific content standards related to evolution that every student should achieve. One of the central arguments supporting evolution education has been that it provides an important context for understanding the life sciences. With the publication of Science for All Americans, evolution was identified as one of six ―big ideas‖ across science because, ―The modern concept of evolution provides a unifying principle for understanding the history of life on earth, relationships among all living things, and the dependence of life on the physical environment‖ (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990, p. 63). More recently, a growing emphasis has been placed on the role of understanding evolution as it is applied to solve real world problems (see for example Bull & Wichman, 2001; Jungck & Dyke, 1985; Meagher & Futuyma, 2001; Neese & Schiffman, 2003). Although the national standards documents unequivocally recognize the importance of evolution education, the science standards at the state and local levels are not uniformly supportive. Lerner (2000) looked at the science education standards for each state with respect to how they included evolution and ―grades‖ were assigned to each state. Nearly two thirds of

27 the states (31) did a ―very good‖, ―good‖ or ―satisfactory‖ job for their treatment of evolution in their state science standards. The other states‘ standards were assessed as either ―unsatisfactory‖ (6), ―useless‖ or ―absent‖ (12) or ―disgraceful‖ (1). Until the spring of 2008, Florida standards did not even mention evolution. Even though science education standards may address important ideas in evolutionary biology, they do not provide clear guidelines for how students‘ understanding might develop in classrooms although the Atlas for Scientific literacy steps toward describing this development at least in terms of what concepts are taught and to be learned at different stages (AAAS, 2005). There have been other projects that bridge the expected outcomes listed in standards with ideas about how instruction might be organized. In a supplement to The American Zoologist, and later compiled to the volume Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology, John Moore describes the ―conceptual framework‖ of evolution to provide teachers and students with an alternative to instruction around collections of facts (1984, 1993). This project was developed explicitly as a resource to help teachers understand evolution more thoroughly so that they would be able to teach it more effectively. Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences published the text ―Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science‖ (1998) in an effort to move the discussion of evolution education forward by emphasizing how the activities of evolutionary biologists were congruent with the activities of other scientists and that their claims met the same standards for scientific knowledge. Even with the many resources providing guidelines for teachers in how to enhance evolution instruction, I argue that it is not sufficient as there are additional issues that must be addressed. At the classroom level, teaching evolution involves negotiating the expectations of curriculum guidelines, the teaching materials available, time constraints, and the beliefs and experiences of students. Finally, teaching evolution is also influenced by the ways that individual students may struggle with the complexity of evolutionary theory and the implications of accepting an evolutionary perspective for understanding life on Earth (Blackwell, Powell & Dukes, 2003; Brem, Ranney & Schindel, 2002). Considering students‘ beliefs and considering the ways that those beliefs interact with conceptual learning can be an important aspect of reaching students and helping them achieve a desired level of understanding about evolution (Cobern, 1994; Smith, 1994; Southerland, 2000). Taken together, these diverse factors acting across many levels of educational organization make teaching evolution a challenging endeavor.

In addition to the complexities outlined above, evolution education is also influenced by the public and sometime acrimonious debates about the ―truth‖ of evolution, the scientific status of ―creationism‖ and their respective places in the public education system. This conflict might at first, appear to afford an important opportunity to discuss the NOS, limits of scientific knowledge, and the relationship between science and society. Unfortunately, these points are difficult to explore in the face of the well-rehearsed stances taken by scientists and creationists that, more often than not, avoid addressing each other‘s claims. Often the argument for including evolution is reduced to appeals to the authority of science, which present scientific knowledge dogmatically and do little to improve students understanding of science (Cobern, 1994). On the other hand, the ―scientific creationism‖ and ―intelligent design‖ proponents do little to advance open discussion and have been accused of misrepresenting science in order to advance their social and political agendas (Numbers, 1998; Pennock, 2001; Scott & Glen, 2006). I will not attempt to review the history or impacts of creationist attacks on teaching evolution in public schools here as they have been well addressed at length elsewhere (see for example, Alters & Alters, 2001; Scott, 2004). Science teachers play an essential role in the success or failure of evolution education. They operate at the interface of the complex societal and scientific influences that shape science classrooms. In those classrooms, they educate the future scientists, policy makers, religious leaders, teachers, and informed citizens. Although the actions of creationists will probably always have an impact on teachers‘ activities, I argue that the conflict with creationism should not be allowed to dominate conversations about evolution education. Such debates capture most of the attention in evolution education but do little to inform our understanding of how students make sense of evolutionary biology. There are important teaching and learning issues around understanding the scientific aspects of evolutionary theory that remain unexplored because so much of what occurs in evolution education is a response to challenges from creationism. This study focuses on issues related to developing a scientifically accurate understanding of evolutionary biology. Teachers, policy makers, scientists, curriculum developers, and students would all benefit from knowing more about how individuals come to understand evolutionary biology. Educational research in this area is underdeveloped and needs to remain a high priority in the science education community (Cummins, Demastes, & Hafner, 1994; Good, 1992) and in other academic communities (Brehm, Evans & Sinatra, 2006).

Students’ Understanding of Evolution In its most basic form (and there are far more complex derivations of this essential foundation), constructivism is a theory of learning that is based on the idea that people construct new knowledge base on what they know, the skills they have, and what they believe. Thus, in order to help students achieve certain learning outcomes, teachers need to attend to ―the incomplete understandings, the false beliefs and the naïve renditions of concepts that learners bring with them to any given subject‖ (National Research Council, 2000, p. 10). Failure to attend to students‘ existing conceptions can lead to the compartmentalization of ―school science knowledge‖ from the knowledge that one uses to make sense of phenomena outside of the classroom. Under these conditions, students are able to respond correctly to certain assessments that explicitly mirror the knowledge structure that they learned in their science courses, but fail to internalize that knowledge in a way that allows them to transfer it beyond the context of school science (National Research Council, 2000). The constructivist perspective has led to an emphasis in scientific educational policy on beginning instructional units with an assessment of students‘ current knowledge in an area. This information makes it possible to organize instruction in a way that takes students‘ existing ideas into account (AAAS, 1993). Southerland and Sinatra (2003) argue that learning about biological evolution may be significantly different from learning about many other topics in high school biology. For many topics, students may be able to simply incorporate new ideas into their existing knowledge structures. This type of learning has been called assimilation, accretion, addition, or weak restructuring (Chi, 1992; Rumelhart & Norman, 1981; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). As an example, students may readily add new knowledge about osmosis into their existing knowledge about water and membranes without much struggle. However, new concepts presented in the classroom may conflict with conceptions that students already hold. In such cases of conflict, the process of learning is not a simple one, as students cannot easily assimilate the new information into what they already know. They may be hesitant to consider the new ideas; they may distort them, or reject them altogether (Chinn & Brewer, 1993). The accommodation process that characterizes knowledge change is quite different from assimilation learning. To achieve such a change, students must juxtapose their existing conceptions against new ideas; they must weigh the similarities and differences, and then question their personal views (see for example, Chan & Bereiter, 1992; Dole & Sinatra,

1998; Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). Changing a conception has been found to be a far less likely occurrence than several other alternatives when a learner is faced with conflicting information (Chinn & Brewer, 1993). Conceptual change focuses on the role of theory choice-the process whereby students‘ abandon naïve theories for more scientific ideas-as an important aspect of the learning process. The prior knowledge that students use to make sense of phenomena is generally implicit but may be an internally coherent alternative framework making it very resistant to change (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985). Because these knowledge frameworks are based on real-world experience and do generally help students navigate everyday activity, alternative views presented in science classrooms are often not internalized by students and the old framework is maintained. If the alternative framework does not represent a currently held scientific view then these misconceptions can become significant barriers to students understanding of scientific concepts. Based on this view of learning, a conceptual change approach to overcoming misconceptions involves creating cognitive conflict by presenting data that does not fit with a learners current conception and then introducing alternative theories and assessing them based on their intelligibility, ability, plausibility, and fruitfulness (Posner et al., 1982; Strike & Posner, 1992). Based upon the role of prior conceptions in learning (for examples see Posner et al., 1982; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992; White, 1994), these existing conceptions are understood to serve as scaffolds—and sometimes barriers—to learning new concepts. In consideration of the traditional conceptual change perspective, the change process itself has been viewed as largely cognitive rather than affective. Pioneering theorists of conceptual change (Strike & Posner, 1992) have readily acknowledged this point. Additionally, the mechanisms of change have been depicted as essentially external to the learner. That is, whether or not change occurs has been attributed primarily to forces outside the learner‘s control, such as the epistemological merits of the content, or the structure of the instructional activities in which students engage. Recently, a new view has emerged which depicts conceptual change as both an affective (Strike & Posner, 1992; Tyson, Venville, Harrison & Treagust, 1999) and an intentional process (Sinatra & Pintrich, 2003). Sinatra and Pintrich have defined intentional conceptual change as a ―goal-directed and conscious initiation and regulation of cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational processes to bring about a change in knowledge‖ (p. 6). Researchers from this perspective have begun to explore the impact of constructs such as

31 epistemological beliefs, belief identification, and willingness to question one‘s beliefs on learner‘s acceptance and understanding on the change process (Pintrich, 1999). They argue that affective constructs can be brought intentionally to bear on the process of learning. That is, rather than the learning being controlled solely by external factors (i.e., nature of content or instruction), conceptual change theorists are beginning to understand that the learner plays a significant role in choosing whether to consider alternative points of view. In light of this discussion, the way in which students understand knowledge and the way it is constructed, may well impact their intentions toward what may seem to be controversial. In the case of this study, the students‘ meaning of science may influence how the students understand biological evolution. Research on Students’ Understanding of Evolution I will now direct my attention to the research into students‘ understanding of biological evolution. There is a robust and diverse research literature that addresses teaching and learning issues in evolution education. This research has been reviewed and summarized several times highlighting important insights gained from existing work (see for example Alters & Nelson, 2002; Demastes-Southerland, Trowbridge, & Cummins, 1992; Rowe, 1998; Smith, Siegel, & McInerney, 1995). Despite the volume of research on evolution education and the progress that has been made in describing some of the barriers to effectively teaching and learning it, evolutionary biology remains a problematic area for science education (Hammer & Polnick, 2007; Wenglinsky & Silverstein, 2007). The first area of research, a misconceptions research, focuses on the ways that students‘ naïve understandings of natural phenomena have been characterized and addressed with various instructional strategies. The second area of focus is research on the relationships between understanding the nature of science and evolutionary biology. The research proposed here targets this second broad area of research. Much of this research has generally sought to establish evidence for the relationship between indicators of understanding of the nature of science, acceptance of evolutionary theory, and understanding of evolution concepts (Sinatra, Southerland, Demastes & McConaughy, 2003; Southerland & Sinatra, 2005). In a recent review of research on this relationship, Sinatra et al. (2003) support that there is empirical support for reasoning that students are more prone to understand the evolutionary theory as they develop a more sophisticated understanding of natural science.

Based upon this literature, it makes sense that improving students‘ understanding of evolution requires broadening the current discussion about understanding in evolution towards the influence of NOS instruction on understanding of evolution. Data collected for this quasi- experimental study provides valuable insight of NOS instruction in improving the understanding of biological evolution. Incorporating this approach in science instruction will contribute to curriculum development and research on teaching and learning of biological evolution. Such research allows science educators to identify ways to engage students fruitfully in evolutionary thinking and study the development of those abilities. Role of NOS in the Understanding of Evolution My analysis of the evolution education research literature now turns to consider the role of understanding the nature of science in teaching and learning evolutionary biology. The nature of science has a rich history as an important element of science curricula (Jenkins, 1996; Lederman, 1992; Rudolph, 2000). Descriptions of the NOS generally revolve around addressing characteristics of the history, philosophy and sociology of science, but they have been highly variable and often include scientific skills, the nature of scientific knowledge, experimental design, and the scientific method. Clearly future researchers must be much more careful about their use of terms and their recognition of the boundaries (and the links) between these constructs. Attention to students‘ understanding of the NOS also raises epistemological issues in classrooms and is seen as a way to help students become more competent in science (Matthews, 1998). With the recent shift in curricular emphasis away from presenting science as a fixed body of scientific knowledge toward recognizing science as a changeable human activity, the role of the NOS has been linked to increasing students‘ enjoyment of science, their awareness of what scientists do, and encouraging them to pursue additional courses in science (Hodson, 1988). A robust understanding of the nature of science has also been argued as helping students understand what to do with scientific knowledge--what sense to make of it, how to negotiate the science that comes to them in everyday life (Bell, 2007; Settlage & Southerland, 2007). In the United States, the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) both associated a deeper understanding of science content with the study of history and nature of science. The Standards (NRC, 1996) cite the incorporation of personal, social, and multidisciplinary aspects of science as potential support for improving one‘s general understanding of science. In the 9th through 12th grade content

33 standards, there are emphases on science as a human endeavor; the nature of scientific knowledge; and, historical perspectives. Similarly, in the benchmarks the study of science as ―an intellectual and social endeavor‖ is seen as a key element of science literacy (AAAS, 1993). In addition to these discussions about how familiarity with the NOS can influence understanding science generally, the role of the understanding the NOS has been particularly prominent in discussions of teaching and learning evolution. The discussions within evolution education tends to focus on philosophical issues like the demarcation of scientific and non- scientific approaches to understanding, and the use of specialized terminology such as theory, fact, and proof to describe the products of science (Scharmann & Harris, 1992; Smith, Siegel, & McInervey, 1995). Much of this discussion is couched within the context of supporting the scientific status of evolutionary biology as evidenced in this statement from Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. ―Because so many people see evolution as conflicting with widely held beliefs, the teaching of evolution offers educators a superb opportunity to illuminate the NOS and to differentiate science from other forms of human endeavor and understanding‖ (NAS, 1998, p. 4). Intersection of Knowledge, Belief and Acceptance

In this research into learning of controversial topics, it is useful to make a distinction between a trio of terms knowledge, belief and acceptance. Knowledge is typically used to refer to a justified "true" belief (Siegel, 1998; Southerland et al., 2001). That is, to qualify as knowledge, a proposition must be thought to have a strong correspondence to reality, and the learner must have valid reasons that justify her acceptance of that proposition (justifications such as an objective, rational appraisal of supporting claims). In contrast, beliefs are understood to be a subjective way of knowing and are thought to be personal truths as opposed to truths about the world (Smith, Siegel, & McInerney, 1995). They are considered inherently subjective, so they are not held to the same epistemic criteria as knowledge. Beliefs are understood to be extra- rational, that is, they are not based on evaluation of evidence, they are subjective, and they are often intertwined with affect. It is common within the community of evolution educators to draw a tight distinction between acceptance of a construct and belief in that construct—a distinction that is rarely made

34 outside of this community (National Academy of Science, 1998; Smith, 1994; Smith & Scharmann, 1999; Smith et al., 1995). Smith and others explain that acceptance is dependent on a systematic evaluation of evidence. On the other hand, belief is based on personal convictions, opinions, and degree of congruence with other belief systems. Thus, it is inaccurate to explain that a scientist believes in the theory of evolution, as the use of believes implies that the judgment of the validity of the theory is based subjective criteria, and this statement blurs the distinctions between scientific knowledge and religious belief. Instead, a scientist is said to accept evolutionary theory based on a systematic evaluation of available evidence. The professed goal for many science educators, then, is to engender student knowledge of a construct as well as their acceptance of that construct as the most powerful scientific explanation, but belief in that construct is seen as an inappropriate goal for science teaching (Smith & Siegel, 2004).

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY Methodological Approach This research was conducted using mixed methods. According to Creswell (2003) ―Mixed methods research has come of age… The situation today is less quantitative versus qualitative and more how research practices lie somewhere on a continuum in between‖ (p. 4). Mixed methods research incorporates beneficial resources from both qualitative and quantitative studies into one. Creswell suggests that this type study uses a ―concurrent transformative strategy‖ due to the relative importance, and timing of the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods (p. 219). It is a bounded system (Merriam, 1998) of college students‘ understanding evolution processes. Mixed methods research is formally defined as the class of research in which the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study. Philosophically, mixed research makes use of the pragmatic method and system of philosophy. Its logic of inquiry includes the use of induction (or discovery of patterns), deduction (testing of theories and hypotheses), and abduction (uncovering and relying on the best of a set of explanations for understanding one‘s results) (de Waal, 2001). Mixed methods research is an attempt to legitimate the use of multiple approaches in answering research questions, rather than restricting or constraining researchers‘ choices (i.e., it rejects dogmatism) (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The goal of mixed methods research is not to replace either of these approaches but rather to draw from the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of both in single research studies and across studies. If you visualize a continuum with qualitative research anchored at one pole and quantitative research anchored at the other, mixed methods research covers the large set of points in the middle area. If one prefers to think categorically, mixed methods research sits in a new third chair, with qualitative research sitting on the left side and quantitative research sitting on the right side (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Mixed method as the third research paradigm can help bridge the schism between quantitative and qualitative research (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). This method of collecting data is inclusive, pluralistic, and complementary. Quasi-Experimental Design The nonequivalent control-group is the most commonly used quasi-experimental design used in educational research. This design spoke to my methods since the research participants

36 were not randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups, and both groups took a pretest and a posttest (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007). Since students were already assigned to these classes, this is a quasi-experimental study. Setting The study was conducted in a college located in the southeastern part of the United States. The college has a population size of approximately 13,423 students. The makeup of the student population in 2005 was approximately 44% male or 5,898 and 56% female or 7,525. In 2005, the college has 179 full time faculty with 402 adjunct faculty. Participants The participants were college students that enrolled in two (2) biology classes for non- majors. One class met on Monday and Wednesday with 53 students of which 22 are males and 31 females. The second class met on Tuesday and Thursday with 40 students of which 16 are males and 24 females. The percentage of males and females in each class was similar. The percentage of males was 42% in class 1 as opposed to 40% in class 2, and 58% females in class 1 as opposed to 60% in class 2. Since students had the freedom of arranging their schedules, the makeup of the two classes included first, second and even third year students based upon their success in past classes. The students‘ ages ranged from 17 to 41 years in both classes. It was important to my study that student responses to research queries were based upon their true views as opposed to what they thought I wanted to hear. Students needed to understand that their grades were based upon the criteria set in the rubric and how they complied with the rubric (Appendix A). It is true that I was the one that determined whether the student had complied with the criteria, but based upon the other class practices; I observed that the students were placed at ease. The number of students that withdrew from the two classes, which was one (1) student from each class, supports the fact that students felt at ease immediately. This has been true of my classes for the past two years or more. My role as teacher and researcher placed me in a peculiar position with the students since I needed to gain the students trust in both positions. To relax my students, I shared with them the percentage of grades (A-F) from previous classes to show the success of those students as well as shared with them what they would be doing during the semester. I hope that the percentage of students that received ―A‘s‖ and ―B‘s‖ in previous classes gained some confidence in my favor. Throughout the semester, students were reminded that understanding was the focus and not necessarily the right answer.

They were told that as long as the response was supported by the facts that I could not say that they were wrong. Benefits of Being a Teacher-Researcher Even though this appeared to be an odd position for me, more and more teachers are being encouraged to become researchers in their own classrooms (Queenan, 1985). Nancy Atwell (1982) suggests several benefits of research to students and teacher researchers. Teacher researchers stop focusing on themselves and their lessons and start focusing on students and their learning. Teacher researchers and students develop into communities of learners. Teacher researchers begin to see themselves as professionals.

Furthermore, practicing teacher researchers argue that research changes their teaching, their attitude towards teaching, their process of learning, and their commitment to the teaching profession. Adele Fiderer notes that the choices are freely made, as when she decided she could not go back to being a ―teacher controller‖ after ―sensing myself as a teacher research‖ (Brause & Mayher, 1985). It appears that being a teacher researcher is advantageous for both the teacher and learner, however, the literature also classifies three teacher-researcher conflicts: cost (expense to conduct the study minimized since I conducted the study), ―affinity‖ (my familiarity with the situation gave me a greater insight in the study), and time (incorporation of studying the work conducted in my class serves as better use of the time and minimizes time required for someone else to conduct the study) (Peeke, 1984). Mary James and Dave Ebbutt (James & Ebbutt, 1985) also reports similar conflicts. After taking into consideration my research project, I suggest that ―affinity‖ is the only conflict that was an issue in this project. By ―affinity‖, Peeke means the conflict caused when teachers cannot create the distance between themselves and their students that research requires. Even though ―affinity‖ could have been a relevant conflict, it was a minor issue since I controlled my level of participation during the fifteen (15) weeks of the study as described earlier in this chapter.

Instruction/Activities Presented In this study, I fulfilled two roles- teacher and researcher. As the teacher, I conducted the class and presented the lessons designed for this study. As the classes were engaged in the 38 activities, I also participated in the class discussion as well as made observations of what took place and what was said by the students. Furthermore, I had a practice of creating a relaxing atmosphere in my classrooms in several ways. First, I arrived at the classroom fifteen (15) minutes early in order to start conversations by talking about interesting news articles. Second, I have found that talking about cultural customs works well when there are international students in the class that can share their views. Based upon the class discussions and candid reflections, it appeared that my effort served to relax the students in voicing their true feelings in the written responses and sometimes in the oral responses. Due to my authoritative position as teacher and grader, I relied upon blackboard to perform member checking of the students that were interviewed as a process of confirming what I interpreted from the writings to what the participant actually meant. This method allowed me to interview a large number of students as opposed to focusing on two to four students. In response to each student‘s response on blackboard, I included questions relevant to their demonstrated understanding of the subject. This process served as my means of member checking to make certain that what was heard or written down was in fact correct. Again, students responded via blackboard removing the requirement to set face-to-face with me. Following the data collection, member checking consisted of reporting back preliminary findings to participants, asking for critical clarification on the findings, and potentially incorporating these critiques into the findings. Students were advised of certain findings during class discussions, and asked to respond to the questions posted in their responses on blackboard. Member checking is employed to increase the validity and/or trustworthiness of the research findings (Stringer, 2004). This minimized the possibility of the students offering a statement to please me as the instructor as opposed to stating what they truly want to say. Sample interview questions are provided in Appendix B. Lessons and activities. Modern ideas of evolution provide a scientific explanation for three (3) main sets of observable facts about life on earth: (1) The enormous number of different life forms we see about us; (2) The systematic similarities in anatomy and molecular chemistry we see within that diversity; and (3) The sequence of changes in fossils found in successive layers of rock that have been formed over more than a billion years.

The lessons and activities of this study centered on these three (3) points as I attempted to present evidence of biological evolution. The first lesson titled ―Introducing Inquiry and the Nature of Science‖ (Appendix C) provided students with opportunities to develop their abilities of scientific inquiry and to develop an understanding of the aspects of the nature of science (NAS, 1998). Even though this activity addressed all the aspects of NOS, I only focused on science is tentative; empirically based; science is subjective; the functions of and relationships between scientific theories, facts and laws; and partly the product of human inference, imagination, logical reasoning, and creativity. In this lesson, students were presented cube 1 for analysis and to determine certain aspects of the cube such as what is on the bottom of the cube. The students were asked to provide the basis of each finding as they analyze the cube. This process was repeated with cube 2. Students were allowed to use tools such as probes and pocket mirrors to collect evidence to support that scientist use tools for collected valuable evidence. To extend the activity, the students were given a third cube that was blank and were challenged to create a cube similar to cubes 1 and 2 to challenge their fellow classmates to solve. The following table (Table 3.1) demonstrates the effort within each lesson to keep the focus of the students on nature of science as we entered and completed each lesson and/or activity. As stated earlier, only the explicit, reflective NOS class was exposed to the nature of science, and NOS was highlighted each day as we proceeded through the exercises. According to Schwartz (2004), little research has been reported about how instructors embed NOS across biology concepts. Schwartz and Crawford (2004) characterize three critical elements to effective teaching of NOS. These are: (1) Learners need to step out of the role of ―inquirer‖ and into the role of ―reflector‖ to consider how their science learning activities embody NOS elements; (2) Context: Reflection requires a context. Science activities such as hands-on inquires, historical and contemporary episodes, and modeling through use of manipulatives and technology, may provide effective science contexts for learning about NOS; (3) Learners do not ―do‖ NOS, rather they have learning experiences and prompts that enable them to reflect upon the way scientific knowledge is produced and the qualities of NOS represented with science practices. Each lesson does not address all five of the aspects of NOS that I am focusing on, but each lesson is designed to emphasize specific aspects as indicated by Table 3.1. Due to design of the study, I taught the second lesson in both classes entitled

―Characteristics of Living Things‖ (Appendix D). This lesson emphasized the commonalities that all living things share as well as stressed the differences between biotic and abiotic factors. Additionally, students were also exposed to an exercise in classifying organisms titled ―Classify That‖ (Appendix E). This activity served to expand the students‘ knowledge of living organisms and further develop their ability to group, or classify, living organisms according to a variety of common features. Furthermore, the effort was made to familiarize students with terms such as vertebrates, genus, and species. After the students completed the lesson labeled ―Life‘s Chemical Basis‖ (Appendix F), they should have been able to: use the periodic chart for class exercises; understand the difference between an atom, ion, and isotope in terms of the subatomic particles; understand the difference between ionic, covalent and hydrogen bonds; what compounds are formed by ionic and covalent bonds; importance of hydrogen bonds; identify substances as acidic, basic, or neutral given the pH; and Distinguish between inorganic and organic compounds. This lesson was comprised of short lectures accompanied by animations that provided visual aids to demonstrate the concepts being presented. The ―Biomolecule activity‖ (Appendix G) highlighted the biomolecules- carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. Through the employment of animations, discussions, and reading assignments, the students hopefully gained an understanding of the importance of the biomolecules especially to their diets and the effect of pH and temperature on proteins, enzymes and hormones. Based upon this lesson, the students should have gained a better understanding of the changes that occur in DNA and which molecules (proteins, enzymes and hormones) are affected when a change in the genetic code occurs. The lesson entitled ―Cells 1: Make a Model Cell?‖ (Appendix H) provided a hands-on activity challenging the students to make an animal and plant cell and to provide a basis for the materials that they chose to use. The purpose of this part of the lesson was to gain an understanding of plant and animal cells,

prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, and structure and function of cell organelles. Students related the function of the organelle to a job in a factory with hopes of creating an understanding of the organelles acting as a whole or system. In order to foster an understanding of the relationship of photosynthesis (Appendix I) and cellular respiration (Appendix J), students were engaged in the exercise called ―Energize the Plant‖. After making their observations, reviewing the animations and class discussions, the groups were challenged along with their research to respond to the prompt as to how the euglenas can thrive sealed in a jar for six (6) months. After completion of these engagements, students described and discussed the basic steps of photosynthesis and cellular respiration, importance of ATP, and the reactants and products of the processes. Using animations to introduce the concepts, students were asked to develop means such as skits with word cards to present their understanding of the cell division processes inclusive of interphase. There was flexibility in the assignment so groups had the creative freedom to come up with ways to demonstrate an understanding of the processes. Students were exposed to the processes using the textbook, short lectures and animations. In order to promote the informational knowledge, this lesson contained several quizzes that the students had to complete on the internet. After completing the cell division activity (Appendix K), students were required to describe in order, the events and states occurring in mitosis and meiosis as well as interphase. In the next lesson titled ―Bird Beaks‖ (Appendix L), student used different tools for feeding to simulate bird eating. They experienced the failures and successes of acquiring different type foods. This activity promoted the students understanding of natural selection, effect of DNA on the phenotype through the genotype, effects on the population, and competition. Students were challenged to choose a picture of what their bird looks like based upon its success in feeding. Drawings of bird parts are provided for cutting out and pasting into position. Assessment focused on the type of beak used in comparison to the tool that was most successful in gathering food. This activity should foster an understanding of how natural selections influences evolution and how some species increase in population size and some decrease in size and in some cases become extinct. After this exercise, students were asked to observe the photos of aloe plants that had been damaged during the cold period make observations and make inferences in reference the evolutionary process why some survived and

42 others did not. Another source of evidence for the understanding of evolution is fossils and geologic time (Appendix M). The purpose of this exercise was to help the student understand the development of the geologic time scale and to introduce students to the major periods in earth‘s history, as well as to the role fossils play in helping us understand this history. The order of the fossils in the layers of the earth should correlate with the appearance of the organisms on earth. An online book was printed and was made available for the students‘ supports in this exercise. Students addressed the following geologic history, age dating, plate tectonics, timelines, and fossils as prerequisite concepts for understanding the theory of evolution. Students were engaged in research to answer the questions presented in this lesson. The final lesson titled ―Investigating Common Descent: Formulating Explanations and Models‖ (Appendix N). In this activity, students synthesized the DNA code using colored paper clips and analyzed the sequences of DNA of the three organisms to determine the similarities and differences. Students formulated from their findings explanations and models that simulated structural and biochemical data as they investigated the misconception that humans evolved from apes. Specific questions were used to get the students to critically analyze the data that was generated in the exercise. At the end of each lesson, an article titled ―Evolution Connection‖ provided a means to discussion the relevance of each topic covered to evolution. I hoped that the discussion along with the reflections would help the students better make sense of their misconceptions if one existed. In addition to the discussions and reflections, the groups were required to complete a concept map to demonstrate the connections as we progress through the lessons (see example of concept map- Appendix O). This concept map was developed as the class progressed from one lesson to the next. It is not designed as an assessment but as a tool to enhance understanding. To assure that my presentations for both classes were similar except for the focus on the NOS aspects, mind maps were utilized. Examples of these tools are shown in Appendix P and Q.

Table 3.1: Sequence of lecture topics and/or activities. Week Lecture Focus of NOS Aspects Evolution topics/activities Discussed Tentative Subjective Empirically Inferential Theories based and Laws 1 Introducing X X X X X X Inquiry and the Nature of Science 2 Characteristics X X X X of Living Things 2 Taxonomy X X X X (Classify That! 3 Life‘s Chemical X X X X Basis 4/5 Biomolecules X X X X 6/7 Cells: Make a X X X X Model Cell 8 Photosynthesis X X X X (Storing Energy) 9 Cellular X X X X Respiration (Releasing Energy) 10 Cell Division X X X X X 11 Genetics and X X X X X Inheritance 12 DNA Structure X X X X X and Function 12 Gene Expression X X X X X and Control 13 Bird Beaks X X X X X X Activity (Natural Selection) 14 Fossils and X X X X X X Geologic Time 15 Investigating X X X X X X Common Descent

Description of Instrumentation A combination of quantitative and qualitative measurements was used in this study. Aikenhead (1973) states that sophisticated statistics can generate results, but cannot adequately explain what students have learned, or what misunderstanding they may have. He suggests that a qualitative approach to understand NOS can address these issues, and can complement quantitative data by asking questions that elicit a deeper understanding into students‘ 44 understandings of NOS and scientific knowledge. Qualitative Measures In support of my theoretical perspective, I used VNOS form B and VNOS survey (Figure 3.1 and Appendix R) (Lederman et al., 2002). The qualitative data from the VNOS-B revealed possible themes and provided data to validate the themes that arose from other written responses. A pre- and post-test of the VNOS-B was conducted to measure any change in NOS understanding.

View of Nature of Science – Form B

1. After scientists have developed a theory (e.g., atomic theory), does the theory ever change? If you believe that theories do change, explain why we bother to teach scientific theories. Defend your answer with examples.

2. What does an atom look like? How certain are scientists about the structure of the atom? What specific evidence do you think scientists used to determine what an atom looks like?

3. Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Give an example to illustrate your answer.

4. How are science and art similar? How are they different?

5. Scientists perform experiments/investigations whey trying to solve problems. Other than the planning and design of these experiments/investigation, do scientists use their creativity and imagination during and after data collection? Please explain your answer and provide examples if appropriate.

6. Is there a difference between a scientific knowledge and opinion? Give an example to illustrate your answer.

7. Some astronomers believe that the universe is expanding while others believe that it is shrinking; still others believe that the universe is in a static state without any expansion or shrinkage. How are these different conclusions possible if all of these scientists are looking at the same experiments and data?

Figure 3.1: Views of nature of science questionnaire, Form B.

The conceptual diagnostic test (VNOS-B) VNOS survey also was used to elucidate the students‘ views about the aspects of NOS (Lederman et al., 2002). The instruments were administered according to the authors‘ recommendations. I administered the instruments in a classroom setting and with a little less than one hour for completion. The results of this

45 instrument were not used as a final determination of students‘ conceptions but to triangulate the findings of other tools (Views of nature of science questionnaire). After the VNOS was administered, two students from each class were interviewed to insure the validity of the instruments. Journals Other qualitative data consisted of the students‘ journals in response to the questions in each of the class assignments and/or projects and the responses to the following prompt: What influence does the recent activity and class discussion have on your understanding of evolution? Has your view changed? Explain your response and provide support or examples of what influenced the change. What aspects of NOS applied to the lesson presented this week. Provide an example of each aspect of NOS observed in the lesson. (This prompt is only for class I and not class II). Students responded in their journal on a weekly basis, and submitted the written assignments through Blackboard, an on-line course management tool. Students read and responded to another student‘s reflection each week through a discussion thread on Blackboard. Students discussed articles titled ―Evolution Connection‖ in a group setting in reference to their views of evolution and how the NOS does or does not influence his or her view (only class I was engaged in this activity to consider NOS in his or her response). After the group discussions, the class reconvened and shared the views of each group. The implicit NOS class only discussed how the articles connected with their understanding of evolution. Additionally, the class responded to a biological phenomenon in which groups of students were asked to assess and explain why certain stalks of the aloe plant survived and other stalks died during periods of below freezing weather. Quantitative measures The instrument for the measurement of the understanding of evolution used in this study was the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) (Anderson et al., 2002) (Appendix S). This instrument was administered as pre- and post instruction to students in both groups. The CINS is an 12-item multiple-choice test that employs common alternative conceptions as distracters. Ten (10) concepts related to the theory of natural selection are represented on the

CINS with two (2) questions for each concept (Anderson, Fisher, & Norman, 2002). The distracters in each item address common alternative conceptions about natural selection. The CINS not only assesses students‘ understanding of the process of natural selection but also addresses the students‘ understanding of the underlying concepts of genetics and ecology that provide a foundation for using natural selection as an explanatory theory (Anderson et al., 2002). Finally, I surveyed the participants using the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) instrument (Rutledge, 1999) both before and after instruction (Appendix T). The MATE was 20-item Likert-scaled instrument that assessed participants‘ overall acceptance of evolutionary theory. This instrument assessed students‘ perceptions of evolutionary theory‘s scientific validity, ability to explain phenomena and acceptance within the scientific community. Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12 13, 16, 18, and 20 contain positively phrased statements concerning evolutionary theory, while items 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 19 contain negatively phrased statements (Rutledge, 1999). Data Analysis Because this research design included both qualitative and quantitative measures, different forms of data analysis were employed. Qualitative Data Analysis. Qualitative data for both views of the nature of science and understanding evolution were analyzed. The first, views of the nature of science, were analyzed informed by a set of procedures common to research in this area. The second, understanding of evolution, required my design of a coding scheme based on themes emerging from a preliminary analysis of the data. Both these processes will be described in this section. Analysis of VNOS. According to Lederman et al. (2002), the first step in analyzing VNOS data is to reaffirm the validity of the questionnaire in the context in which it is used and flesh out the subtleties of meanings that respondents in that context ascribe to key terms and phrases. This was done by systematically comparing NOS profiles generated by the separate analyses of interviewees‘ questionnaires and interview transcripts. If a high degree of congruence between the separately generated profiles is observed, or when a high degree is established by modifying my interpretations of VNOS responses to accommodate the interview data, all questionnaire data will be analyzed. Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) state that analyses of all questionnaire and interview data should not precede until reliability is established. The analysis of the VNOS-B questionnaire was established by Lederman et al. (2002). In

47 this analysis process, nine codes were established that corresponded to the tenets of NOS as measured by the VNOS-B instrument. These nine codes and their underlying meaning as determined by Lederman et al. (2002) are displayed in Table 3.2. Lederman et al. (2002) cautioned that a single response to any VNOS item does not assume a one-to-one correspondence between the item on the questionnaire and any one specific tenet of NOS. The designation of naïve and informed coincide with designations established by Abd-El- Khalick and BouJaoude (1997). Views consistent with more recent conceptions of NOS (e.g. science is cultural interpretative and subjective) were considered ―informed‖. Views consistent with more of a logical empiricist perspective were considered ―naïve‖ (e.g. science is not influenced by culture and theories will eventually become laws). The participants‘ conceptions of NOS were determined using this dichotomous coding schematic for each tenet. Please note, however, it is possible to hold dual conceptions of NOS. Evidence about views of the tentative aspect was realized from responses to the first, second, third, and fifth items (Table 3.3). Views of empirical aspect were inferred from the analysis of the first, second, and third items. Evidence about the participant‘s views of observation versus inference was taken from the analysis of the responses to the second and third items. Responses to the second, third, and fourth items were examined to determine the participants understanding of the creative/imaginative nature of scientific knowledge (Khishfe & Lederman, 2007). Item number three (3) was evaluated to assess the participant‘s understanding of the subjective nature of scientific knowledge.

Table 3.2: Codes Used for Determining Participants‘ Conceptions of NOS Tenets of NOS (Scientific Naïve Informed Knowledge) T: Is tentative Does not believe that NOS is changing, Science changes over time, is believe it is definitive, correct, proven, dynamic truth E: Is empirical Data is used to prove a ―truth‖ of Uses empirical evidence to support science, based on observation, concrete science, systematic, careful facts, logical SM: Requires a Scientific Follows one prescribed scientific There is no single method to do Method method, step by step science EA: Uses an experimental Does not involve controls or Does involve controls or Approach manipulations, can be observational, no manipulations, purposeful to aim for conducting an experiment such conduct an experiment such as as supporting a theory supporting a theory 48

Table 3.2: Continued Tenets of NOS (Scientific Naïve Informed Knowledge) ST: Supports Scientific Does not understand that theories are Theories change over time with new Theories well supported by experimental, theories evidence, are social and cultural, do not change over time used for shifting paradigms TL: Defines the distinction Theories are laws without supporting Laws & theories are distinctly between Theories & Laws evidence, laws are facts and never different ways of knowing, laws change, hierarchical view point describe relationships of observable phenomena, theories are supported by experimental evidence CI: Is creative & imaginative C & I are not necessary in experiments Scientists use C&I to design and or scientific investigations carry out scientific investigations Tenets of NOS (Scientific Naïve Informed Knowledge) Inf: Uses inference Direct observation is necessary for Scientists use evidence to make science, scientists are certain about predictions and infer to unknown things that cannot be seen phenomena S; Is subjective Science is objective, subjectivity plays Science is a humanistic endeavor no role in science that involves interpretation, opinions, it is a personal experience

Table 3.3 presents illustrative examples of responses to the VNOS items and interview questions from the results of other studies (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002). The examples presented in Table 3.3 are illustrations of the sort of rich and intensive data generated by the use of the VNOS and associated interviews. Nonetheless, even with these examples, it is not difficult to discern that the VNOS items generate responses that clearly discriminate ―naïve‖ from ―informed‖ NOS views and more important, provide insight into respondent‘s thinking about the target NOS aspects.

Table 3.3: Illustrative examples of responses to VNOS Items NOS Aspect More Naïve Views More Informed Views Empirical NOS Science is something that is Much of the development of scientific straightforward and isn‘t a field of study knowledge depends on observation…[But] I that allows a lot of opinions, personal think what we observe is a function of bias, or individual views- it is fact based. convention. I don‘t believe that the goal of science is (or should be) the accumulation of observable facts. Rather…science involves abstraction, one-step of abstraction after another.

Table 3.3: Continued NOS Aspect More Naïve Views More Informed Views Tentative Compared to philosophy and Everything in science is subject to change religion…science demands with new evidence and interpretation of that definitive…right and wrong answers. evidence. We are never 100% sure about anything because…negative evidence will call a theory or law into question, and possibly cause a modification. Difference and A scientific law is somewhat set in A scientific law describes quantitative Relationship between stone, proven to be true…A scientific relationships between phenomena such as theories and laws theory is apt to change and be proven universal attraction between objects. false at any time. Scientific theories are made of concepts that are in accordance with common observation or go beyond and propose new explanatory models for the world. Creative and Imaginative A scientist only uses imagination in Logic plays a large role in the scientific NOS collecting data…But there is no process, but imagination and creativity are creativity after data collection because essential for the formulation of novel the scientist has to be objective. ideas…to explain why the results were observed. Inference and There is…scientific certainty [about the Species is…a human creation. It is a Theoretical entities concept of species]. While in the early convenient framework for categorizing days, it was probably a matter of trial- things…It is a good system but I think the and-error…now a days genetic testing more they learn the more they realize makes it possible to define a species. that…we cannot draw the line between species or subspecies. Theory-laden NOS [Scientists reach different conclusions] Both conclusions are possible because there because the scientists were not around may be different interpretations of the same when the dinosaurs became extinct, so data. Different scientist may come up with no one witnessed what happened…I different explanations based on their own think the only way to give a satisfactory education and background or what they feel answer to the extinction of the dinosaurs are inconsistencies in other‘s ideas. is to go back in time to witness what happened.

First, the pre-interviews were examined to generate a profile of the VNOS tests. The corresponding pre-questionnaire transcripts and other written artifacts for each participant were independently evaluated. Then, the two profiles were compared and contrasted. The same process was repeated for the post-questionnaire and interview transcripts. Next, each participant questionnaire was considered separately to generate a profile of NOS views in response to the different items. A participant‘s view was categorized as naïve or informed for each NOS aspect to make it easier to organize, analyze, and describe changes in students‘ views. It is important to note that students‘ views are not totally ‗binary‖ but they fall along a continuum that ranges from naïve to more informed (Khishfe & Lederman, 2007).

However, to be able to describe any change, students‘ responses were coded into two categories of naïve or informed. It is important to note that views of NOS aspects were targeted in more than one questionnaire item; therefore, the analysis was not assumed a restrictive one-to-one correspondence between an item on the questionnaire and a target NOS aspect (Khishfe & Lederman, 2007). In other words, participants will have to demonstrate their NOS views consistently in all contexts in order to be categorized as informed. If participants elucidate informed views of a NOS aspect in any one item with no inconsistencies or other disconfirming evidence in their questionnaires regarding this aspect, then their view of that aspect was categorized as informed. This analysis generated pre- and post-categories of students‘ views for each aspect, which was compared between the two groups to assess changes in participants‘ views for each aspect. The overall improvement, represented by the number of participants‘ that change their views into informed for each aspect, was compared between the two intact groups to assess the relative effectiveness of the two approaches. Coding of Understanding Evolution. In addition to the prior qualitative data, journals and other written artifacts were collected from the participants weekly. The written artifacts were read, and codes were developed as themes arose from the review of the students‘ responses. As described in the methodology chapter, students‘ journal writings were coded using the codes that emerged from initial analyses of the data as shown in the codebook (see Appendix U). The codes were reviewed to assure that there were no duplications. I then developed definitions for each code as well as defining statements of what would be included and excluded under each code. Finally, the codes were discussed with an outside person to determine if the codes applied appropriately. Description of these codes is relevant because it provides specific themes that appeared in the students‘ writing and important insight into students‘ understanding of evolution. Each reflective writing assigned in the course was read and coded based upon the definitions presented in the codebook providing some focus and systematicity to the process of description. The coding was completed by only one researcher and thus may be somewhat subjective, hence the need for close description of the codes. Quantitative Data Analysis I analyzed the data from the pretest-posttest of the experimental group and control-group by computing the descriptive statistics.

Analysis for the Understanding of Evolution. From CINS, the descriptive statistics included the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, variance and the range. The values of the descriptive statistics were determined by the computer program Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) that is a computer program used for statistical analysis. The first step in analyzing the data collected from the pretest-posttest of the experimental group and the control group was to compute the descriptive statistics (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007). The next step was to test the statistical significance of observed differences in the mean scores of the treatment with NOS (Gall et al. 2007). I used the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). This analysis allowed me to determine whether a difference between two groups on a particular variable could be explained by another difference that exists between the groups. The statistical techniques of ANCOVA were used to control for initial differences between groups before a comparison of the within-groups variance and between-group variance is made. Furthermore, analysis of covariance was useful because I was not be able to select classes that were matched with respect to all relevant variables except the one that was the main concern of the investigation. This was important since I was not be able take into consideration the differences that could have influenced the collected data. Analysis of covariance provided a means of matching groups on such variables as age, aptitude, prior education, socioeconomic class, or a measure of performance. Analysis of covariance statistically reduces the effects of initial group differences by making compensating adjustments to the posttest means of the two groups (Gall et al. 2007). Since a pre- and post-test was completed for the CINS exam, I used the box-and-whisker plot to compare the pre- and post-responses of this variable- the understanding of evolution. When you want to compare two (2) or more sets of data, the box-and-whisker plot can be used to show the difference between them (Glass & Hopkins, 1970). This statistical analysis was employed to demonstrate any possible changes in the understanding of evolution or will at least indicate the central tendency for the variable- NOS instruction. A box plot is a graphical way of representing the significant features of a distribution. The box plot shows a rectangle stretching from the first to the third quartile of the distribution. The box displays the variability in the data. A line inside the box shows the approximate position of the median. If the median is not in the middle of the box, the distribution is skewed. The further the median is from the middle, the more skewed is the distribution. If there are

52 numerous outliers to one side or the other of the box or the median line does not evenly divide the box, then the population distribution from which the data were sampled may be skewed. Skewness suggests a lack of symmetry in the distribution or that much of the data is gathered to one side or the other of the box. Data from a positively skewed (skewed to the right) distribution have values that are bunched together below the mean, but have a long tail above the mean. Data from a negatively skewed (skewed to the left) distribution have values that are bunched together above the mean, but have a long tail below the mean. Additionally, the scores from the CINS exams pre- and post- were compared to determine if a change in the understanding of evolution occurred. Like the VNOS questions (figure 3.1), the questions in the CINS were analyzed individually. However in this case, my focus was to determine which aspects of evolution the participants had the greatest difficulty with and which aspects the participants were most successful in demonstrating an understanding. If a student tested differently on the post-test in comparison to the pre-test, the changes should be reflected in this statistical analyses or at least suggested if there was a change in the central tendency of the data. Only the understanding of evolution was assessed by the statistical analysis of the box-and-whisker plot. Journals were assessed using the rubric (Appendix A) and were worth a total of 10 points. Statistical values of mean, mode and standard deviations were used in the analysis. Analysis of Students‘ Acceptance of Evolution. Scoring for the Mate items (Rutledge & Warden, 1999) was performed by Likert-scaling of responses. Answers indicative of a low acceptance of evolutionary theory received a score of one (1) while answers indicative of a high acceptance of evolutionary theory received a score of five (5). Possible scores for the MATE ranged from a high of 100 to a low of 20, indicating high and low levels of acceptance, respectively. Line graphs of the pre- and post-means were employed to indicate any changes in the acceptance of evolution pre- and post-test values. Responses to the MATE survey and the CINS exam regarding the acceptance of evolution and the understanding of biological evolution, respectively, were compared. Comparison of the pre-means and post-mean line graphs for the MATE survey and CINS were used to describe the relationship between two variables. In the case of this study, the two variables of focus were acceptance of evolution and understanding of evolution. To make

53 further sense of the data collected in this study, these relationships served to provide additional support one way or the other for current literature. Correlation of the two sets of data was not attempted. Steps to Ensure Rigor of the Research A painstaking effort was made to reduce the experimenter effect in this study. Rosenthal (1985) uses this term to describe any of a number of subtle cues or signals from an experimenter that affect the performance or responses of subjects in the experiment. Since I am a veteran teacher of 13 years, my delivery of course materials was consistent from one class to another. This allowed my main focus to be to insure that explicit NOS instruction was conducted only in the explicit, reflective NOS class and implicit NOS in the implicit NOS class. Several precautionary measures were taken to reduce the experimenter effect such as: The explicit, reflective NOS class was taught on Monday and Wednesday, and the implicit NOS class was taught on Tuesday and Thursday. This separation in time between teaching events allowed me to carefully craft my instructional approach mindful of the protocols for each course section. Use of conceptual maps to guide instruction. Use of activities so that students‘ learning was heavily at the hands of their own efforts, not my lectures. Students‘ responses were posted on blackboard and the content of their post was based upon a rubric. Display of the NOS aspects in chart form daily in the explicit, reflective NOS class only. Discussion of the NOS aspects each day in the explicit, reflective NOS class only.

Steps for the Methodology The following were the steps followed in carrying out the research for this study. 1. Survey and Questionnaire responses pre- and post- before NOS and biological evolution instruction were administered. 2. Treatment- Unit on NOS and biological evolution were conducted. 3. Survey and Questionnaire responses after NOS and biological evolution instruction analyzed.

4. Patterns and/or themes from pre- and post-instruments were identified. 5. Identification of participants to be interviewed. 6. Interviews were conducted to validate responses for NOS views and understanding of evolution. 7. Follow-up interviews conducted. 8. Patterns identified. 9. Themes developed. 10. Conclusions were drawn. Personal Perspective Reflecting over my life, I was raised in the Baptist Church believing that miracles where the work of God and science was never suggested as a means of explaining these miracles. Because of my Baptist training, those miracles were accepted as true and accurate because the Bible states it. The foundation of this religion is built on faith and belief in God. If it were not for faith, there would be no religion since faith is the basis of religion. However, from the objectivist‘s epistemology and the positivist‘s theoretical framework, science is about quantification in description. Science is based on empiricism or observations of natural phenomena. Through my educational years as a student and as a teacher, I was not introduced to the nature of science nor did I have to confront the how or why science was different from religion. After all, I was taught that God created the heavens and the earth as well as the living creatures. Not once during my years of being educated was I taught the theory of biological evolution. From a scientific standpoint, I knew nothing of a possible conflict with what the Bible stated and as such experienced no conflict with my religious beliefs. In other words, I matriculated through my secondary education and collegiate years with few challenges to my religious beliefs. Therefore, I grew up believing if I did not live right that I would be doomed to burn in the flames of hell for eternity. The choice of accepting science or believing in religion never surfaced in my life in a significant way until I started teaching in a postsecondary setting. Therefore, evolution was not talked about much as I grew up, nor was it required to make a decision. As a high school teacher, laws regulated the discussion of religious beliefs so creationism could not be discussed, and evolution was not taught. Even though evolution was in the

55 textbook, it was not a part of the curriculum while I taught high school. No one told me not to teach evolution but there seemed to be an unwritten rule to not address the subject. As a college instructor, I would spend about one (1) week discussing evolution based on natural selection, fossil records, parallel speciation, and comparative anatomy. Evidence of each topic was presented to the class and the class was asked respond to the following prompt: ―Does science leave room for your faith‖. The lesson was presented without the explicit use of nature of science. Embarrassing to say but true, I did not understand the questions that evolution answered. Like many, it was my understanding that evolution suggested that man evolved from apes, and I could not believe that one species resulted from another species. Therefore, I accepted that evolution occurred on a micro-level but not on a macro-level. As I began to do more research and uncovered information that filled the gaps for me, I started to experience a conceptual change that has occurred gradually over the past two (2) years. This information did not directly fulfill religious or even scientific doubts; instead, it was more centered on how science was different from religion and why the two did not completely oppose on another. Because religion and science are two different means of knowing, I found that religion and science do not have to be in conflict and can exist harmoniously. If there is inconsistency in either, it does not call for its dismissal. In this discovery came a peace of mind or resolution that allows me a peaceful coexistence of both. Limitations of Methodology Even with a well-planned study, there is still the likelihood that something was not covered properly or adequately. This section attempts to address the limitations that may have affected the conclusions drawn from analyzing the data. In consideration of the quasi-experimental design, the nonequivalent control-group design addressed the factors that may differ between the two groups in the study. However, the main threat of using the nonequivalent control-group experiment was the possibility that group differences are due to preexisting group differences rather than to the a treatment effect. To address this issue, analysis of covariance statistically was employed to reduce the effects of initial group differences by making compensating adjustments to the posttest means of the two groups (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007). In consideration of mixed methods, the knowledge produced could have been too abstract

56 and general for direct application to specific local situations, contexts, and individuals. It was possible that the participants‘ statements could have been so intangible as well as wide-ranging to lead to any particular themes. This occurrence could have limited the results of the study. An additional limitation was my understanding of NOS. It is agreed that simply understanding concepts of NOS and inquiry is insufficient to guarantee successful teaching of these topics within a science classroom (Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Akerson, Morrison, & McDuffie, 2006; Lederman, 1999; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). Embedding NOS within the science content of this course demands an inclusive view of NOS as it relates to science content (Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). My view of NOS could have not been as comprehensive for this study and may have limited the presentation of course materials as well as interpretation of the data acquired. Furthermore, Schwartz and Lederman (2002) suggest that pedagogical content knowledge for NOS involves knowledge of NOS, knowledge of traditional science content, and knowledge of the pedagogy of explicitly teaching NOS within that context. The blend of these, among other knowledge domains, and the purposeful intentions of teaching about NOS, influence a teacher‘s success with NOS instruction (Schwartz, 2007).

CHAPTER 4: QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this chapter, I will present the descriptive statistical analysis of the quantitative pretest and posttest data and the results of the General Linear Model of Repeated Measures (GLM) that is a variation of the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). The GLM was used to provide comparison data between class 1 (explicit, reflective NOS instruction) and class 2 (implicit NOS instruction) as well as comparison data of within-group members. Other analyses included a comparison of the change in understanding of evolution and the trends observed in analysis of the CINS data. These results respond to research question 1: Do college non-major students engaged in a biology course that includes an explicit and reflective approach to NOS have greater conceptual gains about biological evolution than students enrolled in a similar class without the NOS emphasis? To answer the research question, I present data comparing students‘ understanding of evolution in the explicit, reflective NOS class and the implicit NOS class as well as relating the quantitative findings regarding students‘ acceptance of evolution as measured by their responses to the MATE (Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, Rutledge & Warden, 1999). Students’ Conceptual Framework of Microevolution The conceptual framework for evolution of the individuals in both classes was analyzed by examining their responses to the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) (Anderson et al., 2002). This examination took three forms, comparing students‘ conceptions of evolution from both treatment groups (explicit, reflective NOS, and implicit NOS) at the outset of the study, comparing the change in students understanding of evolution from both treatment groups, and finally reporting trends observed in students‘ CINS data (Appendix V). Differences in Conceptions of Evolution between Students in the explicit, reflective NOS and implicit NOS Classes Since my research project was centered on comparing students‘ from two classes but without random assortment in these classes, it is essential to establish if there were any significant differences between the classes. It is relevant to rule out other factors that can contribute to the differences in understanding evolution than the experimental factor being tested- nature of science. As stated in the methods chapter, the General Linear Model for Repeated Measures (GLM) was employed to analyze the data in reference to between-subjects effects and within-subjects contrasts. This data (table 4.1) suggest that there was no

Table 4.1: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects on CINS Pretest Data Type III Sum Source of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Intercept 409221.620 1 409221.620 423.265 .000 Backg 80.594 1 80.594 .083 .774 Error 73478.380 76 966.821

significant difference between the explicit, reflective NOS class and implicit NOS class based upon variables such as age, aptitude, prior education, and socioeconomic class on a measure of performance—that being understanding of evolution. Relevant to my research is that the other factors that could influence the outcome of the study were minimized, allowing for a focus on effects of the differing approaches to NOS instruction only. There was no interaction effect (F=.083, p=.774). When the significance level is relatively small (less than 0.05) for the effect being tested, then it can be concluded that the effect is significant. In this case, the p-value was greater than 0.05 so it was concluded that there is no significant difference between the classes on their understanding of evolution at the outset of the study. Comparison of Change in Understandings of Evolution After determining there was no significant difference in the understanding of evolution held by students in the two courses, my attention was directed towards analyzing the CINS data to determine if there was a significant difference in student learning about evolution between the two groups (explicit, reflective NOS and implicit NOS).

Findings of the research suggest that students‘ understanding of biological evolution increased in both treatments (Table 4.2). (The complete results of the CINS are presented in Appendix V.) However, it is important to note that the students in the explicit, reflective NOS class exhibited a significantly greater change in understanding of evolution than students in the implicit NOS class. This analysis includes a comparison of the mean of percentage change in the participants‘ scores for each section. [Note, there were eleven (11) items in the CINS and each question is worth 10 points with no partial credit given. To receive credit for a question, not only must the correct response be given, but also the correct reason for the reason for the response must have been provided.] The percentage change was calculated by determining the percentage number of correct answers for the pretest and posttest scores, then subtracting the

59 pretest percentage from the posttest percentage for each student. The mean percentage change on the CINS for the explicit, reflective NOS class was 47.07 compared to 44.52 % for traditional treatment class. Thus, students in the explicit, reflective NOS course scored on average 2.55% higher than students in the implicit NOS course. The increase change in understanding of evolution in the class taught with NOS instruction was further supported with the following descriptive data. The line graph (mean) was employed to illustrate this statistical data as well as the box-and-whisker plot (median). The

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics for Students’ Scores on CINS Backg Mean Median N Pretest 1 27.42 30.00 31 2 35.53 30.00 47 Total 32.31 30.00 78 Posttest 1 78.71 80.00 31 2 67.66 70.00 47 Total 72.05 75.00 78

pretest mean for the explicit, reflective NOS class was 27.42, whereas the pretest mean for the implicit NOS class was 35.53. The data suggest that students in the explicit, reflective NOS class started out with a slightly lower understanding of evolution than the students in the implicit NOS class. Even though there was a difference of 8.11 between the pretest means for the students in the explicit, reflective NOS class and the implicit NOS class, the p-value of .774 establishes that this difference was not significant (Table 4.1). The posttest mean score for the explicit, reflective NOS class was 78.71, and for the implicit NOS class was 67.66. According to the p-value of 0.015, the difference between these two mean scores was significant (Table 4.3). Therefore, students‘ understanding of biological evolution as measured by the CINS from treatment and control groups was significantly different, with the students in the explicit, reflective NOS group experiencing greater understanding of evolution. Thus, the data support the assertion explicit, reflective NOS instruction allowed the students to develop a deeper understanding of biological evolution.

Analysis of the pre- and posttest medians exhibit similar results to the means analysis. The second quartile (bold line in running through the box) represents the name for the median of the entire set of data. The box represents the interquartile range, with a mark inside it representing the median where half of the scores are below the median and half of the scores are above the median. The interquartile was determined by subtracting the first quartile (lowest line) from the third quartile (upper line). The box represents the middle 50% distribution of data. The use of the box-and whisker plots and analysis of the median may present a more realistic view of the data since outliers below the first quartile and above the third quartile may serve to distort the midpoint. This view is exhibited in the following line graphs (Figure 4.6). Comparison of the medians show that the midpoints of both classes were the same (figure 4.5) as opposed to a comparison of the means where the midpoints for the means were different (table 4.1) but not significant. Both statistical measures of the mean and median demonstrate a significant difference in the posttest mean and median with a p-value of 0.015 (table 4.3).

Table 4.3: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts of CINS Scores Type III Sum Source Relation of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Relation Linear 64991.164 1 64991.164 117.974 .000 relation * Linear 3429.625 1 3429.625 6.226 .015 backg Error(relation Linear) 41867.811 76 550.892

Box-and Whisker Plots of Pre- and Post- CINS Scores for Students in the Explicit, Reflective NOS Course

100 120

10 12 100 80

20 25 20

13 0 0

Pretest Posttest

Figure 4.1: Explicit, Reflective NOS Pretest Figure 4.2: Explicit, Reflective NOS Posttest

Box-and Whisker Plots of Pre- and Post- CINS Scores for Students in the Implicit NOS Course

100 120

100 80

20 20

0 0

Pretest Posttest

Figure 4.3: Implicit NOS Pretest Figure 4.4: Implicit NOS Posttest

Figure 4.5: Comparison of Pre- and Post- Mean CINS Scores

Figure 4.6: Comparison of Pre- and Post- Median CINS Scores

The Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts provide the p-value relevant for analyzing this data (table 4.3). When the p-value for the effect in relation approaches .000, the more significant is the relationship of the effect of the factor being tested on the changes that are observed. In this study, the p-value of .015 suggests that there was a main effect of the variable NOS on the understanding of evolution for the students in the explicit, reflective NOS class in comparison to students in the implicit NOS class.

Trends Observed in Analysis of CINS Data Based on these analyses, I observed several themes about the overall results of the CINS instrument. First, students in the explicit, reflective NOS class and implicit NOS class made modest improvements in their understanding of evolution as measured by the CINS test scores. Second, students in the explicit, reflective NOS class performed better on each question during the posttest than the implicit NOS class, but this trend did not hold true for the pretest scores. Third, the CINS scores were higher for both classes even though there seemed to be some difficulty in applying the concepts of evolution in each biological scenario. Fourth, students in the explicit, reflective NOS class scored significantly higher in the CINS posttest scores than the implicit NOS class. It is important to note that students in the explicit, reflective NOS class and the implicit NOS class made important gains in CINS test scores in the understanding of evolution. This observation is demonstrated in the graphs of the mean and median. Additionally, analysis of the pretest CINS test scores exhibited that the explicit, reflective NOS class understood evolution less than the implicit NOS class--although it is important to note that these differences were not statistically significant. The graph of the mean comparisons shows that the blue line representing the explicit, reflective NOS class originates below red line representing the implicit NOS class (Figure 4.5). Equally relevant is that the blue line representing the explicit, reflective NOS class rises and crosses the red line representing the implicit NOS class indicating that the understanding of evolution of students in the explicit, reflective NOS class increased to the point that it surpassed the understanding of evolution of the implicit NOS class. Further analysis of the posttest CINS scores illustrated that students‘ understanding of evolution increased in both classes. As a matter fact, data demonstrated that the growth in both classes was relevant. However, data also demonstrated that students in the explicit, reflective NOS class made significantly higher gains than students in the implicit NOS class. This finding suggests that NOS instruction was influential in students‘ construction of a scientific understanding of evolution. Second, students in the explicit, reflective NOS class scored higher on each question during the posttest than they did on the pretest, but this was not the case for the students in the implicit NOS course. In fact, the pretest scores for the implicit NOS class were better than the explicit, reflective NOS class for questions 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12. The higher score is further

65 demonstrated by the mean comparison (Figure 4.5). Third, there appeared to be some similarity in the difficulty of applying certain concepts of evolution such as change in population, genetic variation, variation is inherited, reproduction success, and limited survival for students in both courses. Although the pretest, posttest, and the percentage gain were interesting and were useful for identifying major differences between the classes, I wanted to examine differences among groups of students in response to the individual items. The difference among groups of students was due to the students‘ failure to answer correctly posttest questions 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 on a higher percentage that ranged from 10 – 65% for the explicit, reflective NOS class and 2 – 57% for the implicit NOS class (see table 4.4). These results parallel other studies in which conceptions of inherited variation, change in population, origin of variation, and origin of species with particular traits in a population were found to be difficult for students (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Jensen & Finley, 1996). Despite explicit instruction in the explicit, reflective NOS class and the implicit NOS class around the conceptions that mutations (a source of variation) occur randomly, and do not appear in response to ―need‖, the choices for each questions based upon ―need‖ were chosen at a higher percentage in the pretest results, and at a lower percentage the posttest results---but some students still held these alternative conceptions even after instruction. These modest yet positive results are not congruent to earlier research (Demastes, Good, & Peebles, 1996) in which ―need‖ was found to be a controlling conception and was highly resistant to instruction. Indeed, many students in this study abandoned the use of this conception—although not all. Interesting, the CINS scores for the pretest and posttest scores decline for each question (Table 4.5). Again, this research supports that the use of NOS instruction influences the understanding of evolution. Additionally, question 10 of the CINS (see Appendix S) proved to be the most difficult for each group: 10. Pilot whales that live in the polar seas have a very thick layer of body fat. Their ancestors may not have had as much body fat as today. Over the centuries, changes in the whales have occurred since: 1. The need to keep warm caused the amount of fat of every whale to increase, 2. More whales each generation have had more fat, The reason for my answer is because: A. The pilot whales wanted to adapt to their surroundings.

B. The offspring inherited more fat from their parents. C. The few individuals that had more fat lived to produce offspring. D. ______

The explicit, reflective NOS class had 16% pretest correct responses on this question whereas the implicit NOS class had 24% correct responses. Surprisingly, the percentage of students who correctly identified the response to this question decreased across both classes. However, the use of the correct response by students in the explicit, reflective NOS class decreased by a difference of 6% whereas the implicit NOS class decreased by a difference of 22%. In the explicit, reflective NOS class, only one student that gave the correct response in the pretest answered the question correctly in the posttest compared to two students in the implicit NOS class. Clearly, this question challenged the students to demonstrate how the increase in the amount of body fat was passed from generation to generation. It is difficult to infer as to why this question seemed to present a challenge for the students since similar questions required students to apply the concepts of inherited variation, change in population, and reproduction success. Finally, the graphs provide evidence that the explicit, reflective NOS class means and median CINS scores were higher than the implicit NOS scores at posttest (Figures 4.1- 4.6). The data demonstrate that the explicit, reflective NOS class scored higher than the traditional class on each CINS question. Additionally, table 4.4 shows that the percentage of correct CINS responses for the explicit, reflective NOS class was higher than the correct responses for the implicit NOS class. The difference in the percentage scores was significant. The significance of p = .024 is less than .05, supporting the significance of this difference.

Table 4.4: Comparison of Percentage Correct on CINS Responses Explicit, Explicit, Reflective Post Implicit Post Reflective Post Implicit Post Question NOS test NOS test Question NOS test NOS test 1 1 3% 2 2% 13 1 48% 2 41% 2 1 42% 2 46% 14 1 84% 2 80%

Table 4.4: Continued Explicit, Explicit, Reflective Post Implicit Post Reflective Post Implicit Post Question NOS test NOS test Question NOS test NOS test 3 1 13% 2 7% 15 1 58% 2 48% 4 1 39% 2 31% 16 1 77% 2 57% 5 1 13% 2 22% 17 1 61% 2 48% 6 1 39% 2 57% 18 1 87% 2 80% 7 1 6% 2 9% 19 1 58% 2 43% 8 1 58% 2 46% 20 1 94% 2 83% 9 1 32% 2 46% 21 1 65% 2 57% 10 1 16% 2 24% 22 1 10% 2 2% 11 1 23% 2 22% 23 1 58% 2 35% 12 1 32% 2 48% 24 1 87% 2 80%

Table 4.5: CINS Responses based on “need”. Explicit, Implicit Reflective NOS Class Responses based on "need". NOS Class 1. The need to catch prey caused the cheetah Pretest 49% 61% to run faster. Posttest 20% 24% 3. The need to survive the cold will cause the squirrels Pretest 23% 31% to develop thicker fur. Posttest 10% 18% 4. The need to keep warm caused the fur of every wolf Pretest 42% 48% to get thicker. Posttest 13% 26% 5. The need to survive caused the lice to change. Pretest 10% 24% Posttest 0% 16% 6. The need to survive would cause the caterpillars to Pretest 13% 11% shift their color. Posttest 0% 3% 7. The need to avoid predators caused the kangaroo Pretest 49% 46% to jump further. Posttest 7% 16% 9. The need to survive the summers will cause the Pretest 36% 31% trees to develop better ways to avoid drying out. Posttest 17% 22% 10. The need to keep warm caused the amount of Pretest 62% 55% fat of every whale to increase. Posttest 13% 24% 11. The need to survive caused the bacteria to change. Pretest 20% 29% Posttest 7% 16% 12. The need to survive would cause grasshoppers to Pretest 26% 7% change their body color. Posttest 4% 5%

Students’ Acceptance of Evolution The focus of this study was on the use of the nature of science to support students‘ understanding of evolution; and as such, students‘ acceptance of evolution is only tangentially related. That said, there is a rich literature that examines the interaction of understanding and acceptance of evolution. Some studies suggest that evolution instruction may promote student acceptance of evolution (Scharmann, 1990; Scharmann & Harris, 1992), but other research found no link between evolution instruction and acceptance of evolution (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Demastes, Settlage & Good, 1995). Students‘ acceptance of evolution can be an important factor in shaping the learning experiences students have in coursework that focused on evolution, but there is a great deal of literature that suggest that understanding of evolution is not closely linked to students‘ acceptance of this construct (Sinatra et al., 2005; Southerland & Sinatra, 2003, 2005). It is hoped that this study will contribute to this literature. The MATE survey (Rutledge & Warden, 1999) was used to measure the students‘ pre- and post-acceptance of evolution. This measurement tool contains 20 Likert-scale items. The answers indicative of a low acceptance of evolutionary theory received a score of one (1) and the answers indicative of a high acceptance of evolutionary theory received a score of five (5). The results (Appendix W) of this analysis are presented in tables 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8, respectively. The data in suggest that there was not a significant difference in the pretest scores on the MATE between the students in the two courses, suggesting that there is no significant difference between the explicit, reflective NOS class and implicit NOS class based upon variables such as age, aptitude, prior education, and socioeconomic class on a measure of performance—that being acceptance of evolution (Table 4.6). As stated earlier in chapter 4, it is important to rule out other factors that could influence the changes that would have been observed in the study. This finding ruled out any other factors that may have influenced the changes in aceptance of evolution exhibited by the participants in the explicit, reflective NOS class, and as such, places emphasis on the influence of the NOS instruction. Relevant to this analysis is whether or not there is a positive change in acceptance between the pre- and post-survey results and if there is a correlation between the increase in understanding of evolution and the increase in acceptance of evolution.

Table 4.6: Pre-instruction MATE Data Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Type III Sum Source of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Intercept 331526.006 1 331526.006 1908.891 .000 Backg 186.482 1 186.482 1.074 .304 Error 10594.153 61 173.675

The posttest data suggest that there was not a significant difference between the acceptance of evolution of students in the explicit, reflective NOS class and the implicit NOS class (Table 4.6). In other words, there was no interaction effect (F=1.074, p=.304). The significant level of p=.304 was greater than .05. In other words, there was no statistical difference in the degree to which students accepted evolution across the two course sections before instruction.

Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics for MATE Data Pre- and Post- Instruction Backg Mean Median N Pretest 1 51.26 12.772 27 2 47.89 10.993 36 Total 49.33 11.809 63 Posttest 1 54.85 10.358 27 2 53.31 8.028 36 Total 53.97 9.054 63

Figure 4.7: Comparison of Pre- and Post- of Mean Mate Scores

After determining that there was not a significant difference between students‘ acceptance of evolution in the explicit, reflective NOS class and the implicit NOS class before instruction, I examined the change in acceptance for students in both courses as a result of instruction. As shown, the explicit, reflective NOS class acceptance mean score increased from 51.26 to 54.85 and the implicit NOS class acceptance mean score changed from 47.89 to 53.31 (table 4.7). The data indicate that the explicit, reflective NOS class resulted in a change in an acceptance of 3.59% increase compared to an acceptance of 5.42% change in the implicit NOS class. A visual example of this data is shown in figure 4.7. In order to determine if the change in acceptance of the explicit, reflective NOS class is significant to the change in acceptance of the implicit NOS class, I conducted an ANOVA analysis (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts of MATE Data Type III Sum Source Relation of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Relation Linear 626.144 1 626.144 13.073 .001 relation * backg Linear 25.667 1 25.667 .536 .467 Error(relation) Linear 2921.634 61 47.896

Not only is the difference in acceptance of the evolution of the pretest scores not significant, but my analysis of these data showed that the difference in acceptance of evolution of the posttest scores was not significant. It is important to note that the lack of a significant difference in the acceptance of evolution contrasted to the finding of a significant difference in the understanding of biological evolution in the explicit, reflective NOS class compared to the implicit NOS class. Even though both classes received evolution instruction and the explicit, reflective NOS class received evolution instruction as well as NOS instruction and experienced significant gains in their understanding of evolution, this change in understanding was not accompanied by a statistical change in the degree to which students accepted evolutionary theory. This finding indicates that an increase in understanding of evolution does not mean that there will be an increase in acceptance of evolution. In other words, there was no relationship between understanding and acceptance of evolution. Summary It is apparent that both classes had relevant gains that can be attributed to a number of causes. Both classes showed gains for similar questions addressing biological evolution. Although both classes made improvement in their understanding of evolution, the explicit, reflective NOS class had a statistically greater gain than the implicit NOS class. In some studies, evolution instruction may at least modestly improve student understanding of evolution (Banet & Ayuso, 2003; Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Demastes, Settlage, & Good, 1995; Jensen & Finley, 1995, 1996; Jimenez-Aleixandre, 1992; Scharmann & Harris, 1992). The quality of instruction may be responsible for these gains across groups especially since the instruction employed engaging activities and class discussions (Crawford, 2007). Indeed, the concepts of evolution were presented throughout both courses and discussed continuously throughout the semester. Finally, it is important to note that although students in the explicit, reflective NOS course had higher scores on measures of understanding evolution than students in the traditional course section, the acceptance of evolution by students in both these two treatments was not different. That is, the explicit, reflective NOS instruction was successful in helping students come to understand evolution but without a corresponding change in acceptance of this construct, supporting and extending the work of several empirical research studies (Sinatra et al., 2005; Southerland & Sinatra, 2003, 2005). As a preface to the next chapter, I present and discuss in chapter 5 the findings of the

72 qualitative data collected from VNOS instrument, reflective writings, and interviews from the participants. It is hoped that these qualitative data will provide insight into the quantitative findings presented here.

CHAPTER 5: ANALYSES OF THE QUALITATIVE DATA The major objective of the qualitative section of the study was to triangulate the findings of the quantitative instrumentation, and to probe for any discrepancies between the various data sources. In this chapter, I more closely examine the ways in which students‘ knowledge of evolution changed as a result of instruction by looking at their course writings from a variety of perspectives: a comparison of the conceptions related to evolution employed by students in the two classes, describing the changes in the use of these conceptions pre- and post- instruction, as well as the degree to which students applied the theory of evolution to explain a biological phenomena. Following this, I examine students‘ views of the nature of science and how these views changed by describing students‘ responses to the views of nature of science survey (and other course writings). The coding of these surveys and writings provided specific insight into the views of students‘ whereas coding these data as informed or naïve provided a general overall view of the student‘s writings. Finally, in this chapter I examine students‘ reflection on the role of the nature of science in allowing for their consideration of the theory of evolution by describing their responses to an online prompt. Throughout the chapter, I report the findings of my qualitative data analysis of data gathered from all students, and then contrast these broad generalizations with a close consideration of data drawn from four purposefully selected individuals to provide some insight into these broad qualitative findings. Use of Specific Conceptions of Evolution: Comparison of Students’ Understanding of Evolution across Courses Students journal writings were coded using the codes that emerged from initial analyses of the data (see Appendix U). As shown, the code for understanding of evolution is influenced by NOS (EIN) was present in the writings of students (20 times) in the explicit, reflective NOS was included much more frequently than in the writings of students (5 times) in the implicit NOS class (Figure 5.1). To understand this trend, looking closely at the responses from a small group of students seems helpful. For instance, student #1 made the assertion that ―evolution, like science, is a tentative theory and the presumption is that conclusions science has drawn to date on it will likely change as new technology and data become available.‖ The closest that student #2 came to indicating a connection between NOS influence on the understanding of evolution was in the statement ―evolution is closely related to science.‖ Otherwise the journal writings of student #2 was not labeled with this code. Additionally, the code of evolution influenced by NOS

74 appeared only five (5) times, and students #3 and #4 did not indicate any of the aspects in their writings. Analysis of the illustration shows that students in the explicit, reflective NOS class had a better understanding of evolution, as students in the explicit, reflective NOS class were more likely to understand that evolution as a branch of science, as well as an overall better understanding of the definition of science, than students in the implicit NOS class (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Comparison of the number of coded responses observed across classes. [The meaning of the abbreviations on the x-axis are: DKME-Don‘t know much about evolution; EEPD-Evolution explains production of biological diversity; EIN- Understanding of evolution influenced by NOS; ENCR-Theory of evolution does not conflict with religion; EOAE-Evolution is organisms adapting to environment; OEAE- Organisms evolve via adaptation in response to change in environment; ES-Evolution is science; RHEFA- Rejects the idea that humans evolved from apes; and OEGC- Organisms evolve via genetic change.]

When it came to the recognition that evolution does not necessarily conflict with religious views (ENCR), students in the explicit, reflective NOS class showed signs of a more sophisticated undersanding with 30 responses given this code versus 13 in the implicit NOS class. Again, looking at the focus group of students, students #1 explained this by stating

―evolution and creationism are not related- nor is there any specific conflict when attempting to justify the possibility of both..‖ Moreover, student #2 stated that ―I understand that evolution is not the study of how life began, but how everything got from the beginning to now. Because of this, it is an important concept to understand that evolution and creationism can coexist.‖ In contrast, student #3 explained in journal #2 that ―I am still not convinced creationism has nothing to do with evolution‖. But this same student described that ―I never knew how creationism could go hand and hand with evolution until this semester. Creationism is the idea that humans and species were created by a higher being. Evolution is the idea that due to changes in the environment and other influential factors of the world species had to change and adapt to their environment to survive.‖ Review of the journal writing of student #4 did not reveal a definite response except that the student stated the realization that ―there is a difference between creationism and evolutionism .‖ Student #4 was questioned if evolution conflicts with his or her religious beliefs through blackboard but the student failed to clarify the her response. Overall, it appeared that students in both classes came to understand that evolution and creationism are distinct ways of knowing, and as such may not necessarily conflict. Students in the explicit, reflective NOS class again demonstrated a better understanding of evolution based upon the presence of misconceptions in the students‘ reflective writing. For instance, student #3 (in the traditional treatement group) asserted that ―evolution is due to changes in the environment and other factors to change and adapt to their environment‖. The misconception used by Student #3, that organisms change to adapt to their environment, expressed a lack of understanding the theory of evolution. This misconception was observed more frequently in the writings of students in the traditional rich class versus the explicit, reflective NOS class (Figure 5.1). Additionally, the coding of the reflective prompts indicated that students in the explicit, reflective NOS class displayed a better understanding of the random nature of the production of variation than students in the implicit NOS cours. Students in the explicit, reflective NOS class were less likely to explain that ―organisms evolve via adaptation in response to a change in their environment‖ (OEAE) than the implicit NOS class. Indeed, students‘ writings in the explicit, reflective NOS course were coded with OEAE 22 times as opposed to 39 coded response in the implicit NOS class. Again, to understand this, we look to the four (4) focal students. From the explicit,

76 reflective NOS course, Student #1 stated that ―evolution results from random mutations – organisms do not choose to evolve.‖ This student exhibited a conceptual shift considering the students‘ earlier writings included the view that organisms were able to quickly and will a change in the genetic makeup in response to a change in the environment. Also, student #2 made the point that ―organisms do not evolve via adaptation in response to a change in their environment but the random mutation occurs first in the genes followed by a change in the environment giving way to natural selection.‖ In contrast in an examination of the responses from students of the implicit NOS course, student #3 explained that ―evolution is the idea that due to changes in the environment and other influential factors of the world species had to change and adapt to their environment to survive.‖ That said, not every student in the implicit NOS course failed to construct the concept of the random production of variation, as student #4 suggested that ―it‘s the mutations that let us gradually adapt to the changes.‖ Surprisingly, the code for ‗evolution is an example of solid science,‘ (ES), was used in the writings of the explicit, reflective NOS class six (6) times and not at all in the implicit NOS class. For example, student #1 in the explicit, reflective NOS class stated that ―evolution, like science, is a tentative theory and the presumption is that conclusions science has drawn to date on it will likely change as new technology and data become available.‖ Student #2 from the explicit, reflective NOS class offered that ―evolution is closely related to science and uses the same research methods.‖ In addition, student #2 stated that ―While discussing and reviewing our cube project, it became clear that evolution is completely scientific. Evolution uses the same technique and has the same characteristics of empirically-based, based on inferences, tenativeness, and subjectivity. Statements referencing evolution being similar to or is science were not observed in the journal writings of the students in the implicit NOS class.‖ No such references were discerned in the writing of students 3 and 4 from the implicit NOS course. Furthermore, although the differences were not great, students in the explicit, reflective NOS class were more likely to reject the assertion that the theory of evolution solely describes that humans evolve from apes (RHEFA). This code was given 23 times in the writings of students in the explicit, reflective NOS course as opposed to 15 times in the implicit NOS class. Students in the explicit, reflective NOS class were more likely to understand evolution to not focus on humans evolving from apes. Reflecting this, the code RHEFA was a misconception

77 held by student #2, or in other words, the student felt that humans evolved from apes. Student #2 explained that ―over millions and millions of years ape like creatures became more sophisticated and evolved into humans.‖ In response to my request for clarification, the respondent only expressed a problem with the concept that humans evolved from apes. Nevertheless, student #3 wrote that ―I believe our unique makeup was designed especially for us and did not just come about over generations and generations of monkeys and apes transforming their genetic makeup.‖ In other words, student #3 rejected the assertion that the theory of evolution describes that humans evolve from apes by stating that ―I am a Christian and I believe that God created each and every animal, reptile, insect and molecule on this planet for a specific purpose. I believe that Adam and Eve were the very beginning of human beings.‖ Student #4 in the implicit NOS class stated that ―I know some people think that we came from some sort of caveman or a primitive living organism millions of years agbo and the reason why we have changed is to adapt to our surroundings, but I find it hard to believe.‖ It appeared that student #4 struggled with the misconception that man evolved from apes and made a conceptual shift by stating ―My view of evolution has changed a little bit about we as humans came from something else and evolved‖. Even though, the students #3 and #4 seemed to reject the suggestion that humans evolved from apes, this is not the trend that I observed in relation to the overall class post-reflective writings. Based upon this data, the explicit, reflective NOS class felt rejected stronger that evolution addresses man evolving from apes (Figure 5.1). Finally, the concept that organisms evolve as a result of a genetic change (OEGC) was expressed more frequently in the explicit, reflective NOS class as opposed to the implicit NOS class. The OEGC code appeared thirty (30) times in the responses from students in the explicit, reflective NOS course as opposed to five (5) times in the implicit NOS student responses (See Figure 5.2). For example, student #1 in the explicit, reflective NOS class stated that ―a random mutation occurs in an individual organism‘s DNA. Natural selection then occurs and selects for or against the change. At the point that the mutated characteristics increase and are seen across the population, this is considered evolution.‖ Similarly, student #2 indicated the role of genetic change in evolution by pointing out that ―the random mutation occurs first in the species genes, followed by a change in the environment giving way to natural selection.‖ Student #3 from the implicit NOS class explained that ―evolution is the process of gradual change in DNA,‖ however, holding the misconception that when the environment changes our bodies naturally

78 make an attempt to change with the environment ot survive… and to carry on the species. In contrast, student #4 offered that ―its the mutation that let us gradually adapt to the changes. We cannot cause any mutations off the bat when something in the world goes wrong.‖ This later explanation is more in line with the responses common to the explicit, reflective NOS class. Overall, the data suggest that the students in the explicit, reflective NOS course experienced a more profound understanding of evolution than students in the traditinal NOS course. That said, it is important to note that some of students in the traditional course were successful in moving toward the scientific conception of this theory? Comparison of Informed Conceptions of Evolution across each Course As described in the methodology chapter, the reflective journals and informal interviews were analyzed by coding the responses as overall informed or naïve in regards to evolutionary theory, as well assigning specific codes to certain responses using the codebook. The coding of the overall writing as informed or naïve provided a general observation of the students‘ views and allowed me to assess if a change in the overall views between the classes was occurring as the study progressed. As will be discussed in this section, these data revealed that the explicit, reflective NOS instruction made an important difference in the overall understanding of evolution in the explicit, reflective NOS class compared to the implicit NOS class, supporting the quantitative assertions drawn from analysis of the CINS. Indeed, students‘ written responses from the explicit, reflective NOS class were significantly longer, higher quality and inclusive of NOS aspects. Moreover, because of the NOS instruction and reflective writing, a greater difference in understanding of evolution was observed in the explicit, reflective NOS class as in the implicit NOS class. Analysis of the written responses to the weekly prompt indicated that NOS instruction influenced students‘ understanding of evolution. Looking at the data, this informed trend of understanding evolution can be observed (Figure 5.1). This figure demonstrates the percentage of reflective responses given an ―informed‖ code compared across the weeks of the course and compared across class sections. Note in this figure that the responses coded as informed were higher in the explicit, reflective NOS class for weeks 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10. There was a higher percentage of informed codes in the explicit, reflective NOS class 6 out of the 9 weeks demonstrated (Figure 5.2). This data showed evidence of the trend that was observed in comparing the two classes. However, the change in the number of informed responses in the

79 implicit NOS class is not as great). In fact, in the implicit NOS class, the percentage of informed responses decreased from week to week, in comparison to the explicit, reflective NOS class.

Figure 5.2: Percentage of Informed responses compared across weeks and across treatment groups

As indicated, the writings from students in the implicit NOS class were coded more frequently with the ―limited knowledge about evolution‖ (DKME) than the writings of students in the explicit, reflective NOS class ( 20 versus 14 ) (Figure 5.1). To more closely examine this trend, I examined the writings from 2 students in both classses. In looking at the course writings for student #1 in the explicit, reflective NOS course, no portions of the writings was coded with limited knowledge of evolution. Indeed, in the first week, student #1 stated that ―evolution refers to the overall changes in a species over a multitude of generations which changes resulted from environmental factors during the lifetime of each prior generation and which collectively all then affect the current generation.‖ In this response, student #1 demonstrated some aspects of understanding but in her statement about ―changes due to environmental factors‖ she revealed a common misconceptions about the origin of variation in a population, a misconception described by Bishop & Anderson (1990), Demastes, Settlage & Good (1994) . Additionally, in this first week student #1 expressed the view that individual organisms can quickly create a mutation internally to adapt to the environmental change.

Student #2 in the explicit, reflective NOS class explained that ―evolution starts with the ―big bang‖ theory.‖ This student explained that at ― the beginning of time there was a massive explosion and out of that came the universe as we know it. From this came one-celled organisms that slowly evolved over time into organisms with tissue, organs, etc. These creatures became dinosaurs, sharks, and prehistoric alligators. Over time these creatures either died our or mutated and different types of these species evolved into different animals. Over millions upon millions of years ape-like creatures became more sophisticated and evolved into humans.‖ I also examined the writings from two students in the implicit NOS course. Student #3 (like student #1 in the explicit, reflective NOS class) demonstrated some understanding of evolution but employed some common misconceptions. Student #3 stated that: ―My understanding of evolution consists of animals over generations and generations progressively transforming into other more intellectual beings. I also have come to the understanding that through the theory of evolution the world was created through the ‗Big Bang‘. I, personally, do not believe in the theory of evolution. I am a Christian and I believe that God created each and every animal, reptile, insect and molecule on this planet for a specific purpose. I believe that Adam and Eve were the very beginning of human beings. I believe our unique makeup was designed especially for us and did not just come about over generations and generations of monkeys and apes transforming their genetic makeup.‖ Not only did this student suggest that evolution addresses how organisms were created, reject evolutionary theory for religious explanations for the derivation of humans, and this passage also expressed an understanding that evolution necessarily conflicts with religion. The explanation of student #4 in the implicit NOS class was coded as having a very limited knowledge of evolution as the student stated that ―evolution is a weird subject to me just for the simple fact that I wasn‘t really taught much about it. I know some people think that we came from some sort of caveman or a primitive living organism millions of years ago and the reason why we have changed is to adapt to our surroundings, but I find it hard to believe.‖ In this case, the student recognized the limit of her/his understadings of this theory. The writings of students in the explicit, reflective NOS class were more likely to understand that the theory of evolution explains the production of biological diversity EEPD; 39 responses in the journal writing of the explicit, reflective NOS class were given this code in

81 comparison to 13 responses in the implicit NOS class. These data are cumulative of the codes for data generated over the course of the semester. Looking again to understand these broad trends, I examined the writings of my 4 focal students. For example, student #1 in the explicit, reflective NOS class stated that ―a random mutation occurs in an individual organism‘s DNA, which mutation expresses itself in that organism‘s offspring having different characteristics, which offspring then are naturally selected for during and environmental change, and then those offspring thhave offspring. Eventually, the new charateristics are seen in increased numbers in the population.‖ Student #2 explained that ―over time these creatures either died out or mutated and different types of these species evolved into different animals.‖ Furthermore, student #2 stated that ―the discussion and activities involving taxonomy [completed in class] developed my understanding of unity and diversity in evolution as well as the diversity among the millions of different species.‖ In contrast, the statement by a student #3 in the implicit NOS class demonstrated a less firm grasp of the evolution‘s role in biodiversity by stating that ―My understanding of evolution consists of animals over generations and generations progressively transforming into other more intellectual beings.‖ This journal writing indicated a recognition that evolution explains the production of new groups of organisms but included the misconception that organisms evolve become progressively ―more intelligent‖. Futhermore, student #4 stated that ―This whole evolution bit was about we as humans came from something else and evolved.‖ This student did not demonstrate any understanding of the role of evolution in biodiversity, and the writing suggested the view that only evolution addresses only changes in humans. Assessment of Students’ Understanding of Evolution using a Biological Phenomenon Following the unit on evolution, I presented the students with a ―real life‖ situation. Based upon their understanding of the concepts of evolution, the students were asked to draw inferences as to why three aloe plants survived and the other aloe plants died when left outside during the winter months (see figure 5.3). Students were allowed to complete this assessment in their group and submit one response per group. One response presented by the explicit, reflective NOS class was ―Like the skin of the Eskimo, the aloe that survived was suited for the cold more so than the aloe that died. There was a mutation inside the aloe that survived that happened first, and then when it became cold outside, natural selection occurred.‖ A second students‘ explanation of this occurrence suggests, ―Among the aloe plants, there were some that

82 had randomly mutated. I am assuming this mutation enabled the aloe plants with the mutation to endure cold weather, and thus survive it. This is an example of natural selection as well as the evolutionary process. The mutated plants were selected for while the others were selected against.‖ A cumulative analysis of the data from the explicit, reflective NOS class demonstrated that 57% of the responses were classified as ―informed‖ and 43% was classified as ―naïve‖. Analysis of the responses from the implicit NOS class exhibited much different results. In this class, only 30% of the responses were classified as ―informed‖ and 70% were classified as ―naïve‖. One group offered the following explanation ―The ones that didn‘t die, probably saved most of the heat, which the others didn‘t and died out from being so cold. Alternatively, the ones that are not dead grew while it was cold and had a mutation that allowed it to stay alive.‖ A second explanation by the implicit NOS class stated, ―Because of the environmental change, the aloe stalks mutated themselves to be adaptable to cold weather, and then back to the normal temperature, that was originally there.‖

Figure 5.3: Assessment of Aloe Plant

Following the patterns in the other data, students in the implicit NOS tended to apply the misconception that organisms change in response to an environmental change even after instruction addressing this misconception (see figure 5.1). Students in the explicit, reflective NOS class made a statistically significant shift towards understanding that the genetic change is random and is not in response to a need such as response to an environmental change. In other words, more students in the explicit, reflective NOS class understood that organisms cannot change in order to adapt to a change in the environment as shown by the number of coded responses for EOAE and OEAE (see figure 5.1). Student Understanding of the Nature of Science The central focus of this study was on students‘ understanding of evolution and how that understanding is influenced by explicit, reflective instruction in the natuer of science. That said, it seems wise to examine the manner in which students‘ understanding of nature of science also changed as a result of this instruction. In this section I examine the data from students‘ course writings to ascertaine their understanding of the nature of science. I also analyze the VNOS survey and questionaire in terms of the responses as informed or naïve views of the nature of science in order to and compare the results. Data from Course Writings Echoing the methodological approach employed for students‘ understanding of evolution, students‘ journal writings were coded using the codes to describe different aspects of their understanding of the nature of science. Again, each reflective writing assigned in the course was read and coded based upon the definitions presented in the codebook (described in Chapter 3). I analyzed the individual responses to the reflective prompt: What influence did the recent activity and class discussions have on your understanding of evolution? Has your view changed? Explain your response and provide support or examples of what influenced the change. Consider the aspects of NOS in providing your responses (explicit, reflective

NOS class only). In students‘ responses to these prompts, several codes relating to the nature of science that were frequently expressed in the explicit, reflective NOS class were not employed, or employed only infrequently, by students in the implicit NOS class (see figure 5.4). Specificallly, the following codes were absent or almost absence of in the course writings offered by students in the implicit NOS class: Science is based on theories and laws (SBTL). Science is empirically based (SEB). Science is inferential (SI). Science is subjective (SS). Science is tentative (ST).

Figure 5.4: Comparison of Select Nature of Science Codes in Students‘ Writings

From this analysis, it is obvious students in the NOS course were developing a better, more

85 applicable understanding of the nature of science as evidenced in their course writings. Data from Interviews The interviews were transcribed and coded as described in chapter 3. I used the reflective journals and interview transcripts to examine the possible differences in conceptual understanding of evolution between the explicit, reflective NOS class and the implicit NOS class. (See figures 5.2 and 5.4 for analysis of these data. From these figures, two observations were possible. First, there was a noteworthy difference in the presence of the NOS aspects in the explicit, reflective NOS class compared to the implicit NOS class. Second, the augmented understanding of the NOS aspects is related to the increased understanding of biological evolution in the explicit, reflective NOS course. Data from a Survey of Students’ Understanding of NOS and the VNOS-B In order to better, support the description of students‘ NOS views, data from pre- and post- instruction administration of a survey (Likert style) and the VNOS-B (six open-ended questions). Students‘ responses to the survey and open-ended questions were categorized along a number of characteristics of scientific knowledge: empirically based, subjective, inferential, tentative, and the relationship between facts, laws, and theories. Figure 5.4 compares the results of the pretests and posttests for the Nature of Science survey. Overall, the results of the survey demonstrated that the students in the explicit, reflective NOS class had a slightly better understanding of the NOS aspects in the post survey data than their implicit NOS counterparts. Likewise, the results of the open-ended questions exhibit a greater difference in understanding the NOS aspects by the explicit, reflective NOS class compared to students in the implicit NOS class.

Figure 5.5: Comparison of Informed Responses to Nature of Science Survey

The current ‗state of the art‘ in describing students‘ NOS views is the VNOS (a series of open-ended questions augmented with a small number of interviews). This degree of detail is required to adequately describe students‘ understanding of the nature of science given the myriad difficulties associated with survey type instruments for accessing NOS conceptions (Abd-El- Khalick, 1998). In the remainder of this section, I describe students‘ understanding of the nature of science via an analysis of their responses to the VNOS questionnaire. The previous figure shows a summary of this analysis (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.6: Comparison of Informed Responses to VNOS Questionaire

Empirical: A total of 56% in the explicit, reflective NOS class as opposed to 51% in the implicit NOS class described science as being empirically-based. Although the students did not necessarily used the word empirically-based, many students described how science was based on evidence, proof, studies, experiments, tests, facts, research, observations, and other means of figuring at answers. For example, student #1 in the explicit, reflective NOS class indicated understanding of this NOS aspect stating that ―I believe theories do change as more evidence becomes apparent new possibilities arise.‖ Student #2 in the explicit, reflective NOS class made a similar assertion by explaining that ―theories change over time when new evidence becomes available.‖ The emphasis on evidence was consistent in the pre- and posttest of the VNOS survey for both students. In the implicit NOS class, student #3 acknowledged the NOS aspect empirical by explaining ―theories change with time because people discover new evidence everyday.‖ However, this student failed to make the same connection in the post survey response. On the other hand, student #4 did not discuss the role of evidence in the development of scientific knowledge. Students from both courses described that science works based on observable evidence, as well as logic and reasoning behind observations and experimentations. According to the

88 students, theories are supported by evidence and as the new evidence is obtained through experiments, theories can become invalid and must be rewritten. Tentativeness: In their responses, 100% of the students in the explicit, reflective NOS class versus 62% in the implicit NOS class indicated that theories were subject to change. The students offered several reasons why theories changed: more evidence, scientists learned new things, evidence invalidated old ideas; new people come along with new ways of looking at old evidence, and availability of new technology. Although these same students seemed to accept that theories can change, many indicated that scientific pursuits lead to proven or certain knowledge. Students in both classes repeatedly described how scientific knowledge is ―proven‖ and how scientists ―prove‖ hypothesis, theories, and laws, calling into question whether they consider theories scientific. The explicit, reflective NOS class demonstrated an increase in understanding of the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, with 87% describing the tentative nature of science at the outset changing to 100 % upon completion, but the implicit NOS class exhibited a decrease in understanding in that the percentage of students describing the tentative nature of science dropped from 81% at the outset to 62% at the end of the class. Analysis of the data in the implicit NOS class indicated that students failed to connect change with the support of evidence in their post survey response that offers an explanation for the decrease. Theory/law distinction: Only a few participants communicated the consensus NOS view that scientific laws describe regularities or patterns under specific contexts while scientific theories provide explanations for phenomena. Indeed, only 26% of the students in the explicit, reflective NOS course demonstrated this understanding in the pre-questionnaire and the presence of this understanding decrease to 23% in the post-questionnaire writings. The implicit NOS class exhibited a slightly higher but not significant understanding of this aspect with 32% in the pre-questionnaire and decreased to 30% in the post-questionnaire. Many responded that theories are thoughts, guesses, beliefs, ―just theories‖ and not fully accepted by the public. Subjectivity: About 94% of the students in the explicit, reflective NOS class identified how scientists could sometimes be subjective in their scientific work compared the 47% of the students in the implicit NOS class. The explicit, reflective NOS class exhibited a change of 58% indication of this NOS aspect in the pre-questionnaire to 94% whereas the implicit NOS class showed a change of 45% to 47%. Some students in both courses indicated that scientists have

89 different ideas and assumptions, independently interpret the same evidence differently, hold different beliefs, and come from different educational and theoretical backgrounds. Other students were unable to portray subjective influences on scientific knowledge and instead accounted for differences in scientists‘ conclusions by vaguely explaining that ―many explanations are possible‖, or that scientist find different evidence in different geographical places. Inferential: In this case, 58% of the students in the explicit, reflective NOS class viewed that scientists use their creativity and imagination during their investigations as opposed to 62% of the students in the implicit NOS class. Even though the implicit NOS class seemed to include this NOS aspect at a higher percentage than the explicit, reflective NOS class, the significance of this data lies in the fact that students in the explicit, reflective NOS class demonstrated a larger increase in their use of this aspect in their written responses. The explicit, reflective NOS class moved from 36% in the pre-questionnaire responses to 58% and the implicit NOS class moved from 51% to 62%. This represents a change of 22% in the explicit, reflective NOS class in comparison to a change of only 11% in the implicit NOS class. Some students indicated that scientists used their creativity prior to data collection only, others described a role of creativity after data collection and others saw it throughout the entire process (recognizing the leap between evidence and explanation). In response to the use of creativity and imagination student #2 in the explicit, reflective NOS class stated that ―scientist use creativity and imagination because to collect all the knowledge you can, you have to see things from a bunch of different ways and approach it differently to get the results necessary‖. Oddly, student #2 also projected that scientist manipulate things to get a desired result, which is a misconception observed in several reflective writings of both classes. Student #3 also stated that scientist use creativity and imagination because scientists have to come up with ideas and theories as to why a factor reacted like it did.

Summary Comparison of Change in Understanding The prior explanations provided data on an individual and overall class basis as the observed differences in understanding of evolution and NOS. In order to give an overall understanding of the influence of NOS instruction on the understanding of evolution, I offer the pre- and post-instruction responses to the weekly response questions. These responses

90 encapsulate the understanding of evolution of two students in the explicit, reflective NOS class compared to the two students in the implicit NOS class. From the explicit, reflective NOS class, student #1‘s pre-instruction response was: What I've read leads me to expect that evolution refers to the overall changes in a species over a multitude of generations which changes resulted from environmental factors during the lifetime of each prior generation and which collectively all then affect the current generation. In this case, environmental changes aren't just climate but include social changes and a list of other environmental factors.‖ For the post-instruction response, student #1 stated that: Evolution takes place when all of the following conditions have occurred: a random mutation occurs in an individual organism‘s DNA, which mutation expresses itself in that organism‘s offspring having different characteristics, which offspring (with the mutated characteristics) then are naturally selected for during an environmental condition (example, a food shortage), and then those offspring themselves have offspring, and which mutated characteristics are then seen across the population of that species in future generations (because the selected for offspring now are a larger percentage of the total population). At the point that the mutated characteristics are seen across the population, the above is considered Evolution. Evolution is related to meiosis. Evolution and creationism are not related – nor is there any specific conflict when attempting to justify the possibility of both. Evolution, like science, is a tentative theory and the presumption is that conclusions science has drawn to date on it will likely change as new technology and data become available. Evolution results from random mutations—organisms do not choose to evolve. Student #2 also in the explicit, reflective NOS class stated that: My understanding of evolution starts with the "big bang" theory. In the beginning of time there was a massive explosion and out of that came the universe as we know it. From this came one-celled organisms that slowly evolved over time into organisms with tissue, organs and so forth. These creatures became dinosaurs, sharks, and prehistoric alligators. Over time these creatures either died out or mutated and different types of these species evolved into different animals. Over millions upon millions of years ape like creatures became more sophisticated and evolved into humans.

However, a change in understanding is demonstrated in student #2‘s post response that: ―I understand evolution is not the study of how life began, but how everything got from the beginning to now. Because of this, it is an important concept to understand that evolution and creationism can coexist. Evolution is closely related to science and uses the same research methods. Two of evolution's main themes are random mutation and natural selection. The random mutation occurring first in the species genes, followed by a change in the environment giving way to natural selection (the prevalence of a dominate part of a species). Evolution can be looked at from a molecular level, studying the species DNA and proteins, as well as dominate/receive genotypes, which determines what an animal will look like. These are the key points that I have learned this semester.‖ Like student #1, student #2 not only concluded that evolution is scientific, but that evolution involves a mutation first followed by a change in the environment. Both students understood that natural selection determines whether the new trait will increase in the population or not. He or she also concluded that evolution does not address the creation of life. Prior to instruction, student #3 in the implicit NOS class stated: My understanding of evolution consists of animals over generations and generations progressively transforming into other more intellectual beings. I also have come to the understanding that through the theory of evolution the world was created through the ―Big Bang‖. I personally do not believe in the theory of evolution. I am a Christian and I believe that God created each and every animal, reptile, insect and molecule on this planet for a specific purpose. I believe that Adam and Eve were the very beginning of Human beings. I believe our unique makeup was designed especially for us and did not just come about over generations and generations of monkeys and apes transforming their genetic makeup. For a post reflective response, student #3 stated that: I actually went into the semester not knowing too much about what evolution really was. I basically thought it was the Big Bang and the idea that humans mutated from apes. After taking this class this semester, I now understand that evolution is so much more. I never knew how creationism could not go hand and hand with Evolution until this semester. Creationism is the mere idea that humans and species were created by a higher being. Evolution is the idea that due to changes in the environment and other influential

factors of the world species had to change and adapt to their environment to survive. Evolution is the process of gradual change in DNA strands over centuries and centuries due to environmental and biological survival methods. When the environment changes our bodies naturally, attempt to change with the environment to survive...and to carry on the species. Although we cannot see these gradual changes occurring due to subtle changes in DNA strands over hundreds and hundreds of years, they do occur. We may not ever fully understand why every aspect of Evolution takes place, but we can make the proper advances to further our understanding of our world and the beings in it.‖ In spite of student #3‘s strong religious beliefs, he or she experienced a change in understanding that evolution does not address how we got here and evolution does not conflict with religion. Additionally, student #3 also contributed the change in organisms to a change in the genetic material but continued to hold the misconception that environmental changes initiate the change or mutation. Finally, student #4 explained that: Evolution is a weird subject to me just for the simple fact that I wasn‘t really taught much about it. I know some people think that we came from come some sort of caveman or a primitive living organism millions of years ago and the reason why we have changed is to adapt to our surroundings, but I find it hard to believe.‖ The post reflective response for student #4 stated that: I think the biggest impact on my outlook on evolution is that mutation plays a big part of it. For instance, and if a baby chick had been born with a short beak when the short stemmed flowers had just died out, leaving only long stemmed flowers to drink nectar out of, the baby chick would most likely die. If the baby chick had been born from a short beaked mom and dad and had a mutation of a slightly longer beak, the odds are that the baby will live and thrive to have more babies with the same mutation to eat nectar out of the long stemmed flowers. It's the mutations that let us gradually adapt to the changes. We can't cause any mutations off the bat when something in the world goes wrong. A mutation needs to be born with it and it is natural selection that picks whether it will be able to live in the world it was just born to, or die because its mutation let it be so that it couldn't adapt well enough.‖

Despite the limitations in communication, in this passage, student #4 demonstrated a fairly sound understanding of evolution and the processes involved. It is clear that student #4 experienced a change in understanding compared to his or her pre-response. In summary, these data indicated that instruction in evolution does bring about some change in conception. However, the explicit, reflective NOS instruction better positioned the learner to more deeply engage with the complex concepts, and therefore, developed a better understanding of the material than the learners with the implicit NOS course. The Role of NOS in Understanding Evolution? Southerland and Sinatra (2003) in their research speak to how a better understanding of NOS that allows students to remove themselves from the struggle between science and religion allowing students to more seriously consider complex science concepts. These authors describe that by understanding the aspects that define the boundaries of science, students are able to better discern there is not a necessary conflict between science knowledge and religious beliefs. The explicit, reflective engagement in the nature of science provided the students in the explicit, reflective NOS section with the tools and time to make sense of the relationship of science and religion, allowing them to focus on the principles of evolution. An analysis of the students‘ writings revealed that students in the explicit, reflective NOS course enjoyed a less conflictual environment. Affirmation to this more conflict-free environment was observed in the students‘ use of NOS language in their reflections as they described how they can ―believe‖ in both creationism and evolution. The following are excerpts from the students‘ reflections as they explained their understanding of evolution: ―To be completely honest, I really had no idea to what evolution was all about when I first began this class. I never really learned much about it in middle school or high school, maybe because I went to Catholic school my whole life, but I think I just always assumed that evolution explained how we got here and I now know that idea is a major misconception. I obviously have believed that we all came here from God but now I know that it is ok to believe in creationism and evolution. They are two completely different concepts.‖ ―Evolution is a theory and we draw inferences from things to help support theories.‖

―Evolution, like science, is a tentative theory and the presumption is that conclusions science has drawn to date on it will likely change as new technology and data become available.‖

―The DNA activity is what really opened my eyes.‖

―Over the semester, my understanding of the theory of evolution has greatly changed; I now know that it does NOT attempt to explain how we came to exist, nor that we came from apes, and does not conflict with religious views of creationism.‖

―Evolution is a scientific theory that can be proven in many ways, especially when examining the DNA of species and recognizing all the similarities between us all. All species come from a common ancestor, but along the way, mutations have occurred randomly, creating different species to arise and survive to reproduce.‖

―See that is the first and hardest thing for me to accept was that faith and evolution can coincide together, because they have nothing in conflict. Evolution is the theory of how animals have changed for the better and for the worst over the time span of millions of years. However, most people confuse evolution with creationism and that is not the case here, Mr. Butler did not try to tell us how we came to this Earth or even how the Earth was created. He tried his hardest to prove to us why there are different species and how we all have something in common.‖

Summary In summary, the qualitative analysis supported the findings of the quantitative data.

Students of the explicit, reflective NOS demonstrated a better understanding of biological evolution as well as a better understanding of the aspects of NOS. The analysis showed students #1 and #2 of the explicit, reflective NOS class exhibited a better understanding of evolution and many of the aspects of NOS. On the other hand, the presence of the NOS aspects was missing in students #3 and #4 and their explanations were not as thorough as the students in the explicit, reflective NOS class. Additionally, the students in the implicit NOS class held more misconceptions than students in the explicit, reflective NOS class as demonstrated in the explanation by student #3. In the implicit NOS class, the most predominant misconception as in student #3 held that the environment caused the changes that occurred in organisms.

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS In this chapter, I discuss the assertions drawn from the findings of the current study and situate those findings within the framework of the current literature on teaching and learning both evolution and the nature of science. The assertions directly inform the research questions of this study: 1. Do college non-major students engaged in a biology course that includes an explicit and reflective approach to NOS have greater conceptual gains about biological evolution than students enrolled in a similar class without the NOS emphasis? (assertion 2) 2. How does an understanding of the nature of science relate to students‘ understanding of evolutionary concepts (e.g., natural selection, adaptation, variation)? (assertion 1, assertion 3, and assertion 4)

The assertions are stated within three distinct foci, students‘ understanding of the NOS aspects, students‘ understanding of biological evolution, and the relationship between understanding NOS and understanding biological evolution. Assertion 1: Students engaged in explicit and reflective NOS specific instruction significantly improved their understanding of the nature of science concepts. Alternatively, students engaged in instruction using an implicit approach to the nature of science did not improve their understanding of the nature of science to the same degree. The VNOS-B results indicated that students in the explicit, reflective NOS class showed the better understanding of the NOS after the course than students in the implicit NOS class. The increased understanding of NOS demonstrated by students in the explicit, reflective NOS class compared to students in the implicit NOS class can be attributed to the students‘ engagement in explicit and reflective NOS instruction that was absent in the implicit NOS class. Post VNOS results from students in the explicit, reflective NOS class showed marked improvement in the targeted aspects of NOS (empirical nature of scientific knowledge, inferential nature of scientific knowledge, subjective nature of scientific knowledge, the distinction between scientific law and theory, and the tentative nature of scientific knowledge) compared to the result of the pretest while the scores of students in the implicit NOS class demonstrated little change. It is important to note that in the explicit, reflective NOS class, I allowed time for explicit discussion about the aspects of the NOS and students wrote about their evolving understandings

96 in this domain. As a result, students in the explicit, reflective NOS class demonstrated improvement of their views of the NOS. The same learning gains for the nature of science were not seen for students in the traditional group, in which I employed a sophisticated understanding of the nature of science during instruction, but I addressed and applied this understanding only implicitly. Champions of the implicit approach contend that doing science, such as hands-on inquiry-oriented activities and science process skills instruction will help student‘s understanding of NOS (see discussions by Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a; Schwartz et al., 2004). In contrast, the explicit, reflective approach requires activities, reflection, discussion, and/or journal writings about the aspects of the NOS conceptions (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a; Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002). It is difficult to overestimate the role of reflection in the learning of abstract or difficult concepts. Anderson, Randle, and Covotsos (2001) conclude from their research that reflective activities such as the written narratives promoted the formation of concept links with previous knowledge. In other words, reflective activities are thought to be instrumental in helping students incorporate the new information into their present frames of references or constructs to bring about a change in understanding. Furthermore, a wealth of recent research reveals that, without explicit and reflective instruction in the nature of science, students‘ views of the NOS are not easily changed (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000a; Schwartz et al., 2004). Lederman and Abd-El-Khalick (1998) argue that students‘ understanding of the NOS will not occur ―naturally‖. They suggest that it is essential for educators to guide learners explicitly if students are to develop a proper understanding of the NOS. One main focus of this study was the maintenance of students‘ focus on the NOS aspects in the explicit, reflective NOS class and, particularly, their focus on the targeted aspects of NOS of each lesson/activity (see Table 2.1 these activities). In the experimental treatment class section, students were instructed as to which NOS aspects they were expected to observe from each activity, and then we discussed those aspects after each exercise. The research in this area is clear, if teachers want students to explicitly explore, debate, and reach consensus on NOS issues in their inquiry classes, then they must not only offer ‗hands-on‘ or engaging inquiry activities, but also explicitly tell students for what conceptual purposes these activities are to be used and repeatedly engage students in discussions that connect the activities to ideas related to NOS. If the desired impact on learners‘

97 conceptions of NOS is to be achieved, then it is imperative to explicitly and reflectively target teaching the NOS (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002). Although this is a well known assertion in the science education community, this is one of the first studies to explore this relationship in a college science course, as much of the related research in this area has been conducted on pre or in-service teachers (Abd-El-Khalick & Akerson, 2004, Johnston & Southerland, 2002; Southerland, Johnston, & Sowell, 2006) or in the K-12 populations (Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985; Deadman & Kelly, 1978; Stallings, 1996). My study approached explicit-reflective instruction with the idea that I specifically taught students the target NOS elements as part of the lessons/activities designed to make them aware of more current descriptions of the nature of scientific knowledge. Explicit-reflective instruction was employed to connect the real-life practices of scientists and the NOS. And as such, my research offers further evidence in support of the findings presented by Lederman and Abd-El- Khalick and demonstrates that NOS instruction is relevant and possible on the college level. In other words, understanding of NOS concepts can be accomplished if taught deliberately, taught explicitly, taught reflective and planned into the curriculum (Johnston & Southerland, 2002). The NOS has been identified as a key element of science education reform as it is an integral factor of a student‘s scientific literacy (AAAS, 1989; 1993; NRC, 1996) and it plays an important role in the new Sunshine State Standards for Florida. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers and students to develop an understanding of the nature of science as they attempt to understand the concepts of science, especially biological evolution. The findings of this study suggest that the pedagogical approach useful in the K-12 setting also has utility in the post secondary setting. Assertion 2: Students in the explicit, reflective NOS class section made greater gains in their understanding of evolution than students in the traditional class. Very few students enter classrooms with an adequate understanding of evolution, and many students make very little or no gains in understanding in this arena even following instruction (Demastes, Settlage, & Good, 1995; Jensen & Finley, 1995; Scharmann, 1990). The general public has at best a very poor understanding of evolution (Brooks, 2001; Newport, 2006), high school students (Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985; Deadman & Kelly, 1978; Demastes et al., 1995; Stallings, 1996), undergraduate students (Bishop & Anderson, 1990), undergraduate biology majors (Dagher & BouJaoude, 1997; Grose & Simpson, 1982), medical

98 students (Brumby, 1984), and science teachers (Afffanato, 1986; Nehm & Sheppard, 2004; Osif, 1997; Parkratius, 1993; Tatina, 1989; Zimmerman, 1987). This lack of understanding is particularly troubling as the fundamental role of evolution in new scientific disciplines with direct ties to everyday life becomes progressively stronger as the science becomes more complex (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007). Evolution learning appears to be more difficult than learning of other biological concepts (Banet & Ayuso, 2003; Southerland & Sinatra, 2003, 2005) and even instruction specifically designed to address conceptual difficulties has only limited success in helping students construct an adequate understanding (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Blackwell, Powell, & Dukes, 2003; Brem, Ranney, & Schindel, 2002; Demastes-Southerland, Settlage, & Good, 1992). In every study with a focus on understanding of evolution, significant numbers of students were found to hold inaccurate knowledge of evolution before and after instruction (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Blackwell, Powell, & Dukes, 2003, Brem, Ranney, & Schindel, 2002; Brumby, 1980; Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1985; Jensen & Finley, 1996). In general, interventions that have been evaluated have not produced significant gains in student understanding of evolution. In this study, the quantitative data prior to the course indicated that both classes of students did not differ in the understanding of evolution and both classes of students demonstrated an increase in understanding evolution after the intervention. The explicit, reflective NOS class demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in their understanding of biological evolution after the course, while the changes observed in the implicit NOS group were not found to be statistically significant--this despite that the manner in which evolution was taught was held constant across the two sections. Thus, the explicit, reflective NOS approach to the teaching of biological evolution seems to be more effective than many discussed in the literature in supporting student learning about evolution. Assertion 3: The conceptual gains by students in the explicit, reflective NOS course section were allowed by the affective “room” that a sophisticated understanding of the nature of science provides in a classroom. The data collected from this study collectively indicate that a sophisticated understanding of NOS allows students to recognize the boundaries of science. We argue that an explicit and reflective engagement of the NOS aspects helps the students better understand the defining aspects of science, what makes a construct more or less ―scientific‖ (Smith & Scharmann, 1999).

This understanding moves students away from considering science and religion as either-or- propositions. A more sophisticated understanding of several of the aspects of the nature of science, particularly science as a way of knowing, allows how alternative knowledge frameworks allow for the construction of seemingly contradictory assertions. This recognition allows students to avoid or circumvent many of the affective barriers that may prevent them from deep engagement of the materials (Southerland & Sinatra, 2003). In other words, we argue that the students‘ engagement in explicitly and reflective NOS aspects creates an environment conducive for their deeper consideration of, engagement with, and eventual understanding of complex science concepts such as evolution. Duschl and Gitomer (1991) suggest that we need to strive to provide learning opportunities that encourage students to find their own ‗place to stand‘ between what many of them perceive to be an ‗evolution versus creation‘ choice. I proposed that the understanding of NOS provides this place to stand and as such provides a means by which the learner can better understand not only evolution but other complex science concepts. This ‗place to stand‘ is similar to ―positioning the learners for the next step‖. Positioning learners to take that next step is crucial if we are to promote a more adequate understanding of the nature of evolutionary biology and why biologists consider it to be a powerful unifying theme for study in the biological sciences. If we fail to help students find a place to stand, to understand both the strengths and limits of scientific knowledge and how it contrasts with other ways of knowing, we risk students memorizing what they think their instructors ―want to hear‖ and leaving that knowledge at the classroom door. Worse still, we risk alienating their future study of the biological sciences. Finally, worst of all, we continue to perpetuate a public misunderstanding of evolutionary theory among future adults (Woods & Scharmann, 2001). Assertion #4: A change in students’ understanding of evolution does not necessitate a change in students’ acceptance of evolution. Most interventions to date have produced meager gains in many aspects of participants‘ knowledge of evolution. Thus, the limited nature of existing studies precludes the resolution of many fundamental questions, including whether or not significant learning gains influence belief in or acceptance of evolution (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Demastes et al., 1995; Jensen & Finley, 1995, 1997; Scharmann & Harris, 1992). It is important to recognize that the focus of this study was the understanding of evolution

100 and not acceptance of evolution. The nature of students‘ knowledge and belief underlie many fundamental research questions in science education (Southerland et al., 2001) but the consensus view of evolution educators, and for others that focus on the teaching of controversial topics, is that the appropriate goal of science teachers is student understanding of a science concept, not a change in student belief about or acceptance of that construct (Smith & Siegel, 2004; Southerland, 2000). (Although it must be recognized that there are concerns about how to practically and meaningfully differentiate such distinctions in classroom discourse [Coburn, 1994]). The burgeoning literature about knowledge and belief has thus far focused on the theoretical, philosophical, and epistemological meaning of these concepts and the justifications for advocating them as learning goals (Alters, 1997; Chinn & Samarapugavan, 2001; Coburn, 1994; Cooper, 2001; Davson-Galle, 2004; Sinatra et al., 2003; Smith, 1994; Smith & Siegel, 2004; Southerland, 2000; Southerland & Sinatra, 2003; Southerland et al., 2001). The results of empirical research on the effect of knowledge on belief or acceptance have been mixed but largely negative (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007). A minority of studies suggests that knowledge development leads to significant but modest belief change (Albarracin et al., 2003; Slusher & Anderson, 1996). In many studies, however, knowledge-oriented interventions have not changed long-term attitudes and beliefs or acceptance (Angiullo et al., 1996; Carmel et al., 1992; Demastes-Southerland et al., 1995; Erickson et al., 2003; Harris et al., 1991; Koumi & Tsiantis, 2001; Showers & Shrigley, 1995). The finding of my study as well as these studies on knowledge gain and its relationship to belief or acceptance change suggest that knowledge introduction in evolutionary biology does not provoke a change in students‘ acceptance of evolution. Indeed, this finding is well supported in the literature specifically dealing with the learning of evolution Sinatra, Southerland, McCounaughy, and Demastes (2003) investigated the relationship between student understanding and acceptance of evolution. Their research shows no relationship between the students‘ understanding and acceptance of evolution and suggests that the relationship between knowledge and belief/acceptance varies with the degree of controversy of the concept being addressed. Thus, the more controversial the topic, the weaker the link between knowledge and belief/acceptance. Demastes-Southerland et al (1995), Demastes-Southerland et al., (1992), Bishop and Anderson (1990) found no changes in students‘ acceptance of evolution even when students developed a more scientific understanding of the theory. My findings, too, suggest that students can come to a better understanding of evolution

101 without an accompanying change in their acceptance of this construct. Implications This study has several implications regarding instruction, teacher education, and educational research. First, this study showed that the nature of science instruction played an important role in the teaching and learning of biological evolution. Nevertheless, this NOS instruction must be explicit and reflective in nature. Students that engage explicitly and reflectively on specific tenets of NOS not only developed a better understanding of the NOS aspects but also a better understanding of biological evolution. Therefore, science teachers in elementary, middle, secondary and post-secondary education should consider implementing an explicit, reflective approach to the nature of science into their science curriculum not only for teaching evolution but for other controversial topics as well. Explicit-reflective instruction is needed so the students‘ attention is drawn to the key aspects of the NOS through discussions and written work following engagement in hands-on activities as well as requiring learners to think about how their work illustrates the NOS and how their inquires are similar to or different from the work of scientists (Akerson et al., 2007). Explicit-reflective instruction is needed to connect the real-life practices of scientists and the NOS creating a more scientific literate society. This research study reemphasizes the importance of time set aside for explicit discussions by students. As the teacher, time was provided in each lesson/activity for explicit discussion about the aspects of NOS and the concepts of evolution. The time designated for learners to unpack the concepts being presented more than likely contributed to the observed change in understanding of evolution. Since time for explicit discussion was made available in both classes, it provides a possible explanation why the students in the traditional class showed some gain in the understanding of evolution as indicated by the quantitative data. Just a modest gain in the implicit NOS class reemphasizes the importance of a ‗place to stand‘ provided by the focus of NOS instruction. The explicit, reflective discussion and activity based nature of instruction allowed students some comfort in analyzing and deeply engaging in considerations of evolution. Thus is not enough just to ‗cover NOS‖ but one must allow students the time, space and venues to address their concerns to allow for the deep processing that is needed in the learning of difficult concepts (Dole & Sinatra, 1998; Southerland & Sinatra, 2003) Even though this study provides evidence that NOS instruction is influential in the learning of biological evolution, it also indicates that the understanding of evolution does not

102 impact the learners‘ acceptance of the theory of evolution. As such, those that combat the teaching of evolution or fear that understanding of evolution will sway the students‘ acceptance of evolution should feel more at ease (Pennock, 1999). Science educators must work with policy makers and the general public to understand this dynamic, emphasizing that there must not be a concern that the belief systems of the students will be influenced by their increased understanding of evolution. If consideration of the inclusion of evolution is indeed influenced by the fear of changed belief systems, then this study (and others that support these findings) could be influential in easing the conflicts that commonly occur in construction of state science standards. Limitations of the Study Nonrandomized sample selection, the teacher‘s unique views of the NOS, the researcher‘s bias, and interview procedures could be limitations of this study. First, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to other teachers, participants, and all types of classrooms since participants in this study were not randomly selected from the target population. Further as the teacher, I do not perceive that I hold any naïve views of the NOS or of evolution, but it is possible that I was not able to project in the lessons or in the class discussions a clear representation of each NOS aspect or each concept of evolution as I have just begun to seriously integrate such issues into my teaching over the past two years. The multiple data used in this study such as the different kinds of instruments, VNOS, CINS, Mate survey, classroom observations, student journals, and other student created artifacts provided rich information to answer the research question. However, some data carry limitations in interpreting data due to my biases, experiences, and background in views of the NOS especially since I graded and coded the written responses produced by the participants. That said, extensive triangulation of the data was used to minimize errors in the coding process. Finally, another limitation of this study was the lack of students‘ participation in the class discussions. Reasons presented for this behavior were afraid of being embarrassed by the teacher (from past experiences; fear of being wrong; and lack of understanding the concept or question. Any form of non-participation minimizes the relevant feedback from the participants needed so that misconceptions could be addressed. As a result, the lack of participation also made it difficult to observe what trends were developing. Therefore, interviews were conducted by presenting questions to the participants through blackboard, and the students were asked to

103 read and respond to at least one reflection during the semester. Students were released earlier one class period to allow time for responding to the reflections. In this effort, I was probing for additional information or clarification of written responses. This method presented a relaxed, less-authoritative means since I was not face-to-face with the student. Lack of being open was not observed in the blackboard conversations and so I received detailed responses from the participants. Tao (2003) indicates that the use of peer collaboration transcripts provides rich insight into how students were negotiating NOS issues. Further, the use of peer collaboration transcripts provides an authentic perspective on student‘s understandings because they were working through NOS issues instead of self-consciously being interviewed (and possibly trying to please the interviewer). Suggestions for Further Research The current study explored the assertion that NOS instruction supports students‘ learning of biological evolution. Even though the National Academy of Science (1998) pointed out the importance of understanding the NOS in teaching and understanding evolution, little empirical research exists on the influence of NOS instruction on the understanding of evolution, particularly for the post-secondary level students. In addition, nature of science instructional strategies for evolution instruction have been suggested by others (Clough, 1994; Dagher & BouJaoude, 1997; Johnson & Peeples, 1987; NAP, 1998; Nickels, Nelson, & Beard, 1996; Rudolph & Stewart, 1998; Scharmann, 1990; Smith & Scharmann, 1998; Tatina, 1989), but relatively few attempts have been made to empirically investigate the effects of this approach. This research fits well into a gap in the current knowledge base regarding evolution education. Further, research is needed in investigating the influence of NOS instruction on the understanding of other potentially controversial science contents, such as big bang, stem cell research, HIV. A study on a broader scale involving many class sections and many instructors using the same plans and materials to see if similar results are acquired is needed to extend these findings. In other words, would students demonstrate a similar increase in understanding evolution with NOS instruction and lack of acceptance observed in this study in a study on a wider scale using several teachers? Second, the present study was conducted within two introductory biology classes for non- majors. Future research should examine if similar results are obtained with associated courses as

104 well as partnership courses in which the tools of different disciplines are used to support student learning(i.e., non-majors biology class linked with an argument and persuasion English class). In pairing of courses, students will be exposed to the same activities presented in this study, however, students will respond to different writing assignments and have the support of their English course to help in the construction of these writings: 1. An argumentative paper that refutes a thesis/premise on evolution. 2. A position paper on the topic ―Evolution versus Creationism.‖ 3. A Rogerian argumentative paper requiring the student to present a middle or common ground for the two sides ―Evolution versus Creationism.‖ The writing prompts will be the only change in this suggested study to determine if the change in the understanding of evolution is significant as in this study. If a significant change is experienced, then there would be more support for the importance of reflective writings in understanding complex science concepts as well as NOS focused instruction. Third, since teachers‘ views of the NOS may be related to teaching content and strategies, future research is needed to investigate the change in the use of NOS instruction and the conceptual change of student engaged NOS instruction after teachers are provided workshops and consistent in-class support to incorporate NOS aspects into their lessons and/or activities.

105

APPENDIX A: GRADING RUBRIC Rubric used to assess the writing assignments

WEEKLY PAPER BSC1005

1. Insightful ideas presented…………………..______/5. Shows understanding Reflects critical thought on topic Sufficiently comprehensive

2. Written well (ESWE)*……………………..______/4. Typos Grammar, punctuation Style Organization

3. Follows the directions……………………..______/1. On time Proper length

*ESWE is ―Edited, Standard, and Written English‖ – a term used by teachers of composition to describe the way that English is expected to be expressed in business and academic writing.

106

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. Is it your belief that the changes that occur in organisms are initiated by the environment and the need to survive? How does that occur? 2. Does evolution talk about man developing from organisms? 3. Why does change occur in organisms? 4. Does evolution talk about everything coming from a single common ancestor? 5. What is creationism? 6. Why do organisms have to grow bigger and better? 7. What initiates the changes that occur in organisms and what determines which changes will continue in the population? 8. Does evolution conflict with your religious belief? Explain. 9. Does evolution attempt to explain where we came from? 10. When you say human aspect are you talking about humans evolving form another organism or what? 11. Does the organism change to adapt? 12. Do only animals evolve? Why not plants too? 13. Suppose evolution does not attempt to explain how we got here? 14. Do you think that the organisms are able to change when it is needed? 15. Do you feel that individual organisms can evolve? 16. Do organisms will the change to take place as a response to their environment? 17. Is it a trait or evolution that is passed on to the next generation? 18. So is it your view that evolution talks about how we got here? 19. Why do you feel that evolution tries to explain that we evolved from a single-celled organism? 20. Is it your view that evolution explains how we came from monkeys? 21. Does evolution talk about humans coming from apes? 22. What is the stimulus? Can organisms will themselves to change in order to adapt? 23. What biomolecule must be changed or altered for a change to occur? 24. Explain how an organism evolves to adapt to its environment. What must change or be altered for a change to occur? 25. Is the turning on and off of a gene a mutation? 26. Are you suggesting that showing a similarity between plants and animals does not support a relationship that may support evolution? 27. Can the environment cause organisms to develop new traits? 28. I need to know how the information/activities help or did not help you understand evolution. 29. Did the organism have to adapt to survive or did it just happen to adapt and was able to survive? 30. So how does evolution occur and what determines which changes continue to exist? 31. What is your understanding of evolution?

107

32. What do you understand about evolution that you did not understand earlier? 33. Is this really macro-evolution? Consider the taxonomy of man and gorilla. Look at the family, genus and species and note when the labels change. 34. If a change in the DNA occurs, what molecule would be changed as well? 35. Where do the glitches occur in the cell? Could it be the DNA? 36. What is your understanding of evolution now and what factors are involved? 37. So where does the change or mutation occur in the cell and what molecule does it affect? 38. Did you consider the possible changes that can occur in the cell that can affect the whole organism? 39. Do we really need to understand how the cell got here to understand evolution? 40. How is it possible for the smallest part to affect the entire organism? 41. So how does the change occur and what factors play a role such as cell division, reproduction and natural selection? 42. Exactly how do organisms evolve to make new ones and what does cell division have to do with it? 43. DNA deals with recessive and dominant what? What does this have to do with evolution? 44. How does modifying proteins affect the organism? 45. How does natural selection fit in the process of evolution? 46. What cell division process is relevant to evolution?

108

APPENDIX C: INTRODUCING INQUIRY AND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE This activity introduces basic procedures involved in inquiry and concepts describing the nature of science.

Standards-Based Outcomes

This activity provides all students with opportunities to develop abilities of scientific inquiry. Specifically, it enables them to:

identify questions that can be answered through scientific investigations, design and conduct a scientific investigation, use appropriate tools and techniques to gather, analyze, and interpret data, develop descriptions, explanations, predictions, and models using evidence, think critically and logically to make relationships between evidence and explanations, recognize and analyze alternative explanations and predictions, and communicate scientific procedures and explanations.

This activity also provides all students opportunities to develop understanding about inquiry and the nature of science. Specifically, it introduces the following concepts:

Different kinds of questions suggest different kinds of scientific investigations. Current scientific knowledge and understanding guide scientific investigations. Technology used to gather data enhances accuracy and allows scientists to analyze and quantify results of investigations. Scientific explanations emphasize evidence, have logically consistent arguments, and use scientific principles, models, and theories. Science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge by empirical standards, logical arguments, and skepticism, as scientists strive for the best possible explanations about the natural world.

Science Background for Teachers

The pursuit of scientific explanations often begins with a question about a natural phenomenon. Science is a way of developing answers, or improving explanations, for observations or events in the natural world. The scientific question can emerge from a child's curiosity about where the dinosaurs went or why the sky is blue. Or the question can extend scientists' inquiries into the process of extinction or the chemistry of ozone depletion.

Once the question is asked, a process of scientific inquiry begins, and there eventually may be an answer or a proposed explanation. Critical aspects of science include curiosity and the freedom to pursue that curiosity. Other attitudes and habits of mind that characterize scientific inquiry and the activities of scientists include intelligence, honesty, skepticism, tolerance for ambiguity, openness to new knowledge, and the willingness to share knowledge publicly.

Scientific inquiry includes systematic approaches to observing, collecting information, identifying significant variables, formulating and testing hypotheses, and taking precise,

109 accurate, and reliable measurements. Understanding and designing experiments are also part of the inquiry process.

Scientific explanations are more than the results of collecting and organizing data. Scientists also engage in important processes such as constructing laws, elaborating models, and developing hypotheses based on data. These processes extend, clarify, and unite the observations and data and, very importantly, develop deeper and broader explanations. Examples include the taxonomy of organisms, the periodic table of the elements, and theories of common descent and natural selection.

One characteristic of science is that many explanations continually change. Two types of changes occur in scientific explanations: new explanations are developed, and old explanations are modified.

Just because someone asks a question about an object, organism, or event in nature does not necessarily mean that person is pursuing a scientific explanation. Among the conditions that must be met to make explanations scientific are the following:

Scientific explanations are based on empirical observations or experiments. The appeal to authority as a valid explanation does not meet the requirements of science. Observations are based on sense experiences or on an extension of the senses through technology. Scientific explanations are made public. Scientists make presentations at scientific meetings or publish in professional journals, making knowledge public and available to other scientists. Scientific explanations are tentative. Explanations can and do change. There are no scientific truths in an absolute sense. Scientific explanations are historical. Past explanations are the basis for contemporary explanations, and those, in turn, are the basis for future explanations. Scientific explanations are probabilistic. The statistical view of nature is evident implicitly or explicitly when stating scientific predictions of phenomena or explaining the likelihood of events in actual situations. Scientific explanations assume cause-effect relationships. Much of science is directed toward determining causal relationships and developing explanations for interactions and linkages between objects, organisms, and events. Distinctions among causality, correlation, coincidence, and contingency separate science from pseudoscience. Scientific explanations are limited. Scientific explanations sometimes are limited by technology, for example, the resolving power of microscopes and telescopes. New technologies can result in new fields of inquiry or extend current areas of study. The interactions between technology and advances in molecular biology and the role of technology in planetary explorations serve as examples.

Science cannot answer all questions. Some questions are simply beyond the parameters of science. Many questions involving the meaning of life, ethics, and theology are examples of questions that science cannot answer. Refer to the National Science Education Standards for Science as Inquiry (pages 145-148 for grades 5-8 and pages 175-176 for grades 9-12), History

110 and Nature of Science Standards (pages 170-171 for grades 5-8 and pages 200-204 for grades 9- 12), and Unifying Concepts and Processes (pages 116-118). Chapter 3 of this document also contains a discussion of the nature of science. Materials and Equipment

1 cube for each group of four students (black-line masters are provided). (Note: you may wish to complete the first portion of the activity as a demonstration for the class. If so, construct one large cube using a cardboard box. The sides should have the same numbers and markings as the black-line master.) 10 small probes such as tongue depressors or pencils. 10 small pocket mirrors.

Instructional Strategy

Engage — Begin by asking the class to tell you what they know about how scientists do their work. How would they describe a scientific investigation? Get students thinking about the process of scientific inquiry and the nature of science. This is also an opportunity for you to assess their current understanding of science. Accept student answers and record key ideas on the overhead or chalkboard.

Explore — (The first cube activity can be done as a demonstration if you construct a large cube and place it in the center of the room.) First, have the students form groups of three or four. Place the cubes in the center of the table where the students are working. The students should not touch, turn, lift, or open the cube. Tell the students they have to identify a question associated with the cube. Allow the students to state their questions. Likely questions include:

What is in the cube? What is on the bottom of the cube? What number is on the bottom?

You will have to answer the question by proposing an explanation, and that you will have to convince the group and class that your answer is based on evidence. (Evidence refers to observations the group can make about the visible sides of the cube.) Allow the students time to explore the cube and to develop answers to their question. Some observations or statements of fact that the students may make include:

Ask the students to use their observations (the data) to propose an answer to the question: What is on the bottom of the cube? Students should present their reasoning for this conclusion. Use this opportunity to have the students develop the idea that combining two different but logically related observations creates a stronger explanation.

Scientists often are uncertain about their proposed answers, and often have no way of knowing the absolute answer to a scientific question. Examples such as the exact ages of stars and the reasons for the extinction of prehistoric organisms will support the point.

Explain — Explanation of how the activity simulates scientific inquiry and provides a model for

111 science. Students should make the connections between their experiences with the cube and the key points.

Key points from the Standards include the following:

Science originates in questions about the world. Science uses observations to construct explanations (answers to the questions). The more observations you had that supported your proposed explanation, the stronger your explanation, even if you could not confirm the answer by examining the bottom of the cube. Scientists make their explanations public through presentations at professional meetings and journals. Scientists present their explanations and critique the explanations proposed by other scientists.

Elaborate — The main purpose of the second cube is to extend the concepts and skills introduced in the earlier activities and to introduce the role of prediction, experiment, and the use of technology in scientific inquiry. The problem is the same as the first cube: What is on the bottom of the cube? Divide the class into groups of three and instruct them to make observations and propose an answer about the bottom of the cube. Student groups should record their factual statements about the second cube. Let students identify and organize their observations. If the students are becoming too frustrated, provide helpful suggestions. Essential data from the cube include the following (see black-line master):

Scientists use patterns in data to make predictions and then design an experiment to assess the accuracy of their prediction. This process also produces new data.

Use your observations (the data) to make a prediction of the number in the upper-right corner of the bottom. Have the team decide which corner of the bottom they wish to inspect and why they wish to inspect it. The students might find it difficult to determine which corner they should inspect. Have one student obtain a utensil, such as a tweezers, probe, or tongue depressor, and a mirror. The student may lift the designated corner less than one inch and use the mirror to look under the corner. This simulates the use of technology in a scientific investigation. The groups should describe the data they gained by the "experiment." Note that the students used technology to expand their observations and understanding about the cube, even if they did not identify the corner that revealed the most productive evidence.

This observation will confirm or refute the students' working hypotheses. The students propose their answer to the question and design another experiment to answer the question. Put the cube away without revealing the bottom. Each of the student groups will present brief reports on their investigation.

Evaluate — The final cube is an evaluation. There are two parts to the evaluation. First, in groups of three, students must create a cube that will be used as the evaluation exercise for other groups. After a class period to develop a cube, the student groups should exchange cubes. The groups should address the same question: What is on the bottom of the cube? They should follow

112 the same rules—for example, they cannot pick up the cube. The groups should prepare a written report on the cube developed by their peers. (You may have the students present oral reports using the same format.) The report should include the following:

title, the question they pursued, observation—data, experiment—new data, proposed answer and supporting data, a diagram of the bottom of the cube, and suggested additional experiments.

Due to the multiple sources of data (information), this cube may be difficult for students. It may take more than one class period, and you may have to provide resources or help with some information.

Remember that this activity is an evaluation. You may give some helpful hints, especially for information, but since the evaluation is for inquiry and the nature of science, you should limit the information you provide on those topics.

Student groups should complete and hand in their reports. If student groups cannot agree, you may wish to make provisions for individual or "minority reports." You may wish to have groups present oral reports (a scientific conference). You have two opportunities to evaluate students on this activity: you can evaluate their understanding of inquiry and the nature of science as they design a cube, and you can assess their abilities and understandings as they figure out the unknown cube.

113

114

115

116

APPENDIX D: CHARACTERISTICS OF LIVING THINGS Performance objective:

1. Identify characteristics of a living organism and briefly describe each level of biological organization.

Summary: This lesson uses Venn diagrams to help students understand the characteristics of living things.

1. "Is a peach pit a living thing? Why or Why not?"

2. In small groups, please complete the matrix. Complete the by placing an ―x‖ in the columns of characteristics exhibited.

Composed Levels of Use of Homeostasis Growth and Reproduction of one or Organization Energy Development more cells Rock Wood Frog Leaf Worm Safety Pin Cactus Door Paper Grass Tree Elk T-Shirt Tennis Shoe Bicycle Car Human Bacteria Book Water

3. Class Discussion

4. A Venn diagram is a math diagram that is used to show differences and commonalities between objects. Visualize that the right and left box overlap to

117

create the middle box. The place where they overlap is called the intersection and it must contain organisms that are common between both outside boxes.

Desert Animals Intersect or Common Bipeds To Both

6. Reflection a. What conclusions can be drawn about desert animals? b. What conclusions can be drawn about bipeds? c. What conclusions can be drawn about the animals that common to both boxes.

118

119

APPENDIX E: CLASSIFY THAT!

Purpose

To expand students‘ knowledge of living organisms and further develop their ability to group, or classify, living organisms according to a variety of common features. To introduce students to scientific groupings of organisms.

Context

In earlier grades, students learned that plants and animals are alike in some ways and different in others, and that they have features that help them survive in their environments. Students learned to group organisms in different ways—by anatomy, behavior, habitat, and the like. In grades 6– 8, it is important for students to move toward understanding the established classification systems, and in particular, the rationale biologists have used to establish them. It is important for students to describe the vast diversity and relationships between organisms and to pursue useful research questions.

In this lesson, students will be acquainted with diverse forms of life by using modern biological classification systems to group animals that are related. Students will learn about basic scientific groupings like genus, species, mammals, fish, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. The website used in this lesson will allow them to pair different vertebrate animals and learn more about their common traits. By doing this, students will begin to classify organisms in a more sophisticated way.

Planning Ahead

Materials:

. A plant and living animal (even a human!) available for group classification exercises . Classify That! student sheet

Note: If your classroom does not allow all students to be online at once, print out and duplicate pertinent pages of the Classifying Critters website.

Motivation

Begin the lesson by warming students up with a review that will illustrate useful groupings of plants, animals, and non-living objects. Ask students to volunteer objects (such as a pen, a book, a coat) for scientific observation. Then add living objects such as plants or animals to the collection. Line up the objects on a table or in one area of the room. Now ask the students to observe the group.

Ask students questions such as:

120

. How many different ways can you find to group or pair these elements? . Which elements are non-living objects? . Which are living organisms? . What features determine whether something is alive or not?

After the discussion, expand the activity by asking students to choose a living organism from the original group and then group it with two other living organisms in the classroom.

Ask students:

. What features did you use to group the organisms? . What might be the purposes of these features?

Development

Direct students to the first page of the Classifying Critters website.

Read the first two paragraphs aloud and ask students why scientists group plants and animals (to help them understand and study the world's vast array of living things).

To help students get a general understanding of this classification system, explain that scientists have grouped millions of plants and animals into just five large "kingdoms." These are Animal, Plant, Fungus (like mushrooms), Protist (like algae), and Moneran (bacteria). The members of these kingdoms share similar traits, like cell structure, food procurement, movement, and reproduction. Each kingdom has smaller and smaller groups that are determined by more specific shared traits. For example, point out that their classroom could be said to be on earth, in the United States, in your state, your town, on your street, on your floor, on your side of the hall, etc.

Now ask students to reread the information about animal groupings in the second paragraph. Prompt them to explain the relationships between species, genus, and family. Explain that the Classifying Critters website will help them study a particular group of animals—vertebrates, or animals with backbones (which includes them!).

Guide students through the site‘s five ―challenges.‖ Ask students to write down the information about genus and species found on the site‘s opening page and to note common traits found in each vertebrate animal.

After completing the challenges, ask students questions such as:

. Can a bird be an animal and a vertebrate? . How can a dog be related to a cat? . Why would scientists find this way of grouping vertebrates useful? . Can scientists use what they have learned to establish relationships between other vertebrates?

121

. Why do you think scientists would be more interested in the details of internal and external structures than the behavior or general appearance of a vertebrate?

Assessment

Remind students that living things can be grouped in many ways according to various characteristics. Scientists have created groups within groups to show relationships among the multitude of living organisms.

To illustrate how these scientific classifications relate, have students complete the Classify That! student sheet. This sheet includes a simple concept map to help students understand the hierarchical relationships between each of the scientific groupings they have learned.

Have students fill out the map, using their notes from the website and class discussion. You may have to review and expand on the terms, but keep it simple—the focus should not be on the definitions, but rather on the order of terms and their general relationships. In addition to writing the terms in the circles, you could have students describe the relationship between the terms on the arrows connecting the circles.

To learn more about concept maps in general, see The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How To Construct Them, an article written by Joseph D. Novak of Cornell University. The use of concept maps as a teaching strategy was first developed by Dr. Novak in the early 1980‘s.

Several resources on the Internet describe the use of concept maps (and other graphic organizers) in the K-12 classroom. Graphic Organizers is one of those resources, and includes links to a few others at the bottom of the page.

Extensions

Fabio's Sea life Picture Gallery Have students use this site to observe undersea environments filled with animals, plants, and other diverse life forms. Fabio's Sea life Picture Gallery captures the colorful variety of life hidden beneath the ocean and even includes their scientific names. Students can watch a slide show of many amazing (and rare) creatures they have probably never seen before. Encourage them to group these creatures.

Encourage students to make a bird feeder. This will provide a great way for them to observe the diversity of bird life in their own backyard environments. Students can use their journals to draw and record the diverse traits they observe as birds come to feed. It is a "win-win" situation!

http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/matrix.cfm

122

Created : 04/15/2002

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

APPENDIX F: LIFE’S CHEMICAL BASIS 4. Be able to use the periodic chart for class exercises of drawing elements. In the drawing include the protons, neutrons, and electrons being given only the chemical symbol.

Sodium Oxygen

Magnesium Argon

5. Compare and contrast atom, ion, and isotope in terms of the subatomic particles. Consider the element carbon while answering the question.

Protons Neutrons Electrons Atom

Ion

Isotope

What atoms make living organisms?

130

Why are ions important? Consider muscle contractions and transmission of impulses along neurons.

6. Characterize ionic, covalent, and hydrogen bonds. Tell the difference between them and give an example of each.

Bonding lessons: Assess the following website to get an understanding of the three types of bonding. Complete ―Bonding by Analogy‖, ―Dissolving and Dissociating‖, and ―Bonding lessons‖. Enter in your journal your thoughts about each bond and what occurs during dissolving and dissociating, and give an example of each.

http://ithacasciencezone.com/chemzone/lessons/03bonding/default.htm

What compounds are formed by each bond?

Ionic Bonds Covalent Bonds

Where might these bonds be important in living organisms?

Hydrogen Bonding

http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/images/mols/atomfig5.html

Ice and Hydrogen Bonding

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=57

Cohesion http://trc.ucdavis.edu/biosci10v/bis10v/media/ch02/water_polarity.html

Adhesion

131

What is this an example of cohesion or adhesion?

Answer:______

6. Given the pH, identify any substance as acid, base, or neutral.

Characteristics of Acids and Bases Acids Bases

Why are acids and bases important?

7. Interpret simple chemical formulas and equations.

a) Aluminum + Oxygen Aluminum Oxide

Al + O2 Al2O3

132

b) Fe2O3 + 3 H2SO4 Fe2(SO4)3 + 3 H2O

c) C2H5OH + 3O2  2CO2 + 3H2O

In consideration of letter b), give the number of each. Consider only the right side of the equation. Fe atoms H2O molecules Oxygen atoms

Do the same for letter c), but consider the left side of equation. H atoms Oxygen molecules Carbon atoms

What can you infer about the elements on the left side of the arrow compared to the elements on the left side of the arrow in the equations?

9. Distinguish between inorganic and organic compounds. List the main classes of organic compounds and briefly describe the chemical structure and functions of each.

Inorganic Compounds Organic Compounds

What do organic molecules come together to make-up? (Consider the levels of organization). Which bonds are relevant to living organisms?

133

134

APPENDIX G: BIOMOLECULES LESSON http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomolecule

1. What are biomolecules?

2. Identify biomolecules and list examples of each.

3. What is the function of biomolecules.

4. What are the structural units of each biomolecule?

Chemistry of Biomolecules http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/biomolecules.html

5. How does pH and temperature affect proteins? What if the temperature rises above normal? What if the temperature drops below normal?

6. Protein is a broad term, what other substances does it include?

7. Provide graphs to illustrate the effects of pH and temperature on proteins?

8. Why is this important to life and metabolic processes?

9. What are enzymes? How do enzymes work (see website for animation)?

http://www.lewport.wnyric.org/JWANAMAKER/animations/Enzyme%20activity.html

Website: http://www.tvdsb.on.ca/westmin/science/sbi3a1/digest/enzymes.htm

For an enzyme-catalyzed reaction, there is usually a hyperbolic relationship between the rate of reaction and the concentration of substrate, as shown below:

135

(A) At low concentration of substrate, there is a steep increase in the rate of reaction with increasing substrate concentration. The catalytic site of the enzyme is empty, waiting for substrate to bind, for much of the time, and the rate at which product can be formed is limited by the concentration of substrate which is available.

(B) As the concentration of substrate increases, the enzyme becomes saturated with substrate. As soon as the catalytic site is empty, more substrate is available to bind and undergo reaction. The rate of formation of product now depends on the activity of the enzyme itself, and adding more substrate will not affect the rate of the reaction to any significant effect.

Factors affecting the rate of enzyme activity

All enzymes are made of protein, and proteins are denatured at high temperatures (above about 50°C). The rate of enzyme activity increases with temperature up to a maximum, then falls to zero, as the enzyme is denatured.

136

pH also affects the rate of enzyme activity. Each enzyme has its own range of pH in which it will work. Two good examples are the enzymes pepsin and catalase.

the enzyme pepsin only works between pH 1 - pH 4 (acidic) the enzyme catalase only works between pH 7 - pH 11

Optimum is a useful word, which means "the best". We call the temperature or pH, which makes an enzyme work at its very fastest the optimum for that enzyme.

Factors Affecting Enzyme Action The activity of enzymes is strongly affected by changes in pH and temperature. Each enzyme works best at a certain pH (left graph) and temperature (right graph), its activity decreasing at values above and below that point. This is not surprising considering the importance of

tertiary structure (i.e. shape) in enzyme function and noncovalent forces, e.g., ionic interactions and hydrogen bonds, in determining that shape.

Examples:

the protease pepsin works best as a pH of 1–2 (found in the stomach) while the protease trypsin is inactive at such a low pH but very active at a pH of 8 (found in the small intestine as the bicarbonate of the pancreatic fluid neutralizes the arriving stomach contents). [Discussion]

Changes in pH alter the state of ionization of charged amino acids (e.g., Asp, Lys) that may play a crucial role in substrate binding and/or the catalytic action itself. Without the unionized -COOH group of Glu-35 and the ionized - COO- of Asp-52, the catalytic action of lysozyme would cease.

Hydrogen bonds are easily disrupted by increasing temperature. This, in turn, may disrupt the shape of the enzyme so that its affinity for its substrate diminishes. The ascending portion of the temperature curve (red arrow in right-hand

137 graph above) reflects the general effect of increasing temperature on the rate of chemical reactions (graph at left). The descending portion of the curve above (blue arrow) reflects the loss of catalytic activity as the enzyme molecules become denatured at high temperatures.

138

139

APPENDIX H: CELLS - MAKE A MODEL CELL A. Purpose:

To review and compare plant and animal cells, and then build a model of an animal cell. Distinguish between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Give examples of each. Identify the major structural features of plant and/or animal cells and describe the function of each structure. To review cell structures and investigate how the components of a cell operate as a system. B. How Cells are put Together 1. Read Chapter 3 to prepare for this exercise. 2. Materials: a. Two (2) Ziploc baggies per student pair to represent the cell membrane b. A variety of materials to represent cell parts, such as buttons, pasta of different colors, pipe cleaners, and beads c. One (1) cup of Karo syrup for each student pair (or something similar, like oil or clear detergent) d. The Inside of a Cell student sheet C. This activity is intended to review the basic structures of an animal and plant cell. Please refer to your text for examples. D. Questions: 1. What are the parts inside the cell? 2. What part of a cell keeps it intact? 3. What do you think some of these cell parts do? 4. What structures indicate that this is a plant cell, rather than an animal cell? 5. What do these structures do? Complete the first two columns of the Inside of a Cell student sheet Indicate whether each structure is part of a plant cell, animal cell, or both by placing a check in the appropriate column(s). E. Working in pairs build a model of an animal cell, choosing from a variety of items that the teacher has provided. Discuss briefly the types of items to use to represent the cell structures listed on the student sheet. Gather the materials and make the cells. Each student can make their own cell depending on the amount of materials available. Tips: a. Karo syrup can be messy so you will need help pouring it into the baggie. b. You should put the items representing the various cell parts into the baggies before you pour in the syrup, so that you can promptly seal the bag once the syrup has been added. You should continue to work on the student sheet, recording the function of each structure, using your text. You should also record the material that you chose to represent each cell structure, as well as the reason for doing so.

140

If the structure is not found in the cell please mark the box N/A in the ―Materials Used‖ and ―Why Used‖ boxes for these structures. Compare your model to other models and discuss the similarities and differences. a. Why do we often depend on models: Why are models useful when discussing cells? b. How is your model like a real cell? c. How is it different? d. What are some limitations of models in general? e. What could we do to make this a model of a plant cell?

F. Evolution of Cell http://www.sumanasinc.com/webcontent/anisamples/nonmajorsbiology/organelles.html What organisms are made of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells? Which do you suggest appeared first on earth? What is the basis for drawing this conclusion? G. Assessment a. Answers to the student sheet as well as student participation in class discussions. b. Answer the following questions and remember to think about the cell as a system: 1. When this system is working, what does it do? 2. For this system to work, must it receive any input? 3. What, if any, output does this system produce? 4. Identify at least four parts of this system. Describe what each part does, and tell how each part contributes to the system as a whole. 5. Can any one part of the system do what the whole system does? Justify your response. 6. Identify at least two parts of this system that must interact if the system is to function. Describe how these parts interact. 7. Can you identify any subsystems within the whole system? 8. Describe how the functioning of this system would change if one of the parts wears out. 9. In what ways is it useful to think of the cell as a system?

141

Inside of a Cell Name:______

Structure Plant Animal Function Material Used in Why Material Model Used?

Cell Wall

Cell Membrane

Cytosol

Chloroplast

Golgi Complex

Endoplasmic Reticulum

Nucleus

Mitochondrion

Lysosome

143

144

APPENDIX I: PHOTOSYNTHESIS Performance Objectives:

1. Briefly describe the chemical events involved in photosynthesis. Name the primary reactants and products of photosynthesis.

2. Define an ATP molecule. Explain its functions in our body.

3. Briefly discuss the major chemical events of cellular respiration. Identify and explain the overall equation for cellular respiration.

Activity 1: See Energize the Plant exercise.

Introduction to Photosynthesis

Activity 2: Look over this summary of photosythesis. Check out the diagrams and gorgeous picture of stomata! Answer the following multiple choose questions:

1. The organic molecule produced directly by photosynthesis is: a) lipids b) sugar c) amino acids d) DNA 2. The photosynthetic process removes ___ from the environment. a) water b) sugar c) oxygen d) chlorophyll e) carbon dioxide 3. The process of splitting water to release hydrogens and electrons occurs during the _____ process. a) light dependent b) light independent c) carbon fixation d) carbon photophosphorylation e) glycolysis 4. The process of fixing carbon dioxide into carbohydrates occurs in the ____ process. a) light dependent b) light independent c) ATP synthesis d) carbon photophosphorylation e) glycolysis 5. Carbon dioxide enters the leaf through ____. a) chloroplasts b) stomata c) cuticle d) mesophyll cells e) leaf veins

Animation of Photosynthesis:

Light Dependent Reaction http://www.cst.cmich.edu/users/baile1re/bio101fall/enzphoto/photoanima.htm#

What is taken in and what is produced?

Complete a concept map as you view the next animation: http://www.biology4all.com/resources_library/source/61a.swf

Light Independent Reaction

145

What is taken in and what is produced? Make sure that you play each station to understand the basic steps: http://faculty.nl.edu/jste/calvin_cycle.htm What is the chemical equation for the process? Please show the reactants and products.

146

APPENDIX J: CELLULAR RESPIRATION Respiration explained

Activity 9: Look at this site and answer the following questions:

1. Which metabolic pathway occurs in cytoplasm of all living things but does not require O2? Hint: Consider glycolysis and the Kreb Cycle. 2. What is the fuel burned in cellular respiration?

Lecture note outline on Respiration

Activity 10: Look at this site and answer the following questions:

1. What is the goal of glycolysis? 2. What does glycolysis produce? 3. What is the goal of the Krebs Cycle? 4. What are the products of the Krebs Cycle for one glucose molecule? 5. What is the goal of the Electron Transport Chain?

GLYCOLYSIS

State the products in glycolysis.

1. Does glycolysis require oxygen? 2. Where does glycolysis occur in the cell?

Glycolysis animation

Activity 12: Look at this animation and answer the following questions:

1. What is the net gain of ATP per glucose?

KREB CYCLE (also called the Citric Acid Cycle, the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle or TCA cycle)

Kreb Cycle animation

Activity 13: Look at this animation of the Krebs Cycle and answer the following questions:

1. Where does the Krebs Cycle take place? 2. What must be present for pyruvate to move into the Krebs Cycle? 3. How many ATP molecules are produced from pyruvate after going through the Kreb Cycle?

Citric Acid Cycle an detailed

147

1. What organic molecules can be used to make ATP

2. How many molecules of ATP can be produced from one molecule of glucose?

Assessment: Students will research the organism euglena and read the sections in the text book on photosynthesis and cellular respiration. The scenario is that the euglena has been sealed in a jar for six (6) months and seems to thriving well. At no time is the top taken out of the jar meaning that nothing goes in and nothing comes out. The jar is exposed to sun light during the day and is in the dark at night. Explain how this is possible in consideration of photosynthesis and cellular respiration.

148

APPENDIX K: CELL DIVISION LESSON 1. Describe, in order, the events and stages occurring in mitosis: prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase. Also, describe interphase.

2. Compare and contrast mitosis and meiosis.

View Cell Cycle http://www.cellsalive.com/cell_cycle.htm

Make sure that you review the material in Chapter 7.

DNA Replication

Complete the quiz on DNA organization http://library.thinkquest.org/27819/cgi-bin/quiz.cgi?quiz=5_1

Mitosis http://www.cellsalive.com/mitosis.htm

Access the following website and click on mitosis and cytokinesis. This animation should provided further information of the cell division process. http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072437316/student_view0/chapter11/animations.html#

Stages of Meiosis http://www.cellsalive.com/meiosis.htm

Comparison of Mitosis and Meiosis http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/baby/divi_flash.html

Go to the following website and complete and print the quizzes: http://library.thinkquest.org/27819/cgi-bin/quiz.cgi?quiz=5_4

Complete the quiz on meiosis http://www.biologycorner.com/bio1/qz_meiosis.html

Complete the quiz for cell cycle http://library.thinkquest.org/27819/cgi-bin/quiz.cgi?quiz=5_3

Complete the quiz on cytokinesis http://library.thinkquest.org/27819/cgi-bin/quiz.cgi?quiz=5_5

149

Complete concept maps of each cell division process and give characteristics of each phase.

Which cell division process is important to reproduction? Explain your answer.

Assessment: After the review of the lesson, through lecture, discussion, animations, and reading assignment, students are asked to demonstrate an understanding to the processes of cell division in a skit that they created. Display cards will be provided to for labeling the parts that are needed in the demonstration. There will be some free of expression if someone wishes to use another method such as a dance or rap song.

150

APPENDIX L: BIRD BEAKS In this activity, you will get a chance to find out how the shape of a bird‘s beak helps decide what it can eat. Pretend you are a bird. You can use only the ―beak‖ you select (spoon, chopstick, or tweezer) to ―eat‖ the food (glass marbles, pennies, or toothpicks) provided by placing the food into your ―stomach‖ (plastic cup). Activity: 1. Select a beak from the objects provided. 2. Get one plastic cup. 3. Hold your beak in one hand and your stomach in the other. 4. When you are instructed by the teacher, use your beak to pick up ―food‖ (glass marbles) and place them in your stomach. 5. When you are instructor to ―Stop‖ by the teacher, empty your stomach and count the number of items that were in it. Record this amount on the Bird Beaks Record Sheet. 6. Repeat this activity for each of the other types of food (pennies and toothpicks). 7. When done, complete the record sheet with your totals. Record your data on grid on your Bird Beaks Record Sheet. 8. When asked, provide your data to the teacher, who will record the data on a class grid. 9. Using the data that has been recorded on the class grid, create a bar graph that shows the class totals for each beak and food type. The three different bird beaks should be on the X axis and the amount of food collected should be on the Y axis. There should be a different color bar for each type of food (see the sample bar graph below.

Name:______Bird Beaks Record Sheet

Individual Data Grid

Glass Marbles Pennies Toothpicks Total Food Collected Type of beak to be tested:

Class Data Grid

Glass Marbles Pennies Toothpicks Total Food Collected

Spoon

Chopstick

Tweezer

153

Teacher Sheet Bird Beaks Record Sheet

Class Data Grid

Glass Marbles Pennies Toothpicks Total Food Collected

Spoon

Chopstick

Tweezers

154

Bird Beak Post Activity Discussion Which beak collected the most of which food item?

What do you think would happen to your bird if only one food item was available?

Which of the beak types feed most successfully on which food item?

Was one beak type successful with more than one food item?

Did your earlier observations about beak types help you to understand how birds feed side by side but utilize different food items?

155

Build A Bird Kit

Body Forms To Be Used For All Birds:

156

Heads:

Beaks:

157

Feet:

158

Tails:

159

Bird Beak Activity Grid 17

Tweezers Spoon Chopsticks

160

APPENDIX M: FOSSILS AND GEOLOGIC TIME A. Purpose 1. To help students understand the development of the geologic time scale. Also, to introduce students to the major time periods in earth‘s history, as well as to the role fossils play in helping us understand this history. B. Context 1. This lesson is based on an online booklet (see attached copy) that provides an introduction of earth‘s history, published by USGS. The major time periods in earth‘s history are introduced, as well as are fossils and the role they play in helping us understand this history. 2. Student should understand that ―Sediments of sand and smaller particles (sometimes containing the remains of organisms) are gradually buried and are cemented together by dissolved minerals to form solid rock again.‖ 3. Concepts covered in this lesson, include geologic history, age dating, plate tectonics, timelines, and fossils are prerequisite concepts for understanding the theory of evolution. C. Materials 1. Online booklet ―Fossils, Rocks, and Time‖ see copy of booklet attached. D. Review geologic time scale. 1. Discuss the following question: a. If you wanted to have a birthday party for the earth, how many candles would you put on the cake? Please give reasons for your answers. E. Read the Introduction; Putting Events in Order; The Relative Time Scale; and Rocks and Layers. 1. Answer the following questions: a. Explain the difference between ―relative time‖ and ―numerical time.‖ b. Explain the overarching structure of the geologic time scale (i.e., the placement of eons, eras, periods, and epochs). c. What is a paleontologist? d. Why do the authors say that the layers of rocks are the pages in earth‘s history book? e. What are sedimentary rocks? f. What is the Law of Superposition and why is it critical to our interpretation of earth‘s history? g. What is the Law of Original Horizontality and what does it help us understand about sedimentary rocks that are no longer horizontal? F. Read ―Fossils and Rocks; Fossil Succession; and the Numeric Time Scale. 1. Answer the following questions: a. What types of fossils do most paleontologists study? b. What is the Law of Fossil Succession?

c. What would happen if we started at the present and worked backwards to examine older and older layers of rock? d. How does Darwin‘s theory of evolution explain what is seen in the fossil record? e. Why are scientific theories continually being corrected and improved? f. What are index fossils? g. How did the discovery of radioactivity help scientists calculate the age of a rock? G. Assessment 1. If you wanted to have a birthday party for the earth, how many candles would you put on the cake? 2. Why do the authors say that the layers of rocks are the pages in earth‘s history book?

162

FOSSILS, ROCKS, AND TIME By Lucy E. Edwards and John Pojeta, Jr.

Introduction || Putting Events in Order || The Relative Time Scale || Rocks and Layers || Fossils and Rocks || Fossil Succession || The Numeric Time Scale || Further Reading

About This Publication

Return to Fossils, Rocks, and Time Return to USGS Geologic Information - General Interest Pubs

This page is URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/contents.html/ Last updated 14 August 1997 (krw) Maintained by John Watson

163

PUTTING EVENTS IN ORDER

Scientists who study the past try to put events in their proper order. When we discuss events that happened in historical times, we often use dates or numbers, but we do not have to do so. Consider six historical events: the Wright brothers' flight, the bicentennial of American independence, the First and Second World Wars, the first astronaut landing on the moon, and when television became common in homes. First, let's try to put these events in order. Our knowledge of the words first and second tells us that the First World War came before the Second World War. We may know or may have been told that the landing of Neil Armstrong on the moon was seen by many people on television, but there was no television around when the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. Thus, we can order these three events: first Wright brothers' flight, then television common in homes, then the landing on the moon. By a process of gathering evidence and making comparisons, we can eventually put all six events in the complete proper order: Wright brothers' flight, First World War, Second World War, television common in In layered rocks like these at Saint homes, landing on the moon, Stephens, Alabama, geologists can and American bicentennial. easily determine the order in which the rocks were formed. Because we have written records of the time each of these events happened, we can also put them in order by using numbers. The Wright brothers' flight occurred in 1903, the First World War lasted from 1914 to 1918, and the Second World War lasted from 1939 to 1945. Televisions became part of our homes in the 1950's, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969, and America celebrated 200 years of independence in 1976.

Written records are available for only a tiny fraction of the history of Earth. Understanding the rest of the history requires detective work: gathering the evidence and making comparisons. The box at the top shows six events that occurred during the twentieth century. The bottom shows these events in relative order and numeric order.

164

THE RELATIVE TIME SCALE

Long before geologists had the means to recognize and express time in numbers of years before the present, they developed the geologic time scale. This time scale was developed gradually, mostly in Europe, over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Earth's history is subdivided into eons, which are subdivided into eras, which are subdivided into periods, which are subdivided into epochs. The names of these subdivisions, like Paleozoic or Cenozoic, may look daunting, but to the geologist there are clues in some of the words. For example, zoic refers to animal life, and paleo means ancient, meso means middle, and ceno means recent. So the relative order of the three youngest eras, first Paleoozoic, then Mesozoic, then Cenoozoic, is straightforward.

The relative geologic time scale. The oldest time interval is at the bottom and the youngest is at the top.

Fossils are the recognizable remains, such as bones, shells, or leaves, or other evidence, such as tracks, burrows, or impressions, of past life on Earth. Scientists who study fossils are called paleontologists. Remember that paleo This rock sample means ancient; so a paleontologist studies ancient forms of life. Fossils are will be taken to fundamental to the geologic time scale. The names of most of the eons and the laboratory where tiny fossils eras end in zoic, because these time intervals are often recognized on the will be extracted basis of animal life. Rocks formed during the Proterozoic Eon may have for further fossils of relative simple organisms, such as bacteria, algae, and wormlike study. animals. Rocks formed during the Phanerozoic Eon may have fossils of complex animals and plants such as dinosaurs, mammals, and trees.

165

166

ROCKS AND LAYERS

We study Earth's history by studying the record of past events that is preserved in the rocks. The layers of the rocks are the pages in our history book.

Most of the rocks exposed at the surface of Earth are sedimentary--formed from particles of older rocks that have been broken apart by water or wind. The gravel, sand, and mud settle to the bottom in rivers, lakes, and oceans. These sedimentary particles may bury living and dead animals and plants on the lake or sea bottom. With the passage of time and the accumulation of more particles, and often with chemical changes, the sediments at the bottom of the pile become rock. Gravel becomes a rock called conglomerate, sand becomes sandstone, mud becomes mudstone or shale, and the animal skeletons and plant pieces can become fossils.

An idealized view of a modern landscape and some of the plants and animals that could be preserved as fossils. As early as the mid-1600's, the Danish scientist Nicholas Steno studied the relative positions of sedimentary rocks. He found that solid particles settle from a fluid according to their relative weight or size. The largest, or heaviest, settle first, and the smallest, or lightest, settle last. Slight changes in particle size or composition result in the formation of layers, also called beds, in the rock. Layering, or bedding, is the most obvious feature of sedimentary rocks.

Sedimentary rocks are formed particle by Originations of major life forms. particle and bed by bed, and the layers are piled one on top of the other. Thus, in any sequence of layered rocks, a given bed must be older than any bed on top of it. This Law of Superposition is fundamental to the interpretation of Earth history, because at any one location it indicates the

167 relative ages of rock layers and the fossils in them.

Layered rocks form when particles settle from water or air. Steno's Law of Original Horizontality states that most sediments, when originally formed, were laid down horizontally. However, many layered rocks are no longer horizontal. Because of the Law of Original Horizontality, we know that sedimentary rocks that are not horizontal either were formed in special ways or, more often, were moved from their horizontal position by later events, such as tilting during episodes of mountain building.

Rock layers are also called strata (the plural form of the Latin word stratum), and stratigraphy is the science of strata. Stratigraphy deals with all the characteristics of layered rocks; it includes the study of how these rocks relate to time.

Nearly vertical limestone beds that were disturbed from their original horizontal Outcrop of the Ordovician position by mountain building. The men Lexington Limestone, which is rich are collecting Silurian fossil shells. These in fossil shells, near Lexington, rocks are in the Arbuckle Mountains, near Kentucky. These horizontally Ardmore, Oklahoma. Photograph courtesy layered beds were deposited about of J.E Repetski.

450 million years ago. The dark stains on the rocks are formed by water seeping from springs. The vertical marks on the rocks are drill holes in which dynamite charges were exploded to remove the rock so that an interstate highway could be built. Photograph courtesy of O.L. Karlkins.

168

FOSSILS AND ROCKS

To tell the age of most layered rocks, scientists study the fossils these rocks contain. Fossils provide important evidence to help determine what happened in Earth history and when it happened.

The word fossil makes many people think of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are now featured in books, movies, and television programs, and the bones of some large dinosaurs are on display in many museums. These reptiles were dominant animals on Earth for well over 100 million years from the Late Triassic through the Late Cretaceous. Many dinosaurs were quite small, but by the middle of the Mesozoic Period, some species weighed as much as 80 tons. By around 65 million years ago all dinosaurs were extinct. The reasons for and the rapidity of their extinction are a matter of intense debate among scientists.

Collecting samples from the bottom of the Mississippi Sound to look for the kinds of microorganisms that are preserved as fossils. The metal box is lowered overboard, scoops up bottom sediments, and then is raised onto the ship by a winch and pulleys.

In spite of all of the interest in dinosaurs, they form only a small fraction of the millions of species that live and have lived on Earth. The great bulk of the fossil record is dominated by fossils of animals with shells and microscopic remains of plants and animals, and these remains are widespread in sedimentary rocks. It is these fossils that are studied by most paleontologists.

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the English geologist and engineer William Smith and the French paleontologists Georges Cuvier and Alexandre Brongniart discovered that rocks of the same age may contain the same fossils even when the rocks are separated by long distances. They published the first geologic maps of large areas on which rocks containing similar fossils were shown. By careful observation of the rocks and their fossils, these men and other geologists were able to recognize rocks of the same age on opposite sides of the English Channel.

169

William Smith was able to apply his knowledge of fossils in a very practical way. He was an engineer building canals in England, which has lots of vegetation and few surface exposures of rock. He needed to know what rocks he could expect to find on the hills through which he had to build a canal. Often he could tell what kind of rock was likely to be below the surface by examining the fossils that had eroded from the rocks of the hillside or by digging a small hole to find fossils. Knowing what rocks to expect allowed Smith to estimate costs and determine what tools were needed for the job.

Smith and others knew that the succession of life forms preserved as fossils is useful for understanding how and when the rocks formed. Only later did scientists develop a theory to explain that succession. FOSSIL SUCCESSION

Three concepts are important in the study and use of fossils: (1) Fossils represent the remains of once-living organisms. (2) Most fossils are the remains of extinct organisms; that is, they belong to species that are no longer living anywhere on Earth. (3) The kinds of fossils found in rocks of different ages differ because life on Earth has changed through time.

Stratigraphic ranges and origins of some major groups of animals and plants.

If we begin at the present and examine older and older layers of rock, we will come to a level where no fossils of humans are present. If we continue backwards in time, we will successively come to levels where no fossils of flowering plants are present, no birds, no mammals, no reptiles, no four-footed vertebrates, no land plants, no fishes, no shells, and no animals. The three concepts are summarized in the general principle called the Law of Fossil Succession: The kinds of animals and plants found as fossils change through time. When we find the same kinds of fossils in rocks from different places, we know that the rocks are the same age.

170

Scientists look for ancestors and descendants through geologic time. The fossil Archaeopteryx lithographica was a Jurassic animal with the skeleton of a reptile, including fingers with claws on the wings (solid arrows), backbone extending into the tail (open arrow), and teeth, but it was covered with feathers. We can see fossils of many other reptiles in rock of the same age and even older, but Archaeopteryx lithographica is the oldest known fossil to have feathers. We conclude that this animal is a link between reptiles and birds and that birds are descended from reptiles. The specimen is about 45 centimeters long. Photograph courtesy of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.

How do scientists explain the changes in life forms, which are obvious in the record of fossils in rocks? Early explanations were built around the idea of successive natural disasters or catastrophes that periodically destroyed life. After each catastrophe, life began anew. In the mid- nineteenth century, both Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace proposed that older species of life give rise to younger ones. According to Darwin, this change or evolution is caused by four processes: variation, over-reproduction, competition, and survival of those best adapted to the environment in which they live. Darwin's theory accounts for all of the diversity of life, both living and fossil. His explanation gave scientific meaning to the observed succession of once- living species seen as fossils in the record of Earth's history preserved in the rocks.

Scientific theories are continually being corrected and improved, because theory must always account for known facts and observations. Therefore, as new knowledge is gained, a theory may change. Application of theory allows us to develop new plants that resist disease, to transplant kidneys, to find oil, and to establish the age of our Earth. Darwin's theory of evolution has been refined and modified continuously as new information has accumulated. All of the new information has supported Darwin's basic concept--that living beings have changed through time and older species are ancestors of younger ones.

171

A species is the most basic unit of classification for living things. This group of fossil clams shows likely ancestor-descendant relationships at the species level. These fossils from the Mid-Atlantic States show the way species can change through time. Notice how the shape of the posterior (rear) end of these clams becomes more rounded in the younger species, and the area where the two shells are held together (ligamental cavity) gets larger. Paleontologists pay particular attention to the shape of the shells and the details of the anatomy preserved as markings on the shells.

Numbers in the left-hand column refer to the following geologic time segments: 1, Pliocene; 2, Miocene; 3, Oligocene; 4, Eocene; 5, Paleocene; 6, Late Cretaceous.

Figure courtesy of G. Lynn Wingard.

The Law of Fossil Succession is very important to geologists who need to know the ages of the rocks they are studying. The fossils present in a rock exposure or in a core hole can be used to determine the ages of rocks very precisely. Detailed studies of many rocks from many places reveal that some fossils have a short, well-known time of existence. These useful fossils are called index fossils.

Today the animals and plants that live in the ocean are very different from those that live on land, and the animals and plants that live in one part of the ocean or on one part of the land are very different from those in other parts. Similarly, fossil animals and plants from different environments are different. It becomes a challenge to recognize rocks of the same age when one rock was deposited on land and another was deposited in the deep ocean. Scientists must study the fossils from a variety of environments to build a complete picture of the animals and plants that were living at a particular time in the past.

The study of fossils and the rocks that contain them occurs both out of doors and in the laboratory. The field work can take place anywhere in the world. In the laboratory, rock saws, dental drills, pneumatic chisels, inorganic and organic acids, and other mechanical and chemical procedures may be used to prepare samples for study. Preparation may take days, weeks, or months--large dinosaurs may take years to prepare. Once the fossils are freed from the rock, they can be studied and interpreted. In addition, the rock itself provides much useful information about the environment in which it and the fossils were formed.

172

Fossils can be used to recognize rocks of the same or different ages. The fossils in this figure are the remains of microscopic algae. The pictures shown were made with a scanning electron microscope and have been magnified about 250 times. In South Carolina, three species are found in a core of rock. In Virginia, only two of the species are found. We know from the species that do occur that the rock record from the early part of the middle Eocene is missing in Virginia. We also use these species to recognize rocks of the same ages (early Eocene and latter part of the middle Eocene) in both South Carolina and Virginia. The study of layered rocks and the fossils they contain is called biostratigraphy; the prefix bio is Greek and means life.

173

THE NUMERIC TIME SCALE

Thus far we have been discussing the relative time scale. How can we add numbers to our time scale? How have geologists determined that:

Earth is about 4.6 billion years old? The oldest known fossils are from rocks that were deposited about 3.5 billion years ago? The first abundant shelly fossils occur in rocks that are about 570 million years old? The last ice age ended about 10,000 ago?

Nineteenth-century geologists and paleontologists believed that Earth was quite old, but they had only crude ways of estimating just how old. The assignment of ages of rocks in thousands, millions, and billions of years was made possible by the discovery of radioactivity. Now we can use minerals that contain naturally occurring radioactive elements to calculate the numeric age of a rock in years.

The basic unit of each chemical element is the atom. An atom consists of a central nucleus, which contains protons and neutrons, surrounded by a cloud of electrons. Isotopes of an element are atoms that differ

from one another only in the Geologic time scale showing both relative and numeric ages. number of neutrons in the nucleus. For example, Ages in millions of years are approximate radioactive atoms of the element potassium have 19 protons and 21 neutrons in the nucleus (potassium 40); other atoms of potassium have 19 protons and 20 or 22 neutrons (potassium 39 and potassium 41). A radioactive isotope (the parent) of one chemical element naturally converts to a stable isotope (the daughter) of another chemical element by undergoing changes in the nucleus.

The change from parent to daughter happens at a constant rate, called the half-life. The half-life

174 of a radioactive isotope is the length of time required for exactly one-half of the parent atoms to decay to daughter atoms. Each radioactive isotope has its own unique half-life. Precise laboratory measurements of the number of remaining atoms of the parent and the number of atoms of the new daughter produced are used to compute the age of the rock. For dating geologic materials, four parent/daughter decay series are especially useful: carbon to nitrogen, potassium to argon, rubidium to strontium, and uranium to lead. Age determinations using radioactive isotopes are subject to relatively small errors in measurement--but errors that look small can mean many years or millions of years. If the measurements have an error of 1 percent, for example, an age determination of 100 million years could actually be wrong by a million years too low or too high.

Isotopic techniques are used to measure the time at which a particular mineral within a rock was formed. To allow us to assign numeric ages to the geologic time scale, a rock that can be dated isotopically is found together with rocks that can be assigned relative ages because of their fossils. Many samples, usually from several different places, must be studied before assigning a numeric age to a boundary on the geologic time scale. [Sidebar] Parents and daughters for some isotopes commonly used to establish numeric ages of rocks. The geologic time scale is the product of many years of detective work, as well as a variety of dating techniques not discussed here. The details will change as more and better information and tools become available. Many scientists have contributed and continue to contribute to the refinement of the geologic time scale as they study the fossils and the rocks, and the chemical and physical properties of the materials of which Earth is made. Just as in the time of William Smith, knowing what kinds of rocks are found below the soil can help people to make informed judgments about the uses of the resources of the planet.

Scientists compare the shapes of

175

fossils on the computer screen

FURTHER READING

For Younger Readers

Bell, R.A., 1992, Science Close-Up: Fossils: Golden Books, New York, 24 p. Introduction to fossils for young people. Carrick, Carol, and Carrick, Donald, 1989, Big Old Bones: Clarion Books, New York, 32 p. The story ot collecting and mounting dinosaur bones in the Old West. Elting, Mary, 1988, The Big Golden Book of Dinosaurs: Golden Books, New York, 61 p. Part of the Golden Book series dealing with natural history for young people. Horner, J.R., and Gorman, James, 1985, Maia: A Dinosaur Grows Up: Museum of the Rockies, Bozeman, Montana, 36 p. A nice story about dinosaur parenting.

For General Audience

Arduini, Paolo and Teruzzi, Giorgio, 1986, Simon & Schuster's Guide to Fossils: Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, 37 p. Beginner's guide to fossils. Czerkas, S.J., and Czerkas, S.A., 1991, Dinosaurs: A Global View: Mallard Press, New York, 247 p. This book deals with dinosaurs and the plants and animals that preceded them and followed them. Fenton, C.L., Fenton, M.A., Rich, P.V., and Rich, T.H., 1989, The Fossil Book: A Record of Prehistoric Life: Doubleday, New York, 740 p. Popular treatment of all major fossil groups--animals with and without backbones, plants, and microfossils. Revision of a book widely used by amateur paleontologists since 1958. Parker, Steve, and Benor, R.L., 1990, The Practical Paleontologist: Simon and Schuster/Fireside, New York, 160 p. Popular guide to all things paleontological, from collecting to displaying fossils

For Advanced Audience

Benton, M.J., 1990, Vertebrate Palaeontology: Unwin Hyman, Boston, 377 p. Highly readable account of the history of animals with backbones. Boardman, R.S., Cheetham, A.H., and Rowell, A.J., editors, 1987, Fossil Invertebrates: Blackwell, Boston, 713 p. Basic college-level text from which to learn about fossils of animals without backbones. Lipps, J.H.,editor, 1992, Fossil Prokaryotes and Protists: Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, 342 p. Introduction to the world of microfossils. Stanley, S.M., 1986, Earth and Life Through Time: Freeman, New York, 690 p. Well illustrated textbook dealing with our planet and its life through time.

176

Stern C.W., and Carroll, R.L., 1989, Paleontology: The Record of Life: Wiley, New York, 453 p. Introduction to all fossil groups through time--plants, microfossils, invertebrates, and vertebrates. Taylor, T.N., and Taylor, E.L., 1993, The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants: Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 561 p. College-level text dealing with fossil plants.

Many fossils are too small to be The rocks that seem to be coming studied without a microscope. out of the man's head, part of the Minaret Formation in the Ellsworth Mountains, Antarctica, are a 7.5-m-thick bed of limestone that stands vertically. The limestone is made up of the shells of Cambrian fossils.

This page is URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/reading.html Last updated 14 August 1997 (krw) Maintained by John Watson

177

ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION

This on-line edition contains all text from the original book in its entirety. Some figures have been modified to enhance legibility at screen resolutions.

Unless otherwise credited, all photographs are by the authors.

The printed version of this publication is one of a series of general interest publications prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey to provide information about the earth sciences, natural resources, and the environment. To obtain a catalog of additional titles in the series General Interest Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, contact:

USGS Information Services Box 25286, Building 810 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 303-202-4700; Fax 303-202-4693

The print version of this book can also be obtained from:

U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents Mail Stop SSOP Washington, DC 20402-9328

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity;preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. Administration.

178

This page is URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/about.html Last updated 21 May 2007 (akr) Maintained by John Watson

179

APPENDIX N: INVESTIGATING COMMON DESCENT: FORMULATING EXPLANATIONS AND MODELS

In this activity, students formulate explanations and models that simulate structural and biochemical data as they investigate the misconception that humans evolved from apes. The activities require two 45-minute periods. This activity is adapted with permission from Evolution: Inquiries into Biology and Earth Science by BSCS.1

Standards-Based Outcomes

This activity provides opportunities for all students to develop abilities of scientific inquiry as described in the National Science Education Standards. Specifically, it enables them to:

formulate descriptions, explanations, predictions, and models using evidence, think critically and logically to make relationships between evidence and explanations, and recognize and analyze alternative explanations and predictions.

In addition, the activity provides all students opportunities to develop fundamental understandings in the life sciences as described in the National Science Education Standards. Specifically, it conveys the following concepts:

In all organisms, the instructions for specifying the characteristics of the organism are carried in DNA, a large polymer formed from subunits of four kinds (A, G, C, and T). The chemical and structural properties of DNA explain how the genetic information that underlies heredity is both encoded in genes (as a string of molecular "letters") and replicated (by a templating mechanism). The millions of different species of plants, animals, and microorganisms that live on earth today are related by descent from common ancestors. Biological classifications are based on how organisms are related. Organisms are classified into a hierarchy of groups and subgroups based on similarities that reflect their evolutionary relationships. The species is the most fundamental unit of classification.

180

Materials and Equipment Evidence, Models, and Explanations 2 For each student: Evidence consists of observations and Notebook data on which to base scientific Pencil explanations. Using evidence to understand interactions allows individuals For each group of four students to predict changes in natural and designed systems.

4 sets of black, white, green, and red paper clips, Models are tentative schemes or each set with 35 paper clips structures that correspond to real objects, events, or classes of events, and that For the entire class: have explanatory power. Models help scientists and engineers understand how things work. Models take many forms, Overhead transparencies of Characteristics of including physical objects, plans, mental Apes and Humans, Table 1, and Morphological constructs, mathematical equations, and Tree, Figure 1 computer simulations. Overhead projector Scientific explanations incorporate existing scientific knowledge and new evidence from observations, experiments, or models into internally consistent, logical statements. Different terms, such as "hypothesis," "model," "law," "principle," "theory," and "paradigm," are used to describe various types of scientific explanations. As students develop and as they understand more science concepts and processes, their explanations should become more sophisticated. That is, their scientific explanations should more frequently include a rich scientific knowledge base, evidence of logic, higher levels of analysis, greater tolerance of criticism and uncertainty, and a clearer demonstration of the relationship between logic, evidence, and current knowledge.

181

Table 1. Characteristics of Apes and Humans Characteristics Apes Humans Posture Bent over or quadrupedal Upright or bipedal

"knuckle-walking" common Leg and arm Arms longer than legs; arms adapted for Legs usually longer than arms; legs length swinging, usually among trees adapted for striding Feet Low arches; opposable big toes, capable High arches; big toes in line with of grasping other toes; adapted for walking Teeth Prominent teeth; large gaps between Reduced teeth; gaps reduced or canines and nearby teeth absent

Skull Bent forward from spinal column; Held upright on spinal column; rugged surface; prominent brow ridges smooth surface

Face Sloping; jaws jut out; wide nasal opening Vertical profile; distinct chin; narrow nasal opening Brain size 80 to 705 cm3 (living species) 2400 to 2000 cm3 (fossil to present) Age at puberty Usually 10 to 13 years Usually 13 years or older Breeding season Estrus at various times Continual

Use the data to determine the relationships between humans, apes, and other animals. It might not be obvious that closely related organisms share more similarities than do distantly related organisms. You must understand that structures might be similar because they carry out the same functions or because they were inherited from a common ancestor. Only those similarities that arise from a common ancestor can be used to determine evolutionary relationships.

182

Diagrams called branching trees illustrate relationships among organisms. One type of branching tree, called a morphological tree, is based on comparisons of skulls, jaws, skeletons, and other structures. Look carefully at the morphological tree.

Explain — Find the part of the morphological tree that shows the relationships between gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Work with your group and develop three hypotheses to explain how these organisms are related. On a sheet of notebook paper, make a diagram of your hypotheses by drawing lines from Point A to Evolutionary relationships among organisms derived from comparisons of skeletons and each of the three organisms (G = gorilla, C = other characteristics. chimpanzee, H = human, A = common ancestor).

Develop your own hypotheses.

Instructional Strategy: Part II

Elaborate — Modern research techniques allow biologists to compare the DNA that codes for certain proteins and to make predictions about the relatedness of the organisms from which they took the DNA. Use models of these techniques to test your hypotheses and determine which one is best supported by the data they develop.

Procedure Step 1. Working in groups of four, "synthesize" strands of DNA according to the following specifications. Each different color of paper clip represents one of the four bases of DNA: black = adenine (A) green = guanine (G) white = thymine (T) red = cytosine (C)

Synthesize DNA strands by connecting paper clips in the proper sequence according to specifications listed for each group member. When you have completed the synthesis, attach a label to Position 1 and lay your strands on the table with Position 1 on the left.

Each student will synthesize one strand of DNA. Thirty-five paper clips of each color should provide an ample assortment. To save time, make sure all strands are synthesized simultaneously. Emphasize to the students that they are using models to test the hypotheses they developed in the first part of the investigation. Following are directions for the respective groups:

Group member 1

Synthesize a strand of DNA that has the following sequence:

183

Position 1 Position 20 A-G-G-C-A-T-A-A-A-C-C-A-A-C-C-G-A-T-T-A

Label this strand "human DNA." This strand represents a small section of the gene that codes for human hemoglobin protein.

Group member 2

Synthesize a strand of DNA that has the following sequence:

Position 1 Position 20 A-G-G-C-C-C-C-T-T-C-C-A-A-C-C-G-A-T-T-A

Label this strand "chimpanzee DNA." This strand represents a small section of the gene that codes for chimpanzee hemoglobin protein.

Group member 3

Synthesize a strand of DNA that has the following sequence:

Position 1 Position 20 A-G-G-C-C-C-C-T-T-C-C-A-A-C-C-A-G-G-C-C

Label this strand "gorilla DNA." This strand represents a small section of the gene that codes for gorilla hemoglobin protein.

Group member 4

Synthesize a strand of DNA that has the following sequence:

Position 1 Position 20 A-G-G-C-C-G-G-C-T-C-C-A-A-C-C-A-G-G-C-C

Label this strand "common ancestor DNA." This DNA strand represents a small section of the gene that codes for the hemoglobin protein of a common ancestor of the gorilla, chimpanzee, and human. (You will use this strand in Part III.) Emphasize to students that they will be using a model constructed from hypothetical data in the case of the common ancestor, since no such DNA yet exists, but that the other three sequences are real.

Step 2. Compare the human DNA to the chimpanzee DNA by matching the strands base by base (paper clip by paper clip).

Step 3. Count the number of bases that are not the same. Record the data in a table. Repeat these steps with the human DNA and the gorilla DNA.

184

Make sure to save all of your DNA strands for Part III.

Evaluate — 1. How do the gorilla DNA and the chimpanzee DNA compare with the human DNA?

2. What do these data suggest about the relationship between humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees?

3. Do the data support any of your hypotheses? Why or why not?

4. What kinds of data might provide additional support for your hypotheses?

Test your hypotheses using additional data from DNA sequences or morphological features. Please gather data from the fossil record also.

Hybridization data for human DNA Human DNA compared to: Number of matches Unmatched bases Chimpanzee DNA Gorilla DNA Data for common ancestor DNA Common ancestor DNA compared to: Number of matches Unmatched bases Human DNA Chimpanzee DNA Gorilla DNA

Part III

Biologists have determined that some mutations in DNA occur at a regular rate. They can use this rate as a "molecular clock" to predict when two organisms began to separate from a common ancestor. Most evolutionary biologists agree that humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor at one point in their evolutionary history. They disagree, however, on the specific relationships among these three species. In this part of the activity, you will use data from your paper-clip model to evaluate different hypotheses about the relationships between humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees.

Evolutionary biologists often disagree about the tempo of evolutionary change and about the exact nature of speciation and divergence. Reinforce the idea that models can be useful tools for testing hypotheses.

185

Procedure Step 1. Assume that the common ancestor DNA synthesized in Part II represents a section of the hemoglobin gene of a hypothetical common ancestor. Compare this common ancestor DNA to all three samples of DNA (gorilla, human, and chimpanzee), one sample at a time. Record the data in a table.

Evaluate — 1. Which DNA is most similar to the common-ancestor DNA?

2. Which two DNAs were most similar in the way that they compared to the common-ancestor DNA?

3. Which of the hypotheses developed in Part I do your data best support?

4. Do your findings prove that this hypothesis is correct? Why or why not?

5. Based on the hypothesis that your data best supported, which of the following statements is most accurate? Explain your answer in a short paragraph.

(a) Humans and apes have a common ancestor.

(b) Humans evolved from apes.

6. According to all the data collected, which of the following statements is most accurate? Explain your answer in a short paragraph.

(a) Chimpanzees and humans have a common ancestor.

(b) Chimpanzees are the direct ancestors of humans.

7. A comparison of many more DNA sequences indicates that human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are 98.8 percent identical. What parts of your data support this result?

8. What methods of science did you use in this activity?

186

Many answers are possible, including making observations, forming and testing hypotheses, and modeling.

Notes

1. Evolution: Inquiries into Biology and Earth Science by BSCS. 1992. Seattle: Videodiscovery, pp. 49-53 and pp. 211-221. 2. Standards, p.117.

187

APPENDIX O: LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION

Proton(+) Electron(-) Neutron

Atom Carbohydrates

Lipids Molecules

Proteins

Nucleic Acids

Meiosis contributes to Cells diversity in

Epithelia

Tissues Connective

Muscular

Organs Nervous

Organ Systems

Organism

188

APPENDIX P: MIND MAP #1

1. Discussion of Syllabus 2. Discussion of the

Research Project and

completion of surveys

3. What does evolution answer for 6. Introduction of Inquiry Introduction you? Reading on Weeks 1 & 2 evolution and and NOS Activity Catholic Church view of Evolution.

4. Scientific Method and T-Activity

5. Aspects of NOS Tentative Empirically based Based upon creativity, imagination, and inferential Based upon understanding difference between hypothesis, law, and theories. Subjectivity

(Presented to explicit, reflective NOS class only)

189

APPENDIX Q: MIND MAP #2

Characteristics of Living Things Levels of Organization Growth and Development Reproduction Metabolism Response to change Bacteria Archaea Eukarya

Aspects of NOS addressed in this lesson:

1. Protists Empirically based 2. Fungi Inferential 3. Plants Subjective 4. Animals

(Presented to explicit, reflective Taxonomy NOS class only) 1. Domain 2. Kingdom 3. Phylum Classify that! Activity 4. Class 5. Order 6. Family 7. Genus 8. Species 190 APPENDIX R: VIEWS ON THE NATURE OF SCIENCE SURVEY

191 APPENDIX S: CONCEPTUAL INVENTORY OF NATURAL SELECTION

DIRECTIONS The following pages contain 12 questions about changes in biological populations. Each question on this test contains two parts. Your response to the first part involves selecting the option that best completes the phrase. These options are indicated with a one (1) or a two (2). The second part asks you to select the reason for the choice you made in the first part. After the word ―BECAUSE‖, you will find three choices marked with letters (A, B, C, or D). Choose the reason that best matches your understanding. If you have another reason for your answer, write it in the space provided on the answer sheet. Your response to each item will consist of a two-part answer.

ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS ON THE ANSWER SHEET

1. Read each question carefully. 2. Record your answer in the correct box on the answer sheet. 3. Read the set of possible reasons for your answer. 4. Carefully select the reason that best matches your thinking. 5. Record this answer in the correct reason box on the answer sheet. 6. If you wish to provide your own answer, write this answer in the space provided on the answer sheet.

7. If you have other comments concerning your response to either part of the question, write them in the comment section provided.

192 Question 1: Cheetahs Modern day cheetahs can run at speeds of over 60 miles per hour. Suppose their ancestors ran at a much slower speed. The ability to run fast probably: 1. developed for all the cheetahs in a few generations, 2. involved an increase in the percentage of cheetahs that can run faster,

The reason for my answer is because: A. there was first a random genetic change in a few individuals. B. the more the cheetahs used their muscles, the faster they became. C. the need to catch prey caused them to run faster. D.

Other comments:

Question 2: Birds

Birds with webbed feet can swim in water much better than can birds without webbed feet. If a large population of birds without webbed feet (although some individuals had a small amount of webbing) were transported to a remote island covered with very little dry land and lots of marshes, swamps, and ponds: 1. some birds would live and some would die, 2. the birds would gradually develop webbed feet,

The reason for my answer is because: A. all of the birds’ feet would slowly change so they would be better for swimming. B. the few birds starting out with some webbing on their feet would survive to reproduce. C. the feet of every bird would change in the same way since they are all related. D.

Other comments:

193 Question 3: Squirrels A population of squirrels exists in an area that has had several years of very cold winters. If the winters continue to be severe in the future, we would expect that: 1. most of the squirrels will be able to live through the winter, 2. many of the squirrels will live but some will freeze to death,

The reason for my answer is because: A. some individuals, by chance, have thicker fur than others. B. the squirrels will adapt to the cold weather. C. the need to survive the cold will cause the squirrels to develop thicker fur. D.

Other comments:

Question 4: Alaskan Wolves Wolves that live in Alaska have very thick fur. Their ancestors may not have had fur as thick as it is today. Over the centuries, changes in the wolves have occurred since: 1. the need to keep warm caused the fur of every wolf to get thicker, 2. more wolves each generation have had thicker fur,

The reason for my answer is because: A. the wolves wanted to adapt to their surroundings. B. the offspring inherited thicker fur from their parents. C. the few individuals that had thicker fur lived to produce offspring. D.

Other comments:

194 Question 5: Head lice Many years ago, the spread of head lice was controlled with the chemical DDT. Recently, health workers have found that lice do not seem to be harmed as much by the DDT. The reason for this change is that: 1. a greater number of lice each generation are unaffected by the DDT, 2. over the years, all of the lice gradually became less affected by DDT,

The reason for my answer is because:: A. every generation, the individual lice who survived the DDT had offspring. B. the need to survive caused the lice to change. C. the use of DDT led to a mutation of the DNA in the lice. D.

Other comments:

Question 6: Caterpillars A population of caterpillars contains individuals that have either light or dark colored bodies. The forest where the caterpillars live used to have trees with both light and dark trunks. Recently, a disease has wiped out all of the types of trees except those with the darkest trunks. The effect on the caterpillars would be that every generation: 1. the light colored caterpillars would develop slightly darker bodies, 2. there would be a greater proportion of dark caterpillars in the population,

The reason for my answer is because:: A. the caterpillars would adapt to the change in the environment. B. the need to survive would cause the caterpillars to shift their color. C. only those caterpillars with dark bodies would escape predators and live to reproduce. D.

Other comments:

195 Question 7: Kangaroos Kangaroos can jump over 20 feet in a single hop. Suppose that the kangaroos alive today had ancestors that could not jump as far. The ability to hop large distances probably: 1. developed for all the kangaroos in a few generations, 2. involved an increase in the percentage of kangaroos that could hop far,

The reason for my answer is because: A. the more that kangaroos used their muscles, the further they could jump. B. there was first a random genetic change in a few individuals. C. the need to avoid predators caused them to jump further. D.

Other comments:

Question 8: Hummingbirds Hummingbirds with long beaks can reach the nectar at the base of flowers better than can hummingbirds with shorter beaks. Some flowers have shallow tubes with nectar at the bottom while other flowers have much deeper and narrower tubes. If a large population of hummingbirds with short beaks (but within the population, some bills were a little longer than others) were transported to a desert oasis covered entirely with plants whose flowers had very long tubes: 1. some hummingbirds would live and some would die, 2. the hummingbirds would gradually develop longer beaks,

The reason for my answer is because: A. the few hummingbirds starting out with longer beaks would survive to reproduce. B. the beak of every hummingbird would change in the same way since they are all related. C. all of the hummingbirds’ beaks would slowly change so they would be better for reaching the nectar. D.

Other comments:

196 Question 9: Trees A population of trees exists in an area that has had several years of very hot and dry summers. If the summers continue to be severe in the future, we would expect that: 1. many of the trees will live but some will die because of the dryness, 2. most of the trees will be able to live through the summer,

The reason for my answer is because: A. the need to survive the summers will cause the trees to develop better ways to avoid drying out. B. some individual trees have, by chance, better ways of conserving water. C. the plants will adapt to the hot and dry weather. D.

Other comments:

Question 10: Pilot whales Pilot whales that live in the polar seas have a very thick layer of body fat. Their ancestors may not have had as much body fat as today. Over the centuries, changes in the whales have occurred since: 1. the need to keep warm caused the amount of fat of every whale to increase, 2. more whales each generation have had more fat,

The reason for my answer is because: A. the pilot whales wanted to adapt to their surroundings. B. the offspring inherited more fat from their parents. C. the few individuals that had more fat lived to produce offspring. D.

Other comments:

197 Question 11: Strep throat bacteria Many years ago, bacteria that caused strep throat were controlled with the antibiotic penicillin. Recently, doctors have found that these types of bacteria do not seem to be harmed as much by the penicillin. The reason for this change is that: 1. over the years, all of the bacteria gradually became less affected by penicillin, 2. a greater proportion of bacteria are unaffected by the penicillin each generation,

The reason for my answer is because: A. the need to survive caused the bacteria to change. B. the use of penicillin led to a mutation of the DNA in the bacteria. C. every generation, the individual bacteria who survived the penicillin reproduced. D.

Other comments:

Question 12: Prairie grasshoppers A population of grasshoppers contains individuals that have either green or tan bodies. The prairie where the grasshoppers live used to have grass plants with both green and tan colored leaves. Recently, a disease has wiped out all of the types of grass except those with the green leaves. The effect on the grasshoppers would be that every generation: 1. the tan grasshoppers would develop slightly more green bodies, 2. there would be a greater proportion of individuals with green bodies,

The reason for my answer is because: A. only those grasshoppers with green bodies would escape predators and live to reproduce. B. the grasshoppers would adapt to the change in the environment. C. the need to survive would cause grasshoppers to change their body color. D.

Other comments:

198 ANSWER SHEET Understanding biological change

NAME

1. Answer Reason ______

2. Answer Reason ______

3. Answer Reason ______

4. Answer Reason ______

5. Answer Reason ______

6. Answer Reason ______

7. Answer Reason ______

8. Answer Reason ______

9. Answer Reason ______

10. Answer Reason ______

11. Answer Reason ______

12. Answer Reason ______

199 APPENDIX T: MEASURE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION INSTRUMENT

Instructions: For the following items, please indicate your agreement/disagreement with the given statements using the following scale.

Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Statement Agree Disagree 1. Organisms existing today are the SA A U D SD result of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years. 2. The theory of evolution is SA A U D SD incapable of being scientifically tested. 3. Modern humans are the product SA A U D SD of evolutionary processes which have occurred over millions of years. 4. The theory of evolution is based SA A U D SD on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing. 5. Most scientists accept SA A U D SD evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory. 6. The available data are ambiguous SA A U D SD as to whether evolution actually occurs. 7. The age of the Earth is less than SA A U D SD 20,000 years. 8. There is a significant body of SA A U D SD data which supports evolutionary theory. 9. Organisms exist today in SA A U D SD essentially the same form in which they always have. 10. Evolution is not a scientifically SA A U D SD valid theory. 11. The age of the Earth is at least 4 SA A U D SD billion years. 12. Current evolutionary theory is SA A U D SD the result of sound scientific research and methodology. 13. Evolutionary theory generates SA A U D SD testable predictions with respect to the characteristics of life.

200 14. The theory of evolution cannot SA A U D SD be correct since it disagrees with the Biblical account of creation. 15. Humans exist today in SA A U D SD essentially the same form in which they always have. 16. Evolutionary theory is supported SA A U D SD by factual, historical, and laboratory data. 17. Much of the scientific SA A U D SD community doubts if evolution occurs. 18. The theory of evolution brings SA A U D SD meaning to the diverse characteristics and behaviors observed in living forms. 19. With few exceptions, organisms SA A U D SD on earth came into existence at about the same time. 20. Evolution is a scientifically valid SA A U D SD theory.

201

APPENDIX U: CODEBOOK

Codebook for ―Does the nature of science influence college students‘ learning of biological evolution?‖ Project

Author:

Butler, Wilbert [email protected]

Version 1.0 Last Updated 9/18/2008

202 Table of Contents

Does NOS influence college student’s learning of biological evolution? ...... I. META-CODE: ...... Understanding of Evolution ...... 205 IA. Understanding evolution...... 4 IB. Partial understanding evolution ...... 4 IC. Not understanding evolution ...... 4 ID. Don’t know much about evolution ...... 5 IE. “Evolution is science.” ...... 5 IF. Evolution is change in a species……………………………………………………...5 IG. The theory of evolution does not changed ...... 5 IH. No exposure to evolutionary theory ...... 6 II. My understanding of the theory of evolution has changed (improved) ...... 6 IJ. My understanding of the theory of evolution has not changed...... 6 IK. Evolution explains origin of life ...... 6 IL. Evolution explains productin of biological diversity ...... 7 IM. Organisms evolve via adaptation in response to change in environment ...... 7 IN. Changes (production of variation) that occur are random ...... 7 IO. Evolution requires selection pressure against some organisms ...... 8 IP. Evolution requires selection pressure for some organisms ...... 8 IQ. Organisms evolve via genetic change ...... 8 IR. Theory of evolution conflicts with religion ...... 8 IS. Theory of evolution does not conflict with religion ...... 9 IT. Understanding of evolution influence by NOS ...... 9 IU. Evolution describes that humans evolved from apes ...... 9 IV. Rejects the idea that humans evolved from apes ...... 9 IW. Don’t want to understand evolution ...... 10 IX. Desire to understand evolution ...... 10 IY. Acceptance that other organisms evolve but not humans ...... 10

II. META-CODE: ...... Understanding Nature of Science ...... 13 IIA. Understanding Nature of Science ...... 13 IIB. Not understanding NOS ...... 13 IIC. Science is characterized by NOS ...... 14 IID. Science is tentative ...... 14 IIE. Science is subjective ...... 14 IIF. Science is empirically based ...... 15 IIG. Science is inferential...... 15 IIH. Science is based on theories and laws ...... 15

203 List of Codes

CODE DOMAIN DOMAIN CAT. # UE IA. Understanding evolution PUE IB. Partial understanding evolution NUE IC. Not understanding evolution. DKME ID. Don‘t know much about evolution. ES IE. Evolution is science. ECS IF. Evolution is change in a species. ENC IG. The theory of evolution does not changed. NEE IH. No exposure to evolutionary theory. TEC II. My understanding of the theory of evolution has changed (and improved). TENC IJ. My understanding of the theory of evolution has not changed. EEO IK. Evolution explains origin of life. EEPD IL. Evolution explains production of biological diversity. OEAE IM. Organisms evolve via adaptation in response to change in environment. COR IN. Changes (production of variation) that occur are random. OSA IO. Evolution requires selection pressure against some organisms. OSF IP. Evolution requires selection pressure FOR some organisms. OEGC IQ. Organisms evolve via genetic change. ECR IR. Theory of evolution conflicts with religion. ENCR IS. Theory of evolution does not conflict with religion. EIN IT. Understanding of evolution influence by NOS. HEFA IU. Evolution describes that humans evolved from apes. RHEFA IV. Rejects the idea that human evolved from apes. DWUE IW. Don‘t want to understand evolution. DUE IX. Desire to understand evolution. OENH IY. Acceptance that other organisms evolve but not humans. EOAE IZ. Evolution is organisms adapting to environment. UNOS IIA. Understanding Nature of Science. NUN IIB. Not understanding NOS. SCN IIC. Science is characterized by NOS. ST IID. Science is tentative. SS IIE. Science is subjective. SEB IIF. Science is empirically based. SI IIG. Science is inferential. SBTL IIH. Science is based on theories and laws.

204 Understanding Evolution Full Title: IA. Understanding Evolution Mnemonic UE In vivo Equivalents ―I understand that humans and monkeys are related.‖ ―Evolution is to explain the diversity as well as the similarities of life.‖ Also I was shown that as an individual we are able to adapt, but not able to evolve individually.‖ Short Definition Change in organisms over time. Long Definition Genetic change in organisms over time that has been selected for and increased in the population. Inclusion Criteria Any mention by the participant of an understanding of adaptation, natural selection, or genetic variation. Exclusion Criteria Any statement by the participant demonstrating a lack of understanding of adaptation, natural selection or genetic variation.

Full Title: Partial Understanding Evolution Mnemonic: PUE In vivo Equivalents: This week‘s activity did influence my theory of evolution because I felt that I learned about a lot of the animals and where they originated from but I also felt that many types of animal had a plethora of other beings that had many other forms previous too their current form. Short Definition: Participant demonstrates some understanding. Long Definition: Participant demonstrates some understanding of evolution but not clear on everyone point made. Inclusion Criteria: Any statement that shows some understanding but not total understanding of evolution. Exclusion Criteria: Any statement that exhibits complete understanding or lack of understanding of evolution.

Full Title: Not Understanding Evolution Mnemonic: NUE In vivo Equivalents: Knew that organisms over time have not undergone change. Any statements such as ―I didn‘t come from a monkey‖, ―evolution conflicts with my religious beliefs‖, and ―I don‘t see how the presentation relates to evolution.‖ Short Definition: Views against evolution--feelings don‘t indicate necessarily understanding, responses exhibiting a lack of understanding evolution. Long Definition: General views that support the lack of understanding of evolution. Inclusion Criteria: Any mention by the participant of a lack of understanding of adaptation, natural selection, or genetic variation. Exclusion Criteria: Any statement by the participant that suggests an understanding of factors that contributes to evolution.

205

Full Title: Don’t know much about evolution. Mnemonic: DKME In vivo Equivalents: ―I don‘t much about evolution but I believe it has something to do with life and nature.‖ ―I‘m not very familiar with evolution‖ ―I‘m not very familiar with evolution.‖ ―My understanding of evolution is not extensive.‖ Short Definition: Participant‘s indicates knowing little about evolution. Long Definition: Participant‘s indication that he or she knows little about biological evolution and/or its factors such as genetic change and natural selection. Inclusion Criteria: Any statement that does not portray knowledge of biological evolution. Exclusion Criteria: Any statement that portrays their reconition of their knowledge of biological evolution.

Full Title: “Evolution is science.” Mnemonic: ES In vivo Equivalents: ―But I did come to realize that evolution and science are pretty much the same.‖ ―I understand that evolution and science are the same thing.‖ Short Definition: Evolution is a branch of science. Long Definition: Evolution is defined by the same or similar aspects such as being tentative, subjective, based on evidence, explained by using theories and laws, and inferential as the broader realm of science. Inclusion Criteria: Any indication that evolution is scientific. Exclusion Criteria: Any indication that evolution is not scientific.

Full Title: Evolution is change in a species. Mnemonic: ECS In vivo Equivalents: ―Evolution refers to the overall changes in a species over a multitude of generations which changes resulted from environmental factors during the lifetime of each prior generation.‖ Short Definition: Evolution is change in a species. Long Definition: Evolution is genetic change in a species over a number of generations which is influenced by environmental factors. Inclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that evolution involves change. Exclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that evolution does not involve change.

206

Full Title: The theory of Evolution does not change. Mnemonic: ENC In vivo Equivalents: Short Definition: Any suggestion that evolution as an idea does not change. Long Definition: Any suggestion that evolution as an ideas stays the same or is a law. Inclusion Criteria: Every indication that evolution as an idea can undergo changes. Exclusion Criteria: Every indication that evolution as an idea stays the same or something else.

Full Title: No exposure to evolutionary theory. Mnemonic: NEE In vivo Equivalents: ―I really don‘t have any take on evolution because I‘m a Catholic.‖ Short Definition: Any phrase indicting a lack of being taught evolution. Long Definition: Any phrase indicating a lack of being taught genetic changes influenced by natural selection as in biological evolution. Inclusion Criteria: Any indication of not being taught any facet of evolution.

Full Title: My understanding of the theory of evolution has changed (and improved). Mnemonic: TEC In vivo Equivalents: ―My opinion on evolution before the week began was it was based on creationism or how we got here.‖ Short Definition: Favorable change towards the understanding of evolution. Long Definition: Demonstration of a change in understanding of evolution. Inclusion Criteria: Any point suggestive of a change towards understanding evolution. Exclusion Criteria: Any point not suggestive of a change towards understanding of evolution.

Full Title: My understanding the of theory of evolution not changed. Mnemonic: TENC In vivo Equivalents: ―My view on evolution has not changed after recent activity in the class.‖ ―My views on evolution are still the same.‖ Short Definition: Unfavorable change towards the understanding of evolution. Long Definition: Lack of exhibiting a change towards understanding of evolution. Inclusion Criteria: Any point suggestive that a change did not occur towards the understanding of evolution. Exclusion Criteria: Any point suggestive of a change towards understanding of evolution.

207

Full Title: Evolution explains origin of life. Mnemonic: EEO In vivo Equivalents: ―I know that the theory suggests that the world began from single cell organisms that eventually mutated into their current forms.‖ Short Definition: Participant expresses that evolution answers how we got here. Long Definition: Participant talks about how organism arrived on earth and how they are one in the same except God created all living things. Inclusion Criteria: Any statements about evolution addressing how organisms arrived on earth. Exclusion Criteria: Any statement not stressing evolution explain how organisms arrived on earth.

Full Title: Evolution explains production of biological diversity. Mnemonic: EEPD In vivo Equivalents: Short Definition: Participants express that evolution explains diversity. Long Definition: Participants express that evolution explains the diversity of organisms on earth and how that diversity occurred. Inclusion Criteria: Any statement expressing evolution role in the production of the many different organisms on earth. Exclusion Criteria: Any statement excluding evolution role in the production of the many different organisms on earth.

Full Title: Organisms evolve via adaptation in response to change in environment. Mnemonic: OEAE In vivo Equivalents: ―But being that evolution is on the opinion of animals or humans being able to adapt and cause a change in need for survival.‖ ―This past week we talked about the different mutations that the species of birds developed with their beaks in order to survive in different circumstances.‖ Short Definition: Participants express that organisms evolve to adapt to their environment. Long Definition: Participants express that organisms have the ability to change when there is a change in their environment to adapt. Inclusion Criteria: Statements stating that organisms change to adapt. Exclusion Criteria: Statements stating that changes that occur are random.

208

Full Title: Changes (production of variation) that occur are random. Mnemonic: COR In vivo Equivalents: ―This has changed my opinion about evolution, because now I see that there is validation and proof for the possibility of mutations, and that a single mutation can randomly occur and affect an entire species thereafter.‖ Short Definition: Any suggestion that indicates that the change did not occur with a purpose. Long Definition: Any suggestion that genetic change resulting in the change in the organism but without aim or purpose in its effort to survive. Inclusion Criteria: All points that support random changes in genetic material. Exclusion Criteria: All points that do not support random changes but changes that occur to survive.

Full Title: Evolution requires selection pressure against some organisms Mnemonic: OSA In vivo Equivalents: ―Some of the offspring don‘t survive because they are unable to adapt to their environment and are unable to reproduce as well.‖ Short Definition: Due to their features, organisms are not able to survive. Long Definition: Due to their features, organisms are not able to survive and are selected against. Inclusion Criteria: Any statement suggesting that the change did not enable the organism to adjust to the environment. Exclusion Criteria: Any statement suggesting that the change did enable the organism to adjust to the environment.

Full Title: Evolution requires selection pressure FOR some organisms Mnemonic: OSF In vivo Equivalents: ―I believe evolution, in part, to be a process in which organisms are selected for survival by the circumstances at hand.‖ Short Definition: Due to their features, organisms are able to survive. Long Definition: Due to their features, organisms are able to survive and are selected for. Inclusion Criteria: Any statement suggesting that the change did enable the organism to adjust to the environment. Exclusion Criteria: Any statement suggesting that the change did not enable the organism to adjust to the environment.

Full Title: Organisms evolve via genetic change Mnemonic: OEGC In vivo Equivalents: ―The genetics made them have these features to help them survive.‖ ―I do know that evolution states that all species evolve in order to adapt to the changes in their environment from generation to generation.‖ Short Definition: Organisms are able to evolve to adapt. 209

Long Definition: Organisms can will a change to take place so that they can adapt to the environment. Inclusion Criteria: Expressions that suggest organisms can evolve to adapt. Exclusion Criteria: Expressions that do not suggest that organisms can evolve to adapt.

Full Title: Theory of Evolution conflicts with religion. Mnemonic: ECR In vivo Equivalents: ―I will never fully agree with the theory of evolution due to my other beliefs.‖ ―My views of evolution have not changed and most likely will not change because of my strong religious beliefs.‖ Short Definition: Any point affecting the understanding of evolution due to religious beliefs. Long Definition: Any point supporting that the understanding of evolution will be difficult due to their strong religious beliefs. Inclusion Criteria: All statements that evolution conflicts with their religion. Exclusion Criteria: All statements that evolution does not conflict with their religion.

Full Title: Theory of Evolution does not conflict with religion. Mnemonic: ENCR In vivo Equivalents: ―My understanding of evolution is that even though I attend Catholic school most of my life, I believe that there is too much scientific information that leads me to believe that we evolved on this planet, not from Adam and Eve.‖ Short Definition: Any suggestion that evolution does not conflict with their religion. Long Definition: Any suggestion that their religion does not hinder them from understanding biological evolution. Inclusion Criteria: Any possibility of no conflict between evolution and religion. Exclusion Criteria: Any possibility of the existence of a conflict with one‘s religion and evolution.

Full Title: Understanding of Evolution influence by NOS Mnemonic: EIN In vivo Equivalents: ―My view has greatly changed because of the class discussions and examples used in class to help magnify and clarify the alikeness of science and evolution as one. Short Definition: The participant‘s use of NOS in explaining evolution. Long Definition: The participant‘s use of aspects of NOS in explaining evolution such as science being tentative, inferential, empirically-based, subjective or based upon the relationship of theories and laws. Inclusion Criteria: Any indication of the influence of NOS in understanding evolution. Exclusion Criteria: Any indication of the influence of NOS in not understanding evolution.

Full Title: Evolution describes that humans evolved from apes. 210

Mnemonic: HEFA In vivo Equivalents: ―My understanding of evolution is basically that a man [Charles Darwin] figured out that we were made from apes or cavemen.‖ ―Over millions and millions of years ape like creatures became more sophisticated and evolved into humans.‖ Short Definition: Man evolved from apes over time. Long Definition: Man‘s presence is due evolving from apes. Inclusion Criteria: Any suggestion of man evolving from apes. Exclusion Criteria: Any suggestion of man not evolving from apes.

Full Title: Rejects the idea that human evolved from apes. Mnemonic: RHEFA In vivo Equivalents: ―I believe we were once created from God and disagree with being made from an ape.‖ Short Definition: Any statement suggesting that man did not come from ape. Long Definition: Any statement indicating that man did not evolve from ape or any organism similar to ape. Inclusion Criteria: Any statement stating that man did not evolve from ape. Exclusion Criteria: Any statement stating that man evolved from ape.

Full Title: Don’t want to Understand Evolution. Mnemonic: DWUE In vivo Equivalents: ―I will never believe the theory of evolution.‖ ―My opinion of evolution has not changed and probably won‘t.‖ Short Definition: Participant indicates no desire to understand evolution. Long Definition: Participant indicates that due to their different beliefs that they will not change their opinion towards understanding evolution. Inclusion Criteria: Any indication not to understand evolution. Exclusion Criteria: Any indication to understand evolution.

Full Title: Desire to Understand Evolution Mnemonic: DUE In vivo Equivalents: ―I would like to learn more on evolution, so that I can have a better perspective on it.‖ Short Definition: Participant indicates that they would like to learn about evolution. Long Definition: Participant indicates that they would like to learn or will remain open to understanding evolution. Inclusion Criteria: Any suggestion towards the desire to understand evolution. Exclusion Criteria: Any suggestion towards no desire to understand evolution.

Full Title: Acceptance that other organisms evolve but not humans. Mnemonic: OENH In vivo Equivalents: ―I believe that evolution does occur with animals such as the caterpillar, but as for humans it‘s hard to believe.

211

Short Definition: All organisms evolve except humans. Long Definition: All animals and plants are able to evolve but humans do not. Inclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that organisms evolve except for humans. Exclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that humans can evolve.

Full Title: Evolution is organisms adapting to environment. Mnemonic: EOAE In vivo Equivalents: ―Evolution to me is the ability of a species to adapt or change to overcome the circumstances of their time.‖ Short Definition: Evolution defined as organisms being able to change to adapt. Long Definition: Evolution defined as organisms ability to change genetically in order to adapt to changes in the environment. Inclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that organisms evolve to adapt. Exclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that organisms do not evolve to adapt.

212

Understanding Nature of Science Full Title: Understanding Nature of Science Mnemonic: UNOS In vivo Equivalents: ―While discussing and reviewing our cube project it became clear that evolution is completely scientific. Evolution uses the same techniques (empirically based evidence, inferences) and has the same characteristics (tentative, subjective) as science.‖ The participant demonstrates an understanding of NOS and the relationship between evolution and science as each relate to NOS. This would include any comments referencing evolution or science as tentative, empirically based, partly the product of human inferences, imagination, logical reasoning, and creativity, and the function of and relationships between scientific theories and laws. Short Definition: Responses relating evolution or science to the aspects of science. Long Definition: Any response the participant refers to science or evolution indicating the aspects of science. Inclusion Criteria: Any responses that do not suggest an understanding of the aspects of NOS. Exclusion Criteria: Statements that demonstrate an understanding of the aspects of NOS and relationship of the aspects to evolution and science.

Full Title: Not Understanding NOS Mnemonic: NUN In vivo Equivalents: ―I have observed that the nature of science involves a lot of different aspects that I have yet to comprehend.‖ Short Definition: Participant demonstrates a lack of understanding NOS. Long Definition: Participant demonstrates a lack of understanding that science is tentative, based upon evidence, subjective, based upon relationship of theories and laws, and inferential. Inclusion Criteria: Any indication that NOS is not understood. Exclusion Criteria: Any indication that NOS is understood.

Full Title: Science is characterized by NOS Mnemonic: SCN In vivo Equivalents: ―I have also noticed that science and scientists are influenced by the society, culture, and discipline in which they are embedded or educated.‖ Short Definition: The nature of science defines what is science. Long Definition: Science is defined by the nature of science aspects: tentative, subjective, empirically based, inferential, socially and culturally embedded, imagination, logical reasoning, and creativity. Inclusion Criteria: Any reference to science being characterized by NOS. Exclusion Criteria: Any reference to science not being characterized by NOS.

213

Full Title: Science is tentative. Mnemonic: ST In vivo Equivalents: ―Science is tentative because it changes because there are no truths about science.‖ Eeek that also needs to be coded again, that because science is tentative it doesn‘t provide solid, unchangeable trusths Short Definition: Science changes. Long Definition: Science is subject to change with new observations and with the reinterpretations of existing observations Inclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that science is not definite and changes. Exclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that science speaks the definite truth and does not change.

Full Title: Science is subjective. Mnemonic: SS In vivo Equivalents: ―When we had to construct our own cell in class, not one single group had the same exact model as another even though we were given the same exact supplies. Short Definition: Science is a accumulation of different views coming together for the best explanation. Long Definition: Science is influenced and driven by presently accepted scientific theories and laws. The development of questions, investigations, and interpretations of data are filtered through the lens of current theory. This is an unavoidable subjectivity that allows science to progress and remain consistent, yet also contributes to change in science when previous evidence is examined from the perspective of new knowledge. Personal subjectivity is also unavoidable. Person values, agendas, and prior experiences dictate what and how scientists conduct their work. Inclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that science is based upon the different opinions of many. Exclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that science is not based upon the opinions of many.

Full Title: Science is empirically based. Mnemonic: SEB In vivo Equivalents: ―We used empirical observations to learn how close all living organisms are related to one another.‖ Short Definition: Science is based upon empirical evidence. Long Definition: Science is based on and/or derived from observations of the natural world, however, it should be recognized that in addition to direct observation, strategies like logical reasoning and mathematical analysis can also provide empirical support for scientific assertions. Inclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that science is based upon evidence.

214

Any suggestion that science is not based upon evidence. Full Title: Science is inferential. Mnemonic: SI In vivo Equivalents: ―The cube activity helped me understand that people make different inferences.‖ ―Recent discussions in class have enlightened me on the idea that various people different beliefs and with evidence they come together to form an opinion.‖ Short Definition: Science involves the invention of explanation. Long Definition: Science is partly the product of human inference, imagination, logical reasoning, and creativity. Inclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that conclusions are drawn from evidence. Exclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that conclusions are not drawn from evidence.

Full Title: Science is based on theories and laws. Mnemonic: SBTL In vivo Equivalents: ―I also think that science and evolution are based on inferences, theories and laws.‖ Short Definition: Science is explained using theories and laws. Long Definition: Science is the function of and relationships between scientific theories and laws. Theories and laws do not progress into one another, in the hierarchical sense, for they are distinctly and functionally different types of knowledge. Inclusion Criteria: Any explanation of a relationship between science -theories and laws. Exclusion Criteria: Any suggestion that there is no relationship between science and the theories and laws.

215

APPENDIX V: CINS SCORES

Explicit, reflective Implicit NOS Pretest Posttest NOS Pretest Posttest 1 10 40 2 40 110 1 70 80 2 30 110 1 0 110 2 0 50 1 0 70 2 10 40 1 20 70 2 30 70 1 30 100 2 20 110 1 30 100 2 50 70 1 80 110 2 50 110 1 30 110 2 10 30 1 90 90 2 40 60 1 20 70 2 40 80 1 90 50 2 50 100 1 20 0 2 30 10 1 20 90 2 20 110 1 0 90 2 60 80 1 30 80 2 40 40 1 0 70 2 40 40 1 40 80 2 20 70 1 50 70 2 0 110 1 10 90 2 50 70 1 60 80 2 30 50 1 60 90 2 60 90 1 0 80 2 20 10 1 10 100 2 50 100 1 0 20 2 60 90 1 0 70 2 50 100 1 10 100 2 20 70 1 30 60 2 30 90 1 20 90 2 90 110 1 20 70 2 0 0 1 0 110 2 50 70 2 30 50 2 20 100 2 90 70 2 60 100 2 10 40

216

CIN Scores continued: Explicit, reflective Implicit NOS Pretest Posttest NOS Pretest Posttest 2 80 110 2 30 50 2 80 90 2 20 30 2 10 20 2 40 30 2 0 80 2 20 20 2 30 40 2 50 30 2 10 70

217

APPENDIX W: MATE SURVEY SCORES cas Backg PREMATE PostMATE Cas backg PREMATE PostMATE 1 1 68 52 30 2 44 50 2 1 54 58 31 2 55 68 3 1 47 45 32 2 60 59 4 1 68 65 33 2 42 41 5 1 12 14 34 2 48 48 6 1 43 37 35 2 43 62 7 1 48 59 36 2 52 64 8 1 52 58 37 2 47 68 9 1 54 55 38 2 62 56 10 1 47 62 39 2 45 53 11 1 42 62 40 2 60 45 12 1 42 55 41 2 51 48 13 1 63 67 42 2 53 63 14 1 59 57 43 2 60 60 15 1 45 53 44 2 50 54 16 1 52 54 45 2 25 56 17 1 69 63 46 2 54 55 18 1 51 52 47 2 26 43 19 1 57 60 48 2 60 55 20 1 53 56 49 2 50 62 21 1 46 60 50 2 59 62 22 1 56 56 51 2 45 49 23 1 66 58 52 2 36 46 24 1 60 59 53 2 47 47 25 1 65 60 54 2 55 59 26 1 30 45 55 2 33 47 27 1 35 59 56 2 38 48 57 2 59 54 58 2 57 58 59 2 35 44 60 2 60 54 61 2 59 64 62 2 41 43 63 2 28 40 64 2 57 40 65 2 28 54

218

APPENDIX X: HUMANS SUBECT APPROVAL FORM

219

APPENDIX Y: LETTER OF CONSENT

220

221

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students‘ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Oregon State University, OR.

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but.. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.

Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Akerson, V.L. (2004). ‗Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of pre-service elementary teacher‘s views of the nature of science‘. Science Education, 88, 785-810.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673-699.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal in Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.

Affanato, F. E. (1986). A survey of biology teachers' opinions about the teaching of evolutionary theory and/or the creation model in the united states in public and private schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Doctoral Dissertation.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1973). The measurement of high school students' knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education, 57(4), 539-549.

Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295-317.

Albarracin, D., McNatt, P. S., Klein, C. T. F., Ho, R. M., Mitchell, A. L., & Kumkale, G. T. (2003). Persuasive communications to change actions: An analysis of behavioral and cognitive impact in HIV prevention. Health Psychology, 22, 166-177.

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. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002, October 1). Perspective: Teaching Evolution in Higher Education. International Journal of Organic Evolution, 56(10), 1891-1901.

Alters, B., & Alters, S. (2001). Defending evolution: A guide to the creation/evolution controversy. Boston: Jones & Bartlett.

222

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Academy Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Project 2061. Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2005). High school biology textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. New York: Oxford Press.

Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978.

Anderson, O. R., Randle, D., & Covotsos, T. (2001). The role of ideational networks in laboratory inquiry learning and knowledge of evolution among seventh grade students. Science Education, 410-425.

Angiullo, L., Whitbourne, S. K., & Powers, C. (1996). The effects of instruction and experience on college students‘ attitudes toward the elderly. Educational Gerontology, 22, 483-495.

Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 373-407.

Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliff, M. (2004). Teaching students "Ideas-About-Science": Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682.

Behnke, F. L. (1961). Reactions of scientists and science teachers to statements bearing on certain aspects of science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 61, 193-207.

Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., &. (2000). Developing and acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563-581.

Bell, R. (2001). Implicit instruction in technology integration and the nature of science: There‘s no such thing as a free lunch. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(4), http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss4/currentissues/science/article2.htm

Bell, R. (2007). Teaching the nature of science through process skills: Activities for grades 3-8. Allyn & Bacon.

Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to

223

prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 177-209.

Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415-427.

Blackwell, W. H., Powell, M. J., & Dukes, G. H. (2003). The problem of student acceptance of evolution. Journal of Biological Education, 37(2), 58-67.

Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2002). Perceived consequences of evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education, 86, 1-26.

Brickhouse, N. W., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471-485.

Broadhurst, N. A. (1970). A study of selected learning outcomes of graduating high school students in south australian schools. Science Education, 54, 17-21.

Brooks, D. J. (2001). Substantial numbers of Americans continue to doubt evolution as explanation for origin of humans. Retrieved September 10, 2008 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010305.asp

Brumby, M. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science Education, 68(4), 493-503.

BSCS,[Biological sciences curriculum study]. (1993). Developing biological literacy: A guide to developing secondary and post-secondary biology curricula.. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Bull, J. J., & Wichman, H. A. (2001). Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics, 32, 183-217.

Butterfield, H. (1965). The origins of modern science (revised edition). New York: Free Press.

Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices.. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Carmel, S., Cwikel, J., & Galinsky, d. (1992). Changes in knowledge, attitudes, and work preferences following courses in gerontology among medical, nursing, and social work students. Educational Gerontology, 18, 329-342.

Carpenter, T., & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In E. Fennema & T. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 19-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

224

Chan, C., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Effects of conflict and knowledge-processing strategy on conceptual change. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovering in science. In R. Griere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in philosophy of science (pp. 129-186). Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press.

Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.

Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2001). Distinguishing between understanding and belief. Theory into Practice, 40, 235-241.

Clough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). How secondary students interpret instances of biological adaptation. Journal of Biological Education, 19(4), 304-310.

Clough, M. P. (1994). Diminish students‘ resistance to biological evolution. American Biology Teacher, 56, 409-415.

Clough, M. P. (2000). The nature of science: Understanding how the game of science is played. Clearing House, 74, 13-17.

Cobern, W. W. (1994). Point: Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 583-590.

Cobern, W. W. (2004). Apples and oranges: A rejoinder to Smith and Siegel. Science & Education, 13, 583-589.

Cooper, R. A. (2001). The goal of evolution instruction: Belief or literacy? Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 21(1-2), 14-18.

Crawford, J. (2007). A diminished vision of civil rights: No child left behind and the growing divide in how educational equity is understood. Education Week.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage.

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. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation

225

of favoured races in the struggle for life. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Davson-Galle, P. (2004). Understanding: Knowledge, belief, and understanding. Science & Education, 13, 591-598. de Waal, C. (2001). On peirce. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

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.

DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.

Demastes, S. S., Settlage Jr., J., & Good, R. G. (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.

Demastes, S., Trowbridge, J., & Cummins, C. (1992). Resource paper on evolution education research. [In Good, R.G., Trowbridge, J.E., Demastes, S.S., Wandersee, J.H., Hafner, M.S., & Cummins, C.L. (Eds.)]. In Proceedings of the 1992 evolution education research conference (pp. 42-77), Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.

Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35(3), 125-129.

Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing chagne in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109-128.

Donovan, S. S. (2005). An inquiry into evolutionary inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dougherty, M. J. (1997). Formative assessment. The Science Teacher, 64(6), 29-33.

Duschl, R. A. (1985). Science education and philosophy of science twenty-five years of mutually exclusive development. School Science and Mathematics, 85(7), 541-555.

Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 839- 858.

Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers' decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.,

226

26(6), 467-501.

Elgin, P. G. (1983). Creationism versus evolution: A study of the opinions of Georgia science teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Erickson, C. K., Wilcox, R. E., Miller, G. W., Littlefield, J. H., & Lawson, K. A. (2003). Effectiveness of addiction science presentations to treatment professionals: Using a modified Solomon study design. Journal of Drug Education, 33, 197-216.

Eve, R. A., & Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology, and creationism in the classroom? evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology and life science teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 52(1), 10-21.

Eve, R. A., & Harrold, F. B. (1991). The creationist movement in modern America.. Boston: B. K. Hall and Company.

Fisher, K. M. (1992). Teaching evolution. In Good, R., Trowbridge, J., Demastes, S., Wanderseee, J., Hafner, M., and Cummins, C. In The 1992 evolution education conference (pp. 103-108). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, New York: Longman Publishers USA.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research an introduction. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1995). Biology teachers' perceptions of subject matter structure and its relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 301-325.

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Good, R. G. (1992). Evolution education: An area of needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 1019.

Good, R. G. ( 1994). The teaching and learning of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 537-556.

Gould, S. J. (1987). Darwinism defend: The difference between fact and theory. Discover, December, 64-70.

Grose, E. C., & Simpson, R. D. (1982). Attitude of introductory college biology students toward evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(1), 15-24.

227

Hammer, M., & Polnick, B. (2007). Preparing Tomorrow‘s Science Teachers. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 80-83.

Harris, M. B., Walters, L. C., & Waschull, S. (1991). Altering attitudes and knowledge about obesity. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 881-884.

Haukoos, G. D., & Penick, J. E. (1985). The effects of classroom climate on college science students: A replication study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 163-168.

Hazen, R. M. (2002). Why should you be scientifically literate? American Institute of Biological Sciences. Retrieved July 28, 2007, from http://actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/hazen.html.

Hickman, H. (1992).In Good, R., Trowbridge, J., Demastes, S., Wanderseee, J., Hafner, M., and Cummins, C. In The 1992 evolution education conference (pp. 133-136). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.

Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72(1), 19-40.

Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children's understanding of science: Some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24, 41-52.

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.

Jenkins, E. (1996). The 'nature of science' as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 137-150.

Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79, 147-166.

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(8), 879-900.

Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1997). Teaching evolution using a historically rich curriculum and paired problem solving instructional strategy. American Biology Teacher, 59(4), 208- 211.

Jimeniz-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. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004, October 1). Mixed methods research: A research

228

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R. L. (1985). The acceptance of evolution theory by biology majors in colleges of the west north central states. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Doctoral Dissertation.

Johnson, R. L., & Peeples, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in college: Student acceptance of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 49(2), 93-98.

Johnston, A. T., & Southerland, S. A. (2001). Conceptualizing the nature of science: Extra- rational evaluations of tiny atoms, round planets and big bangs. Presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.

Johnston, A. T., & Southerland, S. A. (2002, April 1). Conceptual ecologies and their influence on nature of science conceptions: More dazed and confused than ever. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Jones, K. M. (1969). The attainment of understandings about the scientific enterprise, scientists, and the aims and methods of science by students in a college physical science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 62, 47-49.

Jungek, J. R., & Dyke, C. (1985). Evolution, economics and education: Understanding the consequences of natural selection in health and disease. The American Biology Teacher, 47(3), 138-141.

Jungwirth, E. (1977). Should natural phenomena be described teleologically or anthropomorphically? A science educator's view. Journal of Biological Education, 11, 191-196. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit- oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 39(7), 551-578.

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939-961.

Kimball, M. E. ((1967-1968)). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(110-120).

Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 62, 87-95.

Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1961). Test on understanding science. Form w. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the

229

development of students understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33-47.

Koehler, C. M. (2006). Can you force-feed NOS enlightenment? Two experienced teachers' pedagogical journeys for teaching the nature of science.. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

Koumi, I., & Tsiantis, J. (2001). Smoking trends in adolescence: Report on a Greek school- based, peer-led intervention aimed at prevention. Health Promotion International, 16, 65- 72.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lawson, A. E. (1999). A scientific approach to teaching about evolution and special creation. American Biology Teacher, 61, 266-274.

Lawson, A., & Worsnop, A. (1992) Learning about evolution and rejecting 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.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.

Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916-929.

Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-nature science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83-126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.

Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, L. S. (2004). Revising instruction to teach the nature of science. Science Teacher, 71, 36-39.

Lederman, N. G., & O'Malley, M. (1990). Students' perception of tentativeness in science: Development, use and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239.

Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing the nature of science: What is the nature of our assessments? Science & Education, 7(6), 595-615.

230

Lederman, N. G., & Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teacher behavior. Science Education, 71(5), 721-734.

Lerner, L. S. (2000). Good science, bad science: Teaching evolution in the states. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Mackay, L. D. (1971). Development of understanding about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(1), 57-66.

Matthews, M. R. (1998). 'The nature of science and science education. in B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.). In International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 981-999). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Matthews, M. R. (2001). How pendulum studies can promote knowledge of the nature of science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 359-368.

Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McComas, W. F. (1996). ‗Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science‘, School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10-15.

McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511-532.

McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents in McComas, W. F. (Ed.). In The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

McCormack, A. J. (1982). Indiana biology teachers react. National Association of Biology Teachers. News and Views, 26(1), 125-129.

Meagher, T. R., & Futuyma, D. J. (2001). Executive document: Evolution, science, and society. American Naturalist, 158, 1-47.

Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389-407.

Meichtry, Y. J. (1993). The impact of science curricula on student views about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 429-443.

Merill, R., & Butts, D. (1969). Vitalizing the role of the teacher. in D. Butts (ed.) Designs for progress in science education. Washington, DC: National Science Teacher Association.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

231

Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77, 7-18.

Moore, R. (1995, April 1). Psychics agree! Creationism is a science! The American Biology Teacher, 57(4).

Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 771-790.

Moss, D. M., & Koehler, C. (2004). Teaching the nature of science in preservice programs: Who, what, when.. Presented at the Paper presented as the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Muhr, T. (1993). Atlas.ti. the QDA software. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.atlasti.com.

Muller, H. J. (1959). One hundred years without Darwinism are enough speech referenced in J. A. Moore and H. J. Muller, "one hundred years without Darwin are enough." School Science and Mathematics, 59, 304-305.

National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1985). Mathematics, science, and technology education: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: Academy Press.

National science teachers association. (1997). Position statement on the teaching of evolution. NSTA.

Nehm, R. H., & Sheppard, K. (2004, April). A comparative study of evolutionary understanding and advocacy for teaching evolution in pre-certified biology and other science teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Nelkin, D. (1982). The creation controversy: Science or scripture in our schools? Boston: Beacon Press.

232

Nelson, C. E. (1986). Creation, evolution, or both? a multiple model approach. In Robert W. Hanson (Ed.). In science and creation: Geological, theological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Nelson, D. (1986). Creation, evolution, or both? A multiple model approach. In Robert W. Hanson (Ed.), science and creation: Geological, theological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Nickels, M. K., Nelson, C. E., & Beard, J. (1996). Better biology teaching by emphasizing evolution and the nature of science. American Biology Teacher, 58, 332-336.

Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1998). Eliciting, interpreting and developing teachers' understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 7(6), 579-594.

Numbers, R. M. (1998). Darwinism comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Olson, J. K., & Clough, M. P. (2001). Secondary science teachers' implementation practices following a course emphasizing contextualized and decontextualized nature of science instruction. Presented at the 6th International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, Denver, CO.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 1364-5579. Retrieved July 26, 2007, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/13645570500402447.

Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Osbourne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What 'ideas-about- science' should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the 'expert' community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720.

Osif, B. A. (1997). Evolution and religious beliefs: A survey of Pennsylvania high school teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 552-556.

Owen, J. (2006, October 8). Evolution less accepted in U.S. than other western countries, study finds. National Geographic News.

O'Hearn, G. T. (1976). Science literacy and alternative futures. Science Education, 60(10), 103- 114.

Pankratius, W. J. (1993). The constructivist transformation of a preservice teacher‘s views on teaching creationism and evolution. Available from the Educational Resources Information Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361210).

Pennock, R. T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. MIT Press,

233

Cambridge, MA.

Pennock, R. T. (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

People for the American way foundation. (2000). Evolution and creationism in public education: An in-depth reading of public opinion. Washington, DC: People for the American way.

Perkins, D. (1998). What is understanding? In M. S. Wiske (Ed.), Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. (pp. 39-57). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change. (pp. 33-50). New York: Pergamon.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.

Ramsey, G., & Howe, R. (1969). An analysis of research on instructional procedures in secondary school science. Science Education, 36, 62-68.

Roseman, J. E. (1992). Proceedings of the 1992 evolution education research conference. (pp. 214-229).

Rosenthal, R. (1985). From unconscious experimenter bias to teacher expectancy effects. In J. B. Dusek, V. C. Hall, & W. J. Meyer (Eds.), Teacher Expectancies. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Rowe, F. M. (1998). Evolutionary biology: What we know and don't know about students' understanding. Unpublished manuscript.

Rubba, P. A. (1977). The development, field testing and validation of an instrument to assess secondary school students' understandings of the nature of scientific knowledge. Dissertatios Abstracts International, 38(5378A), 998. (From University microfilms no. 78-00).

Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the 'nature of science' as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419.

Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1069-1089.

Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

234

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford Press.

Rutledge, M. L. (1996). Indiana high school biology teachers and evolutionary theory: Acceptance and understanding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University.

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. American Biology Teacher, 62(1), 23-29.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking.. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Scharmann, L. C. (1990). Enhancing the understanding of the premises of evolutionary theory: The influence of diversified instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 90(2), 91-100.

Scharmann, L. C., & Harris, W. M. (1991). Teaching evolution: Understanding, concerns, and instructional approaches.. Presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, Fontana, WI.

Scharmann, L. C., & Harris, W. M. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and applying the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 375-388.

Scharmann, L. C., & Harty, H. (1986). Shaping the nonmajor general biology course. The American Biology Teacher. 48(35), 166-169.

Schwab, J. (1960). What do scientists do? Behavior Science, 56, 1-27.

Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Authentic scientific inquiry as a context for teaching nature of science: Identifying critical elements for success. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). "It's the nature of the beast": The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 206-236.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645.

235

Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism. Greenwood press.

Scott, E. C., & Branch, G. (2006). Why intelligent design is wrong for our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Settlage Jr., J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: a snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 31, 449-457.

Settlage, J., & Jensen, M. S. (1996). Investigating the inconsistencies in college student responses to natural selection test questions. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 1(1).

Settlage, J., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Teaching science to all children: Using culture as a starting point. New York: Routledge.

Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Shankar, G. (1989). Factors influencing the teaching of evolution and creationism in Texas public high school biology classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Doctoral Dissertation.

Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Shipman, H., Jordan, J., Southerland, S., Johnston, A., Jackson, D., & Meadows, L. (2003, March 26). Science and religion in the context of science education. Presented at the National Association for Research in Science teaching, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Showers, D. E., & Shrigley, R. L. (1995). Effects of knowledge and persuasion on high-school students‘ attitudes toward nuclear power plants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 29-43.

Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 510-528.

Sinclair, A., Pendarvis, M. P., Baldwin, B. (1997). The relationship between college zoology students‘ beliefs about evolutionary theory and religion. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30, 118-125.

Skoog, G. (1992). Proceedings of the 1992 evolution education research conference. (pp. 181- 184).

236

Slusher, M. P., & Anderson, C. A. (1996). Using causal persuasive arguments to change beliefs and teach new information: The mediating role of explanation availability and evaluation bias in the acceptance of knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 110-122.

Smith, M. U. (1994). Counterpoint: Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5378A), 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.

Smith, M. U., Siegel, H., & McInerney, J. D. (1995). Foundational issues in evolution education. Science & Education, 4(1), 23-46.

Smith, M. U., & Siegel, H. (2004). Knowing, believing, and understanding: What goals for science education? Science & Education, 13, 553-582.

Southerland, S. A. (2000). Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Science & Education, 9, 289-307.

Southerland, S. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Learning about biological evolution: A special case of intentional conceptual change. In G. Sinatra & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 317-346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Southerland, S. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (2005). Beyond Cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science. Springer Netherlands.

Southerland, S., Sinatra, G., & Matthews, M. (2001). Belief, knowledge, and science education. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 325-351.

Spears, J., & Zollman, D. (1977). The influence of structured versus unstructured laboratory on students' understanding the process of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 33-38.

SPSS Inc. (1997). SPSS for windows version 8.0. USA: Author.

Stallings, M. A. (1996). Enhancing an understanding of evolution: The influence of a diversified instructional strategy on high school biology students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. A. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice. (pp. 147-176). New York: State University of New York.

Stringer, E. (2004). Action research in education. Columbus, OH: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

237

Suler, J. (2002) Using interviews in research: Structured versus unstructured interviews. Retrieved November 3, 2007 from http://www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/interviews.html.

Tamir, P., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education, 75, 57-68.

Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students‘ understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25,147-171.

Tatina, R. (1989). South Dakota high school biology teachers and the teaching of evolution and creationism. The American Biology Teacher, 51(5), 275-280.

Tobin, K. (1990). Research on laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.

Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan.

21st Century Skills. In Scientific literacy. Retrieved July 28, 2007, from North Central Regional Educational Laboratory: http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/scilit.htm.

Volpe, P. E. (1984). The shame of science education. American Zoologist, 24, 433-441.

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socio-scientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387- 1410.

Wenglinsky, H., & Silverstein, S. C. (2007). The Science Training Teachers Need. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 24-29.

White, R. (1994). Dimensions of content. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone & R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. (pp. 255-262). London: Falmer Press.

Wilson, L. (1954). A study of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in society. Science Education, 3(2), 159-164.

Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. Chicago, IL: The Jossey-Bass education series, California: Spencer Foundation.

Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical

238

foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 938-962.

Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.

Zimmerman, M. (1987). The evolution-creation controversy: Opinions of Ohio high school biology teachers. Ohio Journal of Science, 87(4), 115-125.

239

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Wilbert Butler is an Associate Professor in the Division of Science and Mathematics, director of the STEM Star program and co-director of the Florida Georgia Alliance for Minority Participation. Wilbert received his BS in Zoology from the University of Florida, his MS in Cellular and Molecular Biology from Florida A&M University and his Ph.D. in Science Education from Florida State University.

He has taught Biology, Anatomy and Physiology and Environmental Science over the past five years while at Tallahassee Community College while working on his Ph.D. in science education.

Wilbert will continue to teach at Tallahassee Community College and plans to work with practicing teachers to make a difference in how science is taught and learned in k-12 science classrooms. He is married to LaMonica Butler who is a middle school teacher. Additionally, Wilbert has a daughter, Jasmine, who is a graduate of the University of North Florida and a son, Austin, who is a student in the Pharmacy program at Florida A& M University.

240