INVESTIGATING THE USEFZTLNESS OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY FOR UNDERSTANDING BIOLOGY AND ATTAIMNG BIOLITERACY

Doreen R. Dewell B.Sc., University of Victoria, 1972 B.Ed., Universis- of British Columbia, 1992

TESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGFEE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

in the Faculty of Edwcation

O Doreen R. Dewell 1998 SIMON FRASER UNINERSTTY November 1998

Al1 rights reserGd. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. National Library Bibliothèque natiorale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et BibIiographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fïlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be p~tedor otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation, ABSrnCT

For this qualitative study I have atîernpted to investigate the utility of evolutionary theory as a pedagogical tool to enhance understanding of biology and raise awareness of the interconnectedness of the living world. Some biology ducators have noted improvement in student success with a biology c~culumthat is based on a main theme such as evolution. The

'thematic" curriculum requires a more comctivist teaching approach where -dents are actively engaged in the leaming process and are encouraged to build conceptual fiameworks that have personai rneaning.

1explored the meaning of evolutionary theory in depth and examined how it is used in major research areas in biology.

The participants of this study included both students and instructors from two post- secondary institutions, Douglas College and Simon Fraser University. Ten students and five instructors participated in personal interviews stnictured around a set of questions. .4fter transcription, 1andyzed the inte~ewsand uncovsred seven thernes kom the students and five themes fiom the instmctors.

Analysis of the data f?om the student interviews suggested that students believed that an understanding of evolutionary theory helped-themto understand and lem biology. They recowzed that evolution was a unieing concept that helped to decrease memorization and that it was the most plausible explanation for Life changing over the. The students aiso expressed concern about too much memorization and felt that it trivialized leaming.

Analysis of the data f?om the instructor inte~ewsseemed to indicate that prior beliefs and experiences greatly influenced present views on teaching and leaming. 1leamed that the

..a ..a ll1 instructors' views of the utility of evolutionary theory were very mixed. I was also able to ident* issues such as concepts versus content and perceived problems with trying to teach evolutionary theory.

The information analysis suggests a paradox between the leaming needs of students and the way they are taught in some situations. Students were eager to leam about issues that were relevant and meaningfbl and wanted more opportunities to participate in rich Iearning experiences. The students' responses showed that they learned better when they learned a concept such as evolution and then applied it. Further research into developing curricular materials which illustrate evolution in action and which illustrate its utility is necessary. The interviews revealed that the instructors lacked educational training and as a resdt were unaware of current trends in science education. Further examination of instructors' perspectives and investigating ways to raise the profile of excellence in teaching at the post-secondary level are required. Dedication

This document is lovingly dedicated iû the memory of Amy DeweLl(1981-1991) who taught me to persevere in the face of adversis- and who is my greatest inspiration. Acknowledments

1would like to thank everyone who was involved in helping me with this work. My colleagues Joan Morgan and Myrta Hayes encouraged me on countless occasions. Joan Sharp permited me to use her office at S.F.U. and Val Schaefer provided office space at Douglas

College to conduct the interviews. 1would like to send a special thank you to the participants who volunteered their time-

1 am satehl to Allan MacKinnon for his support and guidance while a graduate student and feel privileged to have paaicipated as a student in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser

University.

1 wodd not have been able to complete this thesis without the support and patience of my family. Th& you Tony and Sarah. Table of Contents

.- Approval Page -...... *...-...... ----.--....-...... ~....-.-...-...... -...... *.*..-.--.-..----.-.....-..--.-.II

Abstract ...... rna.. -. Dedxa~on,...... -v

Ackno wledgments...... vi

.* Table of Contents...... mi

List of Tables...... x

Chapter 1

Introduction

Background...... -7

Purpose ...... -4

Rationale...... -7

The "Thematx 7, Curriculum...... ~...~...... I I . . Thesis Organiiaaon...... 12

Chapter II

Evolutionary Theory and Some Implications for BioIogy Education

Introduction...... 13

Evolutionary Theory...... 1 6 . - Implica~onsfor Biology Education...... 24

blolecdar Biology ...... 25

Concepts versus Content Trade-off...... 68

Problems with the Evolution Theme ...... 71

Helping Undersmding ...... 22

The Innuences of Prior Experiences and Interests on Teaching...... 74

Conflicting Perspectives ...... ,...... 77

Chapter V Summary. Suggestions. and Implications for Biology Education Introduction...... -79

Summq...... -80

Suggestions and Implications for Biology Education ...... 84

B ibliography ...... -91

Appendix A ...... -97

Appendix B ...... 98 List of Tables CHAPTER I

INVESTIGATING THE USEFULNESS OF EVOLUTLONARY THEORY FOR UNDERSTANDING BIOLOGY AND ATTAINING BIOLITERACY

You are living in the mi& of a rewlution in ow understanding of life. Never has our understanding of the living world been in such constant ferment. And, never has it been su vitally important for everyone, scientist and nonscientist alike, tu understand borh the po wzr and responsibility confrred on us by our new knowledge of lfe 'sphenornena.

Joseph Levine and Kenneth Miller 1991

INTRODUCTION

Biology education, dong with science education in generai, has been the subject of many documents calhg for reform in the way it is taught (Rutherford & Ahigren, 1989; SUWOK series, 1982- 1990; Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1993). Biology, the study of living thuigs, is a fascinating but complex science. Its scope nins the garnut fiom vinisesl to biomes, yet some fust year biology educators htroduce novice students to the entire biological realrn in one or two short semesters sometimes forgetting or not acknowledging that the studenis do not have the prior learning and practice that the teacher has. Consequently, biology curricda contain a great deal of content which students must learn in a bnef period of time. Transmission of information seems to be the teaching strategy most ofien employed where students are the passive recipients of many facts which they must memorize. This is supposed to give them enough Ulfonnation to continue leaming in biology. Some educators have expressed interest in trying new teaching strategies and in revishg biology curricula They have advocated

'not classified as cells, viruses are infectious particles that are studied by microbiologists collaborative teaching methods and thematic curricula This document represents my attempt to

lemabout experiences fiom students and &om biology instructors at the fkst year post-

secondary level who have participated in a traditional setting and in a revised setting.

I work at a college where the biology curriculum for &st year students is tau@ as a

traditional survey course. From conversations with colleagues at Simon Fraser University, 1

leamed that the cMcdum of Biological Sciences 102 was organized around a theme of

evolution. Therefore, 1saw this as an opportunity to investigate both settings.

Backmound

Curriculum change is probably the most important issue in contemporary science

education at both the K-12 and post-secondary levefs. In Canada and the United States, a

common goal of cdculum change is the attainment of scientific literacy for al1 students (see

AAAS. Science for All Arnericanr, Project 2061). Scientifk Literacy has been defined as

knowledge of the processes, skills and tenets of science and of the epistemological bais for

science as a way of knowing (Moore, 1992). New science programs are comrnitted to providing

education that will lead to "scientifically literate students who are prepared for a wide range of

acadernic and work-related futures in an increasingly more technological society" (Catalyst

Newslerter, 1994). It is recognized that present science curricula are too content-laden; they

dispense large chunks of facts which may lead to fragmentation of learning instead of concept-

based learning (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989) which emphasizes the general ideas. Tobias

(1 992)' a researcher who used the methods of ethnography to examine science education reform

fkom the perspective of post-secondary education, presented case studies of innovative science programs at several universities and colleges in the United States. She found that many of these institutions have rnodifïed the lecture format to pennit teaching of underlying concepts. One of the goals of the revised K-12 Science Curriculum in British Columbia is to provide a "foundation for the scientSc literacy of citizensr' (MacKinnon, 1995, p. 23). MacKinnon @. 24) also states that:

An education in science means more [han rnernorizing definitions and formulae. School science should include opportunities for students to carry out investigations and to understand the modes of reasoning involved in scientiific inquiry.

If scientific literacy is a goal of science education, then it foilows that biologicai literacy should be a goal of biology education. The biologically literate student should have incorporaîed conceptual schema which allow himher to recognize and capitalize on biology as a way of knowing. This biological literacy codd potentiaily empower the leamer with critical thhking skills for analysing contemporary and future issues revolving around new biological knowledge which may affect the leamer personaLly or society as a whole.

1am interested in addressing the specific issue of attaining biological literacy with a concept-based curriculum utilkg evolution as the uniQing therne. In order to help achieve bioliteracy I believe that the biology curriculum should focus on the key concepts of biology, ensure that students are aware that biology is a process, and promote biological science as a way of knowing. One way of doing this is to utilize educaîiond s~ategieswhich ernphasize the uniQing principles of biology (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study @3SCS], 1993). A significant problem in biology education is that there is too much emphasis on factuai teaching and this seems to detract fiom students attaining conceptual understanding.

Two documents which influenced this paper and spearheaded my thinking about this research were Developing BioZogicaI Literacy and a series published by the Amencan Association of Zoologists' education commiaee titled Science as a Way oJrKnowing (volumes 1-

. The title of the fist document describes its focus; it is a useful manual which helps biology educators to ident* the main wingprinciples of biology for c~culuminclusion. The latter senes contains articles by many prominent biologists on evolutionary biology, genetics, neurobiology, developmental biology, etc. They are all written as suggestions for how to incorporate these subject areas into a biology curriculum ushg evolution as a heworkand they explain why evolutionary theory has contributed to the knowledge in these fields. In other words, the writers illustrate how biological researchers have relied on evolutionary theory to build knowledge; it has been the basis for formulating hypotheses and predictions. Both documents speak of evolution as biology's primary unifying theme. Essentially, 1have combined the ideas in both documents to argue that biology educators need to re-examine the epistemology of biological science and not only recognize but convey to students that, without evolutionary theory, biology really wouid still be just "stamp collecting."

Most biologists agree that evolution is a dominant unifying principle in biology. Mark

Ridley (1993), a contemporary evolutionary biologist, States that "it (evolution) is one of the most powerful ideas in al1 of science, and is the only theory that can seriously claim to unify biology."

Theodosius Dobzhanslq (1973) rcmarked in this well-known phrase, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." And, in a similar fashion, Rutherford and Ahlgren (1989,

The modern concept of evolution provides a unzfiingprinciple for under- standing the history of life on earth, relationships among all living things, and the dependence of life on the physical environment. mile it is stiZl fa7 from clear how evolution works in every detail, the concept is so well established thar it provides a fimework for 0rgani.gmost of biolog-cd knowledge info a coherent picrure.

Biologists (e.g. Ayala, Margdis & Mayr in BSCS, 1993) dso agree that evolution is very

useful for understanding biology, therefore, it makes sense that educators should utilize this

concept to help biology students comprehend the subject. Therein Lies my thesis question:

Should biology educators utilize evolutionary theory to help students understand biology

and attain bioliteracy? This may seem like a rhetorical question on the surface, however, some

evidence suggests othenvise.

Many biology educators have nsen to the challenge of teaching evolutionper se (Jensen

& Finley, 1997; Schannann, 1993) and have investigated students' misconceptions of the topic as

well as the problematic issue of challenge to personal beliefs (Demastes et al, 1995; Lord &

Marino, 1993; and Greene, 1990). What 1am proposing is the feasibiiity of a biology curriculum with an evolutionary theme. The literature reveals some evidence of implementation of this

strategy. Tamir (1 993, p. 79), who has tried it in his teaching, argues that the theme of evolutionary theory "can make a significant contribution to the teaching of biology as inquiry" and that it can be used 'las an explanatory fiamework." Zook (1995, p. 11 17) recommends that biology educators "integrate more evolution throughout the He science curriculum, rather than present it as discrete subject matter at a specific tirne." Sorne teachers have implemented a curriculum using evolution as the theme but to my kmwledge there has been Little assessrnent of this practice in terrns of student success in biology taught this way. Nickels, et al (1996) have taught high school biology using a teaching model which "combines the teaching of evolution with both a modem view of the nature of science and the use of humans as the primary case study for understanding evolutionary concepts" (p.. 332). They also report that "the model has been

5 demonstrated to be highly effective" (p. 332) however, they do not elaborate on how they were

able to assess its effectiveness. In fact, 1have not attempted to assess mident achievement but

have questioned students about their leaming experiences and asked hem to reflect on the

meaning of evolution to them and whether it was useful or not for leaming biology. Since

curriculum is designed by teaching instnictors or professors at the post-secondary Ievel, 1dso

interviewed them because I was interested in possibly uncovering the rationale for different

views on teaching practices which ultïmately determine how courses are taught and what is

In order to investigate the relevance of using a curriculum based on the unïfj4ng theme of

evolution, 1interviewed both students and biology instnictors in order to help ch- the issue of

the effectiveness of evolutionary theory for teaching and understanding biology. 1interviewed

some students and instructors f?om both ends of the pedagogical spectnim: four -dents and two instnictors fiom Simon Fraser University, six students and three instructors £tom Douglas

Colege. Biology students at Simon Fraser Universiq take Biological Sciences 102, a course with an evolutionary theme; biology students at Douglas CoIIege take Biology 110, a traditional survey course. From discussions with colIeagues who teach the 102 course at Simon Fraser

University 1 leanied that the course had been revised to specificaily incorporate an evolutionary theme. 1thought that this provided a very good opportunity to explore questions I had about whether an evolutionary theme made a difference to students' understanding of biology and to the other issues which I hdimportant such as bioliteracy and species interconnectedness. 1 decided to interview Douglas College students and instructors because 1work there and because 1 wondered whether their expenences contrasted with those of the Simon Fraser participants. Rationale

If evolutionary theory is so £undamentai to a thorough understandhg of biologicai

science, it should be a major component of biology curricula From my own experience and

discussions with students, teachers, college insmctos, and others, however, it is apparent to me

that the teaching and leaming of evolution have been neglected in many classrooms. 1 have

learned fiom personal expenence and fiom the literature (Eve & Dm, 1990) that the concept of

evoliition itself is often poorly taught or omitted altogether and consequently, biology students

ofien have a very shdlow understanding or no understanding of evolution. Although evolution is

an important central theory upon which most biologicd thought, research and concepts are based

(BSCSI 1993), it is not a prominent topic in many biology curricula. This is an issue which

needs to be addressed because society lacks an understanding of evolution (Benri, 1990; Gould,

199 1). The omission of such an important topic fiom biology curricula Mplies that some

educators are not teaching their subject with integrïty (Scott, 1994) and that students leave their

classrooms with an incomplete picture of the story of biology. This is unfortunate for two

reasons .

First, students who have not lemed about evolution, especidy the notion of common

descent, may have trouble understanding otlier major concepts in biology, such as taxonomy,

genetics and cytology. Most major concepts in biology depend on predictions based on

evolutionary theory. For example, al1 living organisms contain DNA, the molecule which contains the genetic blueprint. It wodd be difficult for scientists to figure out how DNA works if organisms contained a variety of molecules that contained the genetic information. It wodd be difficult for biologists to understand the aerobic cellular respiration pathway if it worked differently in different cells. The point is, the cell is the basic morphological unit of living thuigs

and once a student leams how it works this knowledge can be applied to the cells of most

organisms. What some educators do not do, is explain the theory behind the concept. Bidogists

could not assume that ceLls worked the same way in aImost every case if organisms did not share

a common ancestry as Darwin argued. I do not believe that students are aware of this basic

information. Students who have been taught biology by traditional methods, primarily by the

transmission of information, tend to view the science of biology as nothing more than facts based

upon absolute truths. This view is opposite to what science is actually about? that is, science is

dynarnic and scientists' ways of explahhg phenornena can change with new insight and

information. Therefore, 1think that some biology educators are contributing to this fdse

perception of science by the general public.

Students rnay become exasperated with Ieaming biology because so much rote

rnemorization is required to pass examinations successfully. An understanding of evolutionary

biolo~seems to be useful because it helps students make sense of the complex mixture of facts,

concepts, data, vocabdary and processes that comprises the huge body of knowledge known as

biologicd science. If students do not have a deep understanding of concepts then they have

failed to attain bioIogical literacy - an attribute which is very worthwhile, 1believe, for the

postmodern, ioformed citizen. Although the following staternent by Orr (1992) may seem radical

to sorne readers, it essentially reflects a similar malaise that 1feel about the legacy of education, particularly in Western society:

Education in the modern world was designed to further the conguest of nature and the industrialization of the planet. It tended to produce unbalanced, under- dimensionaliredpeople tailored to fit the modern economy. Posmtodern education must have a dlrerent agenda, one designed to heal, connect, liberate, empower, crente, and celebrate. Posmtodern education must be life-cenh-ed @. x)

Secondly, I think that students who are unaware of evolutionary theory are less aware of

the close connection between humans and other animals. Humans have weaked havoc on so

many species (including their own) for seemingly pragmatic reasons, never questioning their

nght to slaughter, exploit and annihilate them. Only now, in the Iast half of this century have

naturalists and environmentalists s-tarted ringing almbells about humans' inhumanity towards

other species. A deeper understanding of evolution and the history of life has made some people

in Western society more aware that we are very closely comected to other Living thuigs and that

humans are only one species in the much larger system of all organisms which comprise the

living w-orld. The theory of evolution helps students understand that ail living thhgs share

similar components and processes. For example, protein synthesis is a universal process

occurring in dl cells; every organism's DNA contains 64 codons which translates into 20 amino acids; and, recombinant DNA technology depends on the universality of the genetic code.

Unarguably, humans are related to other organisms. Some authors have argued that Western society has no inherent nght to dominate other species or each other. Shiva (1995, p. 50) states that "the dominant approach to studying biology . . . is based on the metaphor of man's empire over inferior creatures" and that this view may have "justified violence to and extinction of nonhuman species" (p. 54). She also wrïtes that humans should recognize "the intrinsic value of al1 life forms and their inherent ability and right to survive" (1995, p. 69). Similady, Masters

(1995, p. 183) statcs that "our position of evolutionary and ecological dominance has been taken as a license for us to exploit, plunder, and destroy as we please." To survive on this spaceship earth, 1believe that we must Ieam to work together, take care of each other and the places where

9 we live, let other species live as nature intended them to and strive for sustainable practices when

we utilize resources of any kind-

The dual ideas above, biologicd literacy and humadother species interrelatedness, are

very fundamental issues in biology education, yet I *ely see much evidence that they are

addressed in bioloa classrooms. By definition, biology is the science of Living things, of life

itself; in my opinion, it is a very important science. Of the sciences it is probably the one which

is most important for informed citizens in the generai population. If people do not understand

the basics of bioloa- how are they supposed to understand themselves? Evidence that people do

not understand biological science can be found in many places - tabloids, newspapers, racist and

fundamentalistic dogmas, and so on. The problem of biological illiteracy is of course part of the

broader problem of scientific illiteracy. North Americans are inf'ous for having one of the

most scientifically illiterate populations amongst most other developed countries (Volpe, 1984).

1think that biological illiteracy prevents an appreciation of humadother species

interrelatedness because we perceive ourselves as separate fiom other animal species. Birke

(1995, p. 75) faults the education system for encouraging the separation of humans fkom nature when she writes, "What students of biology leam today is not respect for the wonderful lives of other organisms but a respect for the wizardry of DNA technologies." This perception of human uniqueness and special status often has roots in some mythical explanations of human origins, whereas, the scientific explanation of human origins is based on evidence that points to the evolution of Homo sapiens fiom primate ancestors. This notion of placing humans on the same level as other animais is unsettling to people and hm prompted controversial debate in the school system (Futuyma, 1983; Ne&, 1982; Scott, 1994). However, the theory of evolution was formulated by one of the greatest minds in biology and caused a revolution in scientific thought

(Ma& 1991). Revolution in scientific thought does not need to be kept secret fiom the general population, especidly when it helps to explain the science of life itself.

Evolution is biologyls most powerfûl explanatory theory. Darwin preferred to cal1 it

"descent with modification1'to emphasize both its random nature and its extraordinary ability to explain the unity in diversity of living things. Teaching biology without mentioning evolutionary theory does not make sense and does not benefit students. 1think that students are denied knowledge of a nch conceptual fknework to deepen and internalize their understanding of biological concepts. Tney are denied the opportunity to explore and discuss al1 the issues and research that have ksen as a direct result of testing hypotheses based on evolutionary theory.

They are doomed to remain biologically ilLiterate.

The "Thematic'? Cuniculum

There is evidence that some biology educators are attempting to revise outdated curricula in order to reduce content. They recognize that a curriculum should be ta- using a more cohesive, unified approach; there should be more emphasis on the big ideas and less hgrnentation of knowledge. One approach that has been attempted is the development of thematic curricula that is, curricula based on unmgthemes, such as, evolution, ecology or human biology (e.g. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Biology 102 - Introduction to

Biology at Simon Fraser University, Biology 2 10 - Evolution and Biological Diversity at the

University of Victoria). This practice of theme-based teaching has beer? especially rewarding when teaching courses that are mainly for non-biology majors (üdovic, 1993; Wivagg, 1993).

These educators have tried to incorporate suggestions fiom students and non-science faculty in order to make the curriculum more relevant. This attention to the Iearner and other stakeholders

has paid off as the students are more motivated to leam and achieve higher grades than the

students who are taught maditional content-laden curricula. Students leam biology better when

the subject is integrated by a unifj4ng theme. For example, "Workshop Biology" students at the

University of Oregon achieved better test results than students in traditional biology classrooms

(Udovic, 1994). It should be noted that the thematic approach alone is not a panacea for

improving concepnial understanding. Innovative teaching strategies which address the different

learning styles of students and which encourage critical thinking also need to be incorporated to

enhance student leaming in biology.

Thesis Or~anization

Chapter one has presented an outline of the background research revolving around this

issue which 1have studied for a considerable amount of theand the formulation of the question

for this study. Chapter two is a discussion of evolutionary theory fÏom the perspective of a

biology educator. Through a literature review, 1explore the meaning of evolutionary theory and

its possible implications for biology education. Chapter three is a description of the methods

used to gather data and the process used to analyze it. The fourth chapter is a discussion of the

students and the imtmctors experiences and opinions. It includes my attempt to make sense of

this information. Finally, the fi& chapter summarizes the research and examines issues which researchers and biology educators may consider for investigation. CHAPTER II

EV3LUTTONARY THEORY AND SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR BXOLOGY EDUCATION

Introduction

Biology and education are different disciplines, yet the biology teacher is often tr&ed in

both areas and may have a dficult task bringing the two together. Biology is part of the

scientific enterprise, the scientific way of knowing; whereas, education ciram on the social

sciences. in order to bring the scientific perspective into biology education, it is important that the biology educator be cognizant of the history, processes, practices and social impact of biology. I think that it is useful for students to learn that biology is a process. that it is a way of knowing and that it is a way of thinking about the world. Darwin's theory profoundly changed the way biologists think about the world and provided the historical context for biological knowledge since "ail biological phenomena derive fkom evolutionary relationships and past interactionso'(Strickberger, 1996, p. xiii). Like dlhuman constnicts, the science of biology is cuiturally dependent but it is undeniably very close to our own psyche. Only the science of biology can be understood on a persond level because it attempts to explain life itself.

The contributions of CharIes Darwin to the field of biology cannot be overestimated.

They caused a major paradigm shift in the way biologists think about organisrns and the way society thinks about the place of humans in the universe. Darwin lived at a time when biology came of age. In the late eighteenth century the great naturalists such as Linnaeus and Cuvier began to document and discover patterns in the diversity of species thus enabling the implementation of a classification system. At the cusp of the eighteenth and nineteenth centunes, the discoveries and theories of geology questioned the age of the earth and the fïxity of species. Danvin was influenced by the geologist, Lyell, his wdfather, Erasmus Danwi, the

economist?Malthus and others. He began formuiating his Theory of Evolution by Nam

Selection after the fmous Voyage of the Beagle (1 832 - 1838). His theo~ywas not published

until 1859, but he had gathered the evidence and developed it before that date. Some authors

have argued that Danvin hesitated to publish his theory because of its grave implications for

society (Gould 1993a; Mayr, 1991). He mderstood that bis theory undermined the theologicd

way of thinking about humanity's place in the world and that this was revolutionary. Indeed,

Dannin's apprehension was warranted. Controversy over the theory erupted then (Nelkin, 1982)

and has not abated in ouown theyespecially amongst the general population. It is this

perceived controversy between theology and science which has clouded the teaching of

evolutionary theory for nearly a century? especially in North America.

The ramifications of the controversy are so pervasive that some biology educators are

unsure of evolutionary theory or may have received inadequate instruction in it. A study by

Zimmerrnan (1987) revealed that about twenty-five percent of the biology instructors who

responded to his questionnaires thought that evolution involved the purposefûi s~vingof an

organism toward a higher, more complex fom of Me. The same study indicated that seventeen

percent of the teachers taking the survey felt that creationism was built on a strong scientific

foundation and included "creation science" as part of their evolution unit. Reseaxch by Eve and

Dunn (1990) provided evidence that a siagdïcant number of high school biology teachers in the

United States adhered to "beliefs which are at odds with mainstream science, (especially)

Biblical literalism" (p. 19). They suggest that "there is reason for senous concem regarding the quality of science (especially biology) education in the U.S." (p. 20). So called "creation scientists" who adhere to a literal interpretation of the bible have tried to argue that there is no scientinc evidence for Darwin's theory. They have managed to convince many lay people to doubt the scienfitic explanahon of organic change over the(Kitcher, 1982;

Futuyma t 983). However, there is so much evidence for the theory of evolution that it has become established as the central explanatory fiamework in biology. 1thhk that biology educators have perpetuated this doubt and misunderstanding about evolutionary theory by yielding to criticism, omitting it fiom the biology curriculum, allowing the interference of personzl beliefs and not taking time thernselves to study and leam about it. 1was guilty of this avoidance, roo, but have recently leamed much about evolutionism and have been smck by how important and fundamental the theory is for research and the acquisition of knowledge in the biologicai sciences. 1believe that one of the most important lessons biology educators need to teach students is that humans should not be separated fiom the rest of nature; leaming about

Darwin's theory is, in my opinion, the ben way of illustrating this. Perpetuating the humanistic notion of the elitism of our own species is pure hubns that oeeds to be removed from the way humans think about the world. Robert Orr (1992, p. 139), writing with a much more acerbic tongue, also takes issue with the arrogance and pretentiousness of humans:

The tragic sense of 11% . . . locates the sources ofour suffering in ourselves, in hzrrnan decisions, institutions, and . . . in the pretense that we are beyond the laws of ecology, thermodynamics, or even morality. A closer reading of Homo sapiens would suggest that we are a spindly legged, upstnrt. dismptive species whose intellect exceeds its wisdom, located on a small planet attached to an insignifcant star in a backwater galuxy. For all of our puffed-up, selfiremhg talk about the

"uscent of man, " we have tmly no idea whether it is an ascent or a descent, or, if the foimer, what its destination rnight be. Ifour rational consciousness is our crowning glory, we are still unable to sqwhy, or even to explain what it is or why it has occurred On such unstable turf we best fiead lightb, without the buggage ofpetense, overblown pride or. . . hubris. My understanding of evolutionary theory and its implications for biology eàucation are

reviewed in this chapter.

Evolutionary Theorv

It is important to define what biologists mean by the theos. of evolution because a

misunderstanding of the concept exists (Ridley; 1993; Kitcher, 1982). It is nta theory about

how life originated. The origin of life is a subject of much debate and there are severd competing theones on this topic (Fox & Dose, 1972; Schopf, 1983). Evolution is both fact and theory. Evolution, or change over rime, is a fact and weil documented by the paleontological evidence. The theoretical part, natural selection, explains how organic changes may have occurred. Natural selection is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over thedue to factors such as random mutation, genetic recombination and Merential reproductive success.

Understanding the phenornenon of natural selection is hdamental to an understanding of the evolutionary process, and, adminedly, it may be dinicult for students to gasp (Bishop &

Anderson, 1990; Greene, 1990). However? by using innovative approaches to teaching and leaming, some educators have overcome this obstacle and their students have achieved success.

For example, Jensen and Finley (1 997) were concemed about improving çtudents' understanding of evolutionary theory because of its importance in understanding biology. By altering the curriculum and their teaching strategies, the authors reported that their students achieved significant conceptual change - they were able to increase their use of Daminian ideas such as natural selection.

The process of naturd selection depends on mutations, genetic recombination, and dzerential reproductive success. Random mutations arise when rnistakes occur in the copying mechanisrn of DNA. Mutations are permanent alterations of DNA that may occur spontaneously or may be caused by damage to the DNA when it is exposed to radiation, certain chemicals or vinises. Alterations to the DNA include deletions, additions, substitutions and mig-rations of nucleotides. These rnismkes most often occur in the gametic ceils during meiosis and result in a change in the genetic code. Mutations are most ofien 1etha.I but may also be responsible for redundant DNA sequences that are not harmful or for slight changes in the genome which may be beneficial to the organism. Genetic recombination occurs duruig meiosis when a process cailed

"crossing over" occurs between chromosomes contributed by the male and female parents and when sister chromatids are distributed randomiy during anaphase 1. Differential reproductive success, the actual selection process, is defTned as the phenomenon whereby some members of a population survive and reproduce to leave viable offspring whereas some members do not. This idea seems to have occurred to Darwin fiom bis readings of Malthus who was concemed about the increasing human population. Malthus pointed out that if al1 the progeny produced by individuals in a popdation survived, they would reach astronomical numbers and wodd al1 perish due to a lack of resources to support them.

Nthough most biologists think that natural selection is the main cause of organic change, there is argument about the unit of selection. Williams (1966) and Dawkins (1976) argue that the gene is the main unit of selection whereas Eldredge (1995) and Gould (1980) argue that the individual may be the main unit of selection because they believe that natural selection acts on al1 components of the organizational hierarchy of the organism and only individual organisms, not genes alone, cmreproduce.

In order for natural selection to take place the foIlowing cntena mut be present: there must be oppominity for mutations to arise; there must be genetic recombination; offspring must be able to inherit variations; and, reproductive success must be dserential. Naturd selection has been inaccurately portrayed as the "survivai of the fittest." 1think that this is an unfortunate explanation as it irnplies that species may not have survived because they were not fit or worthy of sumival. More biologists acknowledge the role that historical contingency plays in suntival or extinction. If an organism has evolved a trait which allows it to reproduce successfidiy in a changed environment then it has an advantage over a species which is unable to reproduce in that different environment. Natural selection has nothing to Say about which species will be successful or wkch will be unsuccessful. Although differential reproductive success is a nonrandom process, the cofactors of mutation and genetic recombination which must take part in order to effect evolution by natural seleciion are random processes. This notion also applies to humans because humans are living organisms and al1 living organisms have evolved mainly by the process of natural selection. If the interplay of environmental and biological factors had been different at any point in time before or during the evolution of the hominid Iineage our own evolution could have been jeopardized. 1realize that is a difficult concept to accept but 1 believe that one rnust accept it in order to fully understand natural selection and its ramifications. Gould

(1989) suggests that the evolution of any species is a "glorious accident."

For educators, there are current and relevant examples of natural selection in action in the living world today . The Beak of the Finch (1 994) by Jonathan Weiner is a beautifully written book which documents the groundbreaking work of evoluîionary biologists Peter and Rosemary

Grant who have spent over hventy years studying naturd selection in action. Coincidentally, they arc studying the Galapagos finches which Darwin himself observed and have shown that natural selection is more powerful than Darwin ever imagined. Their work is highly regarded as

a brilliant contribution to evolutionary research; it has pravided thought-provoking data about the

rate of natural selection in the wild. Weiner skilfully weaves other stories illustrahg namal

selection into his book, including those of some British Columbian scientists. For example,

Dolph Schluter, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia, is studying the

effects of natural selection on two species of stickleback fish which are endernic to small Iakes in

the GulfIslands and Vancouver Island, B.C. Jamie Smith, also at U.B.C., studied the process of

natural selection on a population of song sparrows on Mandarte Island, B.C. There are many

examples of contemporq evolutionary research which educators could present to learners to

help illustrate natural selection, unfortunately, this research is poorly known outside the scientific

community. The research, however, underscores the effectiveness of naturd selection as an

important evolutionary mechanism; scientists are able to measure and analyze phenotypic changes in populations. me Beak of the Finch illuminates this research by contributing significantly to an understanding of natural selection.

Scientists disagree about the pattern of change that has occurred by natural selection. In the Origin of Species Darwin described how He could have oriaated fiom a common ancestor by cornplex branching of lineages over a very long period of time due to accumulated small variations in populations. This explanation is known as Damhian gradualism and contrasts nith a more contemporary explanation known as the punctuated equilibrium mode1 (Gould &

Eldredge, 1972). This mode1 suggests that some evolutionary events took place by long penods of stasis in populations accompanied by interludes of rapid speciation. Both Gould and Eldredge are paleontologists who maintain thai the fossil record reflects their mode1 more accurately than gradualism. Some biologists strongly support gradualism while others strongly suppon

~unctuatedequilibrïum. Recent research suggests that there is evidence in the fossil record

which supports both models for explainhg organic change over the. For example, the

~rotistansseem to have evolved gradually while evidence of stasis and rapid speciation exists for

the evolution of Eocene mammals (Prothero, 1992). The important thhg for educators to note is

that biologists are not questioning the validity of evolutionary theory by natural selection. They

are debating the rate of organic change and the relative importance of sudden environmental

perturbations on speciation. Biotogists fiom both sides of the debate over gradualism and punctuated equilibrium agree on the existence of a nested pattern of resemblance interlinking dl species (Eldredge, 1995) or the notion of cornmon descent.

Darwin's argument of evolution by common descent was ememely revolutionary in his tirne and he had less empirical evidence for it than contemporary biologists. Nevertheless, it is a very important aspect of evolutionary theory and 1 think that its predictive power has been understated by biology educators. "Descent with modification" dictates that there shodd be fea~esthat are common in al1 Living things. As 1have stated before, the ubiquity of biochemical pathways and the identical stmcture of nucleic acids in all cells surely illustrates this to us. And, at the macrols-el one can observe cornmon features in al1 vertebrates or in al1 conifers. Eldredge (1995: p. 5 1) states that, "ln terms of pure genealogy, the living world cames the marks of its history around with it" and !'The nested pattern of resemblance ought to be at the very top of the list of the 'proofs' Darwin enurnerated in the Origin." So it seems that Darwints ides of common descent has provided an elegant argument which has contributed greatly to our understanding of the linkage between the similadies of living things and the divesity of species. This concept could provide an opportunity for biology educators to raise the topic of evolutionary theory in their teaching. Species diversity is easy for everyone to see, yet I think that some teachers get mired down in describing and categonzing al1 this diversity instead of celebrating its unit.. Educators could explain to students that one only needs to snidy a single representative animal. plant, protist or bacterium in detail in order to understand how most others work because other related organisms are al1 variations of a single plan. The topic of hundreds of adaptations of a single plan leads very nicely to discussions of examples of species diversity and how that diversity could have arisen.

Adaptations of organisms to their respective environments is one of the most fascinahg subjects in biology. It is also one of the most misunderstood in tems of the role played by evolution. Students ofien have teleological or tautological explanations for adaptations. For example, Jensen and Finiey (1997) asked introductory biology students to answer questions about the evolution of cheetahs. Some students had teleological explanations (e.g. "They had to increase their speed or they would go extinct.") while others had Lamarckian views (e-g. "They kept using their muscles and so they got faster and faster. ") Students may also confuse the evolutionary meaning of the word adaptation with its meaning in everyday language (Bishop &

Anderson. 1990). Students should be reminded that traits musr be trmmitted by genes fiom parents to offspring and that traits cannot be-trmsmittedfiom the environment to the organism.

According to the biologicai explmation, an adaptation is the phenotypic expression or trait of something in a population's genetic makeup. Species are composed of populations of genetically similar individuds which can interbreed successfully, that is, produce offspring which, in turn, cm breed successfully. The members of populations possess genetic variations which are expressed as different phenotypes. In short, the members of populations are not identical but

they cm interbreed. This idea, cded "population thinking" by Mayr (1991), is fundamental to understanding natural selection and rnay be dinicult for some learners to comprehend. It is this variation in populations which provides the grist for the mil1 of natural selection. Some naits enable individuals to reproduce more successfidly than individuals without those traits. Traits include everything from specialized beaks in birds to mllnicry in butterflies to opposable rhumbs in primates. They are termed adaptations because they tend to enhance sumival in respective emironments and ultimately enhance reproductive success. Without selected, favourable adaptations organisms are less Likely to survive and leave offspring; they may even becorne extinct. What rnay go unnoticed by some educators and students is the fact that adaptations have long histones that are embedded in the geneaologies of organisrns; it is important to inform students that evolution by natural selection is that history. One student who learned kst year biology without an evolutionary approach recently rernarked, "1 felt as though 1was working backwards - discovering evolutionary traits after the fact." Another misunderstanding is that organisrns possess perfect adaptations which enable them to exist in their environments, an argument that creationists ofien use to "prove" the existence of a creator or designer. Darwin pointed out the imperfection of some adaptations in the Origin, recogniMg that natural selection modified existinq traits. There are many examples in the living world of adaptations which are imperfect or even useless. For example, the panda has a thumb-like appendage, however, it has evolved fiom the wrist metacarpal bone, not koom the phalanges (Gould, 1980). Humans and other species possess structures which are vestigial, for example, the coccyx and the appendix in humans; pelvic bones in whales. And, of course, the most obvious example of the imperfection of some adaptations is the phenornenon of extinction.

The fossil record has proMded scientists with a wealth of information about the history of

life on earth. It records the evidence of thousands of species which exiaed and died during

earth's long history; it provides ovenvhelming proof of the evolutionary process and illustrates

that extinction is a necessary component of that process. Many nonbiologists believe that the

demise of the dinosaurs at the close of the Cretaceous era was the most important exarnple of

extinction, however the paleontological evidence shows that the end of the Perrnian era records

the most catastrophic level of extinction; approximately ninety-six percent of al1 species died

(Benton, 1993). The causes of the Permian extinction are ficult to study; it may have occuned

as a result of a variety of factors such as continental colIisions, glaciation andior a worldwide fd

in sea level. Extinction of some species provides opportunities for the evolution of new ones

which is dramaticaily ilhstrated by the rebounding of life after the Permian. Clhatic change,

extraterrestrial collisions and extreme geological events (volcanoes, rising sea levels, glaciation,

earthquakes?etc.) have al1 contributed to exunction. Disease, overpredation and overpopulation

may also result in extinction. The topic of extinction may be unpleasant but can provide a gende

reminder of the fiagility of life and a reminder that the world we live in roday is vastly different

fiom any other geological era. It is also an opportunity for educators to discuss the impact of

humans on the present environment. Some scientists think that this is the first time in the history

of life that humans are the direct cause of the rapid extinction of so many species (Gould, 1993b;

Leakey & Levin, 1995). In the past, evidence suggests that rapid extinctions were caused by

severe environmental disturbances and that it was a natural, unpredictable process. Today, is it a conscious human activity? By drawing on the topic of extinction and its role in the evolutionary process, educators could initiate discussions about ethics, values and attitudes towards nature.

In summary, evolution is change over time f?om a common ancestor, mainly by natural

selection. Topics such as reproductive success, adaptations, extinction, the ides of common

descent and variation in populations should be discussed to help students understand

evolutionary theory. Then educators cmdraw upon evolution to help explain concepts and ideas

in biology. Nickels, et aL. (1 996) have done exactly this by developing a mode1 of teaching using evolution and the nature of science as organizing themes for entire biology courses. With a solid understanding of evolution, students were able to better understand other biological concepts.

Im~licationsfor BioIoov Education

As stated previously, several educators and biologists think that teachers should use evolurionary theory throughout the biology curriculum to provide a lkmework for understanding.

To my knowledge, there is little evidence in the literature that biology educators have attempted this strategy. Through Clough (1994) 1became aware that there was a need for specific exmpies of the implications of evolutionary theory. He suggested that educators should try to diminish students' resistance to evolution education by stressing functional understanding, by showing how the theory works and showing how it provides a fi-amework to conduct Merresearch.

Fomuiately, some biologists have provided examples which illustrate how one may accomplish this and 1 will attempt to outtine some of them. 1have chosen to discuss the role of evolution in molecular biology, ecology, Daminia.medicine and neurobiology. The foIlowing discourse mainly draws upon the scientSc literature because it seems that some scientists have attempted to encourage the active discussion of evolution in biology cunicula by writing a plethora of articles, essays and new text books (Moore, 1990; Campbell, 1996) which provide more

information about the role of evolutionary theory in the growth of biological knowledge. The

continued attacks by those who wish to discredit evolution by insisting on equal time for

nonscientific explanations of Life's history seem to have spearheaded these responses by some

members of the scientific comrnunity in an effort to inform educators and others about how ùie

evolutionary approach to biological questions has revolutionized biology.

MoIecular BioIoa

Molecular biology is exciting, cutting-edge biology, the science of the twenty-fîrst

cenniry. Leaniing about how life works at the molecular level has become a consuminp passion

in many research laboratories around the world. The sheer volume of interactions which takes

place in cells will keep biologists busy for years as they attempt to uniock explanations one after

the other. Some scientists warn of the dangers of viewing organisrns through so narrow a lem

(Suzuki, 1985; Keller. 1995) and 1agree that the enthusiasm swirling around molecular biology

should be tempered with a lesson on the limits of science. Molecular biology is pervasive and

powemil, mainly because it is seen as a source of revenue for research programs which will

benefit business, specificdly the biotechnology industry. Scientists have been treading the

çlippery slope of research in the narne of profit for many years and the practice has escdated recently due to the technological application of so much new biological knowledge, much of which stems fiom the field of molecular biology. Eric Grace (1997) is a scientist who has written a delightful book which is written at a level that rnost senior hi& school students could easily read called Biotechnology Unzipped Promises and ReaZities. He discusses the controversial issue of biotechnology as primarily a commercial activity that places profit above pklmthropy: "The large sums of money needed for research ensure that products with maximum profit potential get prionty for development" (p. 228).

Molecuiar biology is the study of gene structure and evolution, DNA replication and the regulation of gene expression in bactena and other organisms. It was created in the 1930's when scientists became interested in understanding biological processes at the level of atoms and molecules (Mix, et al.' 1996). These scientists turned to microorganisms such as bacteria for experimental subjects because bactena are easy to culture and have very rapid fife cycles so experirnents could be completed in days instead of months or years. However, due to the predictions one could make based on evolutionary theory, scientists could study processes in microorganisms and apply this knowledge to &iorganisms - a fact educators tend to omit. In dl organisms the DNA molecde has the same structure, the rnethod of DNA replication is the same and the method of protein synthesis is the same. Genes are series of nucleotides on DNA which code for one protein or one peptide (granted, the definition of a gene is somewhat arbitrary and subject to debate). DNA sequencing technology is a powerful tool for the study of molecular evolution and has provided strong evidence for evolutionary theory. Using this technology, molecular biologists cm compare the ON-4 (sequence of nucleotides) between organisms and, as predicted by evolutionary theory, lineages which are closely related rnorphologically to each other are also closely related at the molecular level. A rernarkable exarnple of species interrelatedness is the similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA. Chimpanzee DNA is

99% sunilar to that of humans (Hodgson, 1989) showing that the chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The discovery of DNA similarities between organisms was really the reason for the explosion of recombinant DNA technology. This technology has formed the basis for creating al1 kinds of biotechnology industries at a very rapid rate. Using this technique, scientists

cm splice genes fiom one organism into another. hdeed, the human gene for insulin production

can be spliced into a bacterium, thus pennitting a very cheap and accurate way of obtaining

insulin for treating diabetes. Educators have access to numerous intemet sites devoted to

biotechnology which is an area with so much growth in information and so many social

implications that it behooves teachers to expose students to it. Nevertheless, it should be pointed

out that biotechnology depends mainly on the kinds of interactions that occur in nature,

interactions that have evolved. Humans have figured out how nature works at the DNA level, are

able to replicate it in a laboratory, and use this knowledge in ways that are good or bad,

depending on one's perspective. 1think that the ethical ramifications of biotechnology are too

formidable to ignore, however some knowledge of DNA's structure and fimction, including it's

role in natural selection. is necessary in order to formulate inforrned decisions regarding its use.

Molecular biology provided evidence for evolution before the discovery of DNA

sequencing, yet this information was omitted fiom introductory textbooks until recently. Earlier

studies in molecular biology examined descent relationships by comparing the amino acid

sequences of the same protein in different species (Levin, 1984). For example, cytochrome c?a

protein present in the electron amsport chah of cellular respiration, is found in al1 animals and

plants. The sequence of amino acids which code for this protein cmbe compared in distantly

related groups such as humans, fish and fungus. Closely related species have amino acid

sequences that are more alike than those of distantly related species. But, there are ma?

sirnilarities between even the most distantlv related wups ( Mix, et al., 1996). Comparative studies of proteins and amino acids suggest that nucleotide base substitutions accumulate at a steady rate. Some scientists think that these macromolecules can act as "molecdar clocks." and

molecular cornparisons can be used to date evolutionary divergence (Mix, et al., 1996). This is

especially useful when a nch paleontological record is lacking.

The fields of molecular biology and biotechnology have added greatiy to the list of evidence supporthg evolutionary theory. As stated by Grace (1997, p. 224): 'The revelations of biotechnology add significantly to the view that our own species, for al1 its uniqueness, is not fimdamentally different fkom others. The emperor has no clothes that we can see, and 1 believe it is that which people object to most." The close biological relationship of humans to other organisms can be readily observed and need not be debated any longer. For example, similarities between DNA sequences can easily be seen by undergraduates in a laboratory using the technique of electrophoresis. Educators now have tangible and advanced technological tools for raising awareness of the kinship between dl organisms.

Ecoloov

Ecolog is the study of how the abiotic and biotic components of present ecosysterns work. It is a complex science but 1believe that dl humans should have some knowledge of it because humans depend on ecosystems for their existence. The goods and services of nature which provide basic life support (breathing, drinking, eating) come fiom ecosystems.

Unfortunately, a litany of severe environmental problems (acid min, pollution, destruction of the ozone layer? overpopulation) presently exists because humans have failed to be stewards of their ecosystems; instead, they wantonly consume them. Humans are now paying a pnce for overconsumption and destruction of ecosystems. Resources such as fish stocks, forests? clean water, and arable land are becoming scarce and some human ecologists (Ehrlich, et al., 1995) beiieve that the global human population has aiready reached an unsustainable level; it has

exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth.

Present ecosystems have evolved over long penods of time and are examples of naturai

selection at more than one level. The hierarchical organization of ecosystems illustrates different

kinds of species interactions, such as, cornpetition, mutualism, herbivore-plant and predator-prey.

Cornpetition may contribute to natural selection and thus play a role in shaping the species

composition of biotic communities. The role of rnutualism in the evolution of species may be

overlooked in biology education, yet is very evident in large stable ecosystems such as rain

forests and coral reefs. Ecologists &y to understand the relationships between al1 the components

of ecosystems and how they achieve sustainability. Humans need to learn how to build

sustainable communities in which we cms-atisQ our needs without diminishing the chances of

future generations. We can lemvaluable lessons fiom the study of ecosystems. which are

sustainable communities of plants, animals, and microorganisms (Capra, 1996). As hurnans

encroach on more and more ecosystems, ecologists may not be able to document them in time

and biological knowledge will be lost. Humans do destroy the habitats of other organisms and

contribute to a reduction or loss of biodiversity.

Species diversity is the product of evolutionary processes which occwed over a very

long period of tirne and ecologists attempt to study and analyze the interactions between species

and the strategies for species su~val.The process of natural selection has shaped the organisms

one sees today and they appear to be adapted for survival in their respective environments.

However, adaptation is constrained by forces such as changing environments and lirnited amounts of energy. There are always tmdeoffs in the evolution of adaptations - this is a very key concept which helps to explain the dynamics of ecosystems but one which is often not emphasized very much by teachers. Adaptations which enhance reproductive success &se by naturai selection but there are costs and benefits to everything an organism does and organisms intepte tbese costs and benefits in evolutionary time (Krebs, 1994). It is beneficial to leave as many offspring as possible but the energy costs (food requirements, potential reduction of adult survival) place constraints on maximizSttion of reproduction. The evolutionary underpinnings of the adaptations of organisms to their environments and of the ecological strategies of organisms for balancing costs and benefits is the underlying story of ecology, a field of study rich in hypotheses and investigations. The study of ecology has enormous pedagogical implications which go beyond the scope of this thesis. On a personal note, 1 have found that ecological investigations and quesuons have provided valuable hooks to capture students' interest and to underscore the relevance of biology to everyone's lives. It seems to be especially meaningful for students if the teacher provides opportunities for outdoor activities and for studying living organisms as much as possible. Lntegrating ecoiogy's evolutionary backbone into topics is reiatively easy and could be very beneficial for enhancing students' understanding of concepts.

Concepts such as costs and benefits, tradeoffs, cornpetition and resource carrying capacity connect directiy to explmations based on selection for enhanced reproductive success.

Danvinian Medicine

Daminian medicine is a relatively new field which utilizes evolution by natural selection to andyze the adaptive significance of human medical disorders such as infections and diseases.

To illustrate how this idea has gained recoDonition,some medical schools (University of Calgary,

University of Michigan, etc.) have introduced the topic of Darwinian medicine into the curriculum. During most of the twentieth century the practice of human medicine has

downplayed or ignored evolutionary p~ciples.Doctos have attempted to "fix" bodies by

trea~gsymptoms without considering the history of disease and the evolution of humans and

disease organisms. Humans, like other living things, have evolved over hundreds of thousands

of years by natural selection. Sometimes the costs and benefits of the body's responses to

infection or disease are mistaken for aberrations that mut be corrected with invasive procedures

such as surgery or potent drugs. It has been argued that the biological evolution of humans is

snick in the Stone Age (Williams & Nesse, 1991) but our cultural evolution has progressed

rapidly in four or five centuries. For exampie, our stone age predecessors subsisted on simple diets which were not rich in sugar and fat because these nutrients were scarce, therefore. the hurnan body had not evolved mechanisms to metabolize them in large quantities. Today, nutrients containing high concentrations of sugars and fats are readily available and some people overload their digestive systems with these foods. Consequently, there are very high incidences of adult-onset diabetes, arising fiom an ovenvorked pancreas, and obesity (Low & Heinen,

1993), sometimes caused by excessive calories inherent in sugars and fats.

In biological ternis, infections may be categorized as a host-parasite contest. The symptoms of Section by a parasite can be analyzed according to whether they represent costs or benefits to the host or parasite. Medical intervention disected against the pathogen's adaptations will usually by helpful, while those that disrupt the host's defences should be more cautiously applied (Williams & Nesse, 1991). For example, a specialized mechanisrn has evolved to regulate fever in response to bacterial toxins, therefore, if the fever is blocked by medication, the ability to resist infection may decrease. Another host defence is sequestration of iron which causes the plasma iron levels to fall. This plasma iron decrease is often treated by dietary

supplements. However, the sequestmtion of iron deprives bacteria of a vital mineral, thereby

benefihg the host but costing the pathogen. Udortunately, it is common for some physicians to

routinely suppress symptoms which eEectively undermines our bodies' evolved defence

mechanisms and may result in weakening our immune system.

Another misconception regarding the host-parasite atms race has to do with the CO-

evolution of host and pathogen. Conventional wisdom dictated that a prolonged host-parasite

associiition wodd lead to a reduction in virulence. It was believed that parasites would be

selected to rninimize damage to the host. However, this assumption has been challenged by

research in host-parasite coevolution which lead to two discoveries. (1) Pathogens cmevolve

rapidly and develop resistance to more and more powerful antibodies. (2) Pathogens depend on

host defences such as coughing and diarrhea for dispersal to new hosts (Williams & Nesse,

199 1). Severs host defence rnechanisms benefit dispersal of the pathogen more than mild ones.

Vibrio cholerae (the bacteriurn which causes cholera) is an example of a pathogen which causes

severe host reactions to aid its dispersal.

The study of flu viruses and the virus which causes AIDS are current examples of medical problems which are be,-g to utilize research methods based on evolutionary mechanisms. Viruses are very simple entities which require a host in order to reproduce. Their relationships to other living things is poorly understood yet they do contain DNA or RNA, the universal nucleic acids found in living cells. Epidemiologists know that viruses mutate rapidly.

Alrnost every year scientists and medical staEmust work quickly to isolate new Wal strains in order to manufacture vaccines to protect people. The human overpopulation problem is one of the factors which exacerbates the evolution of increasingly virulent viruses. With such a large host population, vinises cmmutate rapidly and quickly evolve new variants uliich are resistant to vaccines. The evolutionary approach to reducing vinilence proposes to increase the fitness costs that pathogens hcur fiom harming the host (Ewald, 1994), hence, if you are sick stay at home so that the virus cm not be transmitted to another host. Stories of those affiicted with

HN ( human immunodeficiency virus), the vinis which causes AIDS, are indeed heartbreaking, yet the possibility of finding a cure for this disease seems to be remote. The virus has the capacity to rapidly evolve its way around bamïers such as dnigs, vaccines and ge~etically engineered cells (Ewald, 1994). The evolutionary solution to reducing the spread of AIDS is to promote practices which favour selection of a more benign HIV pathogen which could be accomplished by reducing the fiequency of sexual and needlebourne transmission.

There are many examples which document the relevance of evolution to the study of human disease. This topic wouId interest students and perhaps provide one of the best tools for conceptual change towards understanding evolution by natural selection. If something as fundamental as human disease can illustrate the predictive power of evolutionary mechanisms then it may be worthwhile for educators to investigate and utilize in their classrooms. The field of Danirinian medicine is very new and discussions of this topic are not meant to lmdermine the achievements of modern medicine. It is mentioned here as another example of how evolutionary theory continues to generate testable hypotheses in science. Neurobiology

Neurobiology and behaviour are cornplementary fields of shidy which investigate the

nervous system and how it works. Often biology instructors fail to inform students of the nch

history of research and discovery in these fields that depended on evolutionary concepts. The

classic topics which are introduced to htyear biology students include the structure and

function of the motor neuron, the reflex arc and transmission of a nerve impulse. Usuaily

students do not Ieam that the nervous systems of three different animais were used as the

experimental models for these discoveries: the cat spinal nerve cord, the Eog myoneurai

junction, and the giant axons of squid, respectively. Evolutionary relationships permit

neurobiologists to utilize different organisms in order to formulate unified concepts regarding the

structure and function of the nervous system and the mechanics of neurophysiology. The

physiology of nerve transmission is essentially the same in al1 animals fiom the Cnidaria to the

Vertebrates, yet this knowledge cm be applied to areas in buman medicine such as pain control

and the study of neurologicai diseases. 1think that it is sornewhat hurnbling to lemthat hurnans

have depended on obscure bvertebrates such as polychaete woms and squid to facilitate

research leading to a profound understanding of diz nervous system. Without this understanding

society would have no knowledge of anaesthetics and doctors would be unable to humanely

perfom lifc-saving operations. The science of neurobiology is an outstanding example of the

utility of evolutionary theory. The epistemology of neurobiology is literdy rooted in an

explanatory fiamework dependent on evolutionary relationships.

This chapter has outlined the meaning of evolutionary theory and sorne of the concepts required to understand it. It hm aiso descnbed how educators could help students achieve a

34 functiond understanding of evolution by including a discussion of the underlying evolutionary explanation or fkamework in four different fields of study in biology - rnolecular biology, ecology, DWanrnedicine and neurobiology. CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS

Personal Reflections

1have been thinking about the status of biology education for a long tune but have been

unable to irnplement curriculum changes which would enhance student learning. This has

created an anxiety which is partly due to a tension which exists between my sincere desire to

raise my students' awareness of the significance and wonder of nature and the constraints of a

curriculum imposed by others who hold different views of what should be deemed priorities in

biolog education. The argument for contiming the status quo was that the curriculum had not

changed for many years and students were successful. The criterion for measuring success was

simply that the students passed the course,

Because that argument disturbed me, it was realiy the impetus for rny resolve to find alternatives to the prevailing biology curriculum. Students may achieve a satisfactory score on an objective final examination but that does not mean they have intemalized concepts or acquired new knowledge by constructing their own meanings. My readings began before 1applied for graduate school because 1knew that my knowledge of the episternology of science and biology was lacking. 1started reading essays by Stephen J. Gould, Lewis Thomas, David Suniki and others. These exemplary scientists were gifted writers who wrote with passion and insight about the lessons that abounded in the quest for scientific knowledge, about the failures as well as the successes, about societal biases, about the pretense of academic arrogance, and mostiy, about their deep respect for dl living things, fiom minute bacteria to gargantuan whales. Their writings really spoke to me. Although I have been a consewationist/enWonmentalistfor over twenty-five years I could not understand why others did not seem to care about conserwig the environment

and pursuing a less materialistic lifestyle. Respect for other species and the environments they

need for survivai seemed foreign to many in the general population and 1was genuinely pded

and saddened by this attitude. Those early readings gave me a partial answer - some people do

not seem to understand the interconnectedness of aii species, including humans, and do not know

how indebted humans are to other species for ail kinds of laiowledge and for sustaining

ecosystems that are indispensable to cul survivd. The worldview which promotes special status

for the human species has dominated oumainly eurocentric culture. In contrast. some aboriginal

societies have developed a very heightened awareness of our connections to the earth. The

following words which have been a great inspiration to the deep ecology movement have been

attributed to Chief Seattle:

This we know, AZZ things are connected like the blood which unites one fumily-.. Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons and daughters of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he dues to the web, he does to hirnself:

Can mything be done/should anything be done to cultivate a respect for nature?

Obviously, 1 think something should be done, and 1believe so for moral reasons, not scientific

ones. It is just not right to eradicate species for seEsh reasons. ye~1could not abandon scientific principles in rny search for a means to nudge others into awareness and perhaps even the acceptance of a worldview that embraced nature instead of one which dominated it. The question - how to raise awareness? - returned me to biology education. 1s there a problem with the way biology is taught? 1think that biology educators in high schools and in first year post- secondary institutions must take more responsibility for fostering positive attitudes toward nature. It is important to realize that most of the students enrolled in our classrooms will not pursue Merstudies Ui biology. They sirnply take a science course to fulfill program requirernents. In fact, 1am not too concerned about the students who wili major in biolog; they are already motivated to leam the subject. 1am more concemed about that majority who rnay only take one science course. It rnay be the only time they are exposed to the subject of biology and it is a golden oppomuiity for biology educatoe to engage tearners in the relevancy, importance and wonder of Living things. DiEerent approaches to education may be required to accomplish this. One approach is to emphasize bioliteracy by building a curriculum around central themes.

1began reading literature pertaining to scientific literacy, leamer-centred teaching strategies and science education reform. Most writers mentioned the importance of evolutionary theory to revolutionizing the science of biology but lamented that the theory is not tau& veq well. Mernories of my own experiences as a biology student came to fore. 1 had learned ail kinds of facts: concepts and skills but had never explicitly learned the theory of evolution nor neo-Darwinism. And, the main reason 1have retained biological knowledge is simply due to the fact that I have worked as a biologist and taught biology for many years, permitting me to remain immersed in biologicd culture. 1have subsequently read the @-&in of Species and several contemporary authors. 1also completed a directed readings with Dr. B. Crespi which mer increased my understanding of the theory . An understanding of evolutionary theory certainly rnay not be the key to promoting respect for nature for everyone but it seems to help make sense of the complex science of biology. Perhaps a central or cardinal theme would help leamers

understand and corne to lmow biology in a significant way in the short time they spend in one

course rather than forgetthg it forever. 1have introduced the historical context provided by

evolutionary mechanisms to discussions of species diversiq, adaptations and physiologicd

processes to my students with very positive results.

I have been encouraged by the receptiveness of most students to incorporating

evolutionary theory into the curriculum but have been discouraged by some of my peers who

dislike deviation fiom a prescnbed curriculum. Overcoming resistance to change is a senous

obstacle to educational reform; it may be attributable to some insauctors' perceptions that

changes imply a rejection of the woah and value of techniques which they have built up over

time (Hargreaves, 1994). My readings in research pertaining to college level teaching strategies

repeatedly concluded that adult learners benefitted fkom learning environments which

incorporated teaching strategies which addrissed difTerent leaming styles. Teaching strategies which incorporate case studies (Herreid, 1994), cntical thinking opportiillities (Mead &

Schamiann, 1994), an inquiry approach (Lawson, et al., 1WO), problem solving (Jensen &

Finley, 1997), concept-based leamhg to achieve bioliteracy (Demastes Bc Wandersee, 1992) or collaborative Iearning ( Bniffee, 1993; Dussart & Nicholls, 1996) seem to enrich student learning and understanding. In order to improve the learning environment, the cumculum must be flexible enough to accommodate a more leamer-centred approach rather than strict adherence to specific objectives which often entail rnemonzation for mastery. Evolutionary theory is a big, abstract idea supported by an abundance of evidence but in order to understand its profoundness in regards to the science of biology, learners should have the opportunity to explore it in depth. Hence, it occurred to me that evolutionary theory can not be leaed by memorization; instead, it is a complex concept requkhg opportunities for problern solving, discussion and investigation of contemporary research,

The literature I had read supported the idea of using evolutionary theory as a theme in order to effect conceptual change in understanding biology. 1 extended this arbgument to conclude that an understanding of biology might help shidents understand the importance of nature.

Therefore, it seems that my preconceptions definitely influence how 1want to teach and what I want to teach.' Wideen (Personal Communication, 1995) drew my attention to the validity of this dilemma; he suggested that we live in a ''perspective-driven" world. 1confess that 1 identiQ most closely with Eisner's (1985) "social reconstructionist" (p. 63) because 1advocate dealing with problems for which science has relevance. Understanding biology has so much relevance but its relevance has been ignored or unheard. For example, Hardin (1968) wamed society diiay years ago about how the consequences of a person pursuing his or her own interest leads to the

'%rage* of the comrnons." His eloquent argument descnbed how increased population growth could not go unchecked in a finite world without eventually causing misery and hardship; how a change in human values, not a technical solution, is required to solve environmentai problems.

He was also correct in pointing out that people seem to have a "natual tendency to do the wrong thing" (p. 1345) because benefits to the individual take precedence over what may benefit the environment as a whole. Benefits to the individual usuaily resulted in environmentai degradation because people failed to understand that intact envkonments are desirable and necessary and

? "1 will explore this issue of persona1 bias when discussing the notion of reflexivity in qualitative research. failed to understand that humans and their activities cm not be separated fiom nature. Now, it seems that society is still wringing its hands over the negative consequences of poor environmental stewardship; it still denies the truth that everyone is responsible. Eco~stemsand species have collapsed or are on the brink of collapse because humans have failed to heed

Hardin's thoughtful advice. Indeed, 1think that the education system itseifhas failed to alert those hture citizens who are sitting in classrooms everywhere about the tragedy of the commons, about the need to give up some personal fieedoms because it is necessary for the survival of ail.

Ultimately, 1 think that the responsibility for raising environmental awareness should not rest solely on the shoulders of biology educators; 1think environmental education should be multidisciplinary. With that statement 1have bared my soul and the reader rnay wonder what evolution has to do with environmental awareness. 1think it rnay have a lot to do with it. This view is supported by Todd (1984, p. 212) who argued that "learning the laws of nature is general education" and "no subject could be more important than evolution as a source of all of the principles that govem the whole science of living things." Evolution provides the historical context for the emergence of life, for the existence of an intricate web of Lfe. The historical context may not be necessary for understanding the essence of life but it seems to possess a great deal of potential for understanding it. 1am really looking for sorne way to impact leamers with the relevancy of understanding nature through the lem of a biological way of knowing - the science of biology. Since my field is biology, I have chosen to examine this issue fiom a biologist's point of view - a view which mut include discussion of cenaal concepts such as evolution, genetics and ecology in order to uphold scientinc credibility and integity. Others, of course, may choose to examine the relevancy of understanding nature by different means. Research Methods

This investigation has attempted to discuss how evolutionq theory may affect midents' success in learning and understanding biology. Some post-secondary Mtutions utilize thematic curricula to teach biology where evolution is employed as a unifying curricdar theme because it makes sense to do so. The underlying assumption is that students will benefit conceptually and academically in their acquisition of biological knowledge. There is Little evidence to support this assumption. therefore, this research was conducted in order to uncover the thoughts and comments about evolutionary theory as it relates to learning biology that both students and instructors have. The remainder of this chapter describes the methods used to gather data regarding the question of the utility of evolution for biological understanding.

For thk research 1used qualitative methods to gather and analyze information.

Qualitative research seemed a better alternative than quantitative methods such as surveys because these are incapable of capturing the ways people make sense of the world (Harnmersley

& Atkinson, 1983). Hammersley and Atkuison (p. 2) dso suggest that "asking questions (rnay) throw light on issues with which (you are) concemed." 1 interviewed participants and then aaempted to analyze their commentaries and stories. The personal inte~ewwas a ris&, sometimes disconcerting activity for me which often uncovered the unexpected. It was very difficult for me to remove my "positivist" perspective on data collection, but the interviewhg process provided a steep leamhg curve for overcoming this shortcoming.

Students and Instmctors

For this study 1 have chosen to omit a detailed description of the participants as 1feel that their confidentiality could be compromised. Instead, in Chapter N 1have included a very brief account of the participants in the context of reporting the results in order to provide the reader with some iofonnation regarding their backgrounds. As 1point out below some of the participants were known $9 me pnor to the beguining of my study, but dl1inte~ewed them, I had no knowledge of their peeonal history.

1 interviewed six students fkom Douglas College, four students fiom Simon Fraser

University, three instructors fiom Douglas College and two instructors from Simon Fraser

University. The students &om Douglas College had completed the introductory survey course,

Biology 110. They were not chosen randornly because 1wanted to interview -dents who 1felt would be cornfortable in an inte~ewsituation with me and they were students who seemed interested in Iearning and had ofien asked me interesthg questions. On the other hand, 1was not acquainted with the students fiom Simon Fraser University who volunteered for this study . Al1 but one had completed Biological Sciences 102, a fkst year introductory course with an evolutionary therne, and were enrolled in Biological Sciences 101 at the the. In order to contact these students 1 asked the 101 professor for permission to "adveaise" my request for interview participants at the end of one of his lectures. 1prepared an overhead (Appendix A) requesting participation and, after two attempts, four students came forward.

In choosing instnictors to interview, my approach was somewhat eclectic. According to

Merriam (1988, p. 123). "qualitative design is emergent: one does not know whom to interview, what to ask, or where to look next . . ." For example, colleagues suggested names of instnictors who were interested in being interviewed and one colleague requested an interview. 1chose two of the Douglas College insû-uctors and interviewed the one who asked. A colleague suggested the two Simon Fraser instructors and they consented to interviews when 1 asked them. When settuig up the inte~ewappointment, 1 explained the general nature of my snidy and that 1was

interested in their experiences while learning fist year Biology (for the students) or teaching fint

year Biology (for the instnictors). It was not possible to control or identify conditions and

variables such as pnor leaming, age or gender of the participants.

Pnor to complethg the interviews, a consent form was signed (Appendur B) indicating

that participation was voluntary, that they could chose to wihdraw at any time, and that they

agreed to complete an audio-taped interview. The fonns indicated that tbeir names would not be

used. I subsequently chose a fictitious name which would idenw each participant and be known

only to myself. The consent form also specified that the audio-tapes, transcripts and cornputer

discs generated by this study wodd be destroyed at its tebation.

The Interviews

Conducting person-to-person interviews is a common practice for coLlecting data in qualitative research. InteMewing provides a medium for eliciting information fiom a person and according to Merriam is used ;'to obtain a special kind of information" (1988, p. 72). As 1 was

Ulterested in participants' own thoughts, experiences and stones pertaining to their education or teaching. the interview seemed to be the best way to obtain this information. I will descnbe the method of data collection and analysis as accurately as possible in the follow-kg passages in order to address the problems of reliability and validity . Although efforts have been made to

&ance the credibility of the hdings, LeCompte and Goetz argue that "attaining absolute validity and reliability is an impossible goal for any research model" (1982, p. 55). The interviews were structured with a set of questions but the questions varied depending on the participant. Students' questions were concemed with pnor learning, curent understanding of evolution, and the possible usefulness of evolution for learning biology. bstnrctor questions dealt with attitudes towards teaching and learning and explaining their reasons for using or not using evolution as a theme. The participants were given a copy of the inte~ewquestions to read before taping commenced. Written, stmctured questions were usefbi for keephg the paaicipants and myself on track because, during the interviews, the participants often had much to Say and sometimes digressed fiom the interview questions. This does not mean that 1discouraged digressions; often. unprompted, reflective comments were extremely informative and added to the emegence of insights which helped me understand the complex nature of how an individual's multiple experiences contribute to his or her distinctive point of view or perspective.

Student and instmctor inte~ewswere taped and were GfS to ninety minutes in duration.

I arranged a place for most of the interviews. At Douglas College most student and insûuctor interviews took place in an office; two interviews took place in a small laboratory room that was kept closed to avoid interruptions. One Douglas College ùistructor was inte~ewedin his own home at his request. At Simon Fraser a colleague provided the use of her ofice for al1 the student interviews. The Simon Fraser instructors were interviewed in their own offices.

Analvsis

After the interviews 1listened to each audio-tape. Al1 but two of the inte~ewswere transcribed by the writer; two were transcribed by a transcriptionist. 1then listened to each audio-tape with its corresponding transcript and corrected errors. 1read each transcript again and highlighted phrases which worded thoughts or ïnsights descriptively or were meaningful, unusual or illurninating. In order to increase intemal vaiidity 1used the strategy of "member checks

(which involves) taking data and interpretations back to the people fkom whom they were derived and asking them if the results are plausible'' as suggested by Memam (1988, p. 169). Each participant received a type-written copy of their transcript. A bnef letter accompanied each

an script ashgthe participants to read it and make any corrections, if necessary, then mail it back to me. Al1 participants were satisfied that the transcripts accuately reflected what was stated during the interviews. Three instructors and one student altered the wording slightiy to correct minor grammatical errors. In the Letter 1also asked for permission to use the highlighted quotations fiom the transcnpts in the text of this thesis without revealing the participant's name.

Al1 the participants agreed to this request.

Analysis of the information began several months later. I reread each transcnpt and tried to categorize phrases and passages according to overall headings and themes. 1 cross-referenced phrases -6th thernes by coding them and listing them on separate sheets of paper- The discussions of evolutionary theory with respect to learning in biology provided some insights into its utiiity in most cases, especially for the students. The students were ofien candid and introspective about their leaming experiences. 1think it was vaiuable to interview students f?om mo different institutions because although their learning environments differed their tbughts about evolution overlapped to some degree. After rereading and si- thsou& the student transcripts 1 identified five themes/main ideas regarding the utifity ancl merit of evolutionary theory. However, themes citing difficuities were noted as weU. The following main ideas which emerged regarding evolutionary theory were discussed by alI the participants: it helps students to understand biology; it provides a fhmework; it ties everything together; it shodd be a mandatory topic; and, an evolutionary theme increases understanding and decreases memorization.

At first, the data fiom the instnictors seemed disparate; each participant seemed to have unique views, opinions and comments. 1reread the transcripts, noting the answers to specific

questions I had asked. With this method 1was able to ascertain the existence of five major

themes or categories which were discussed in each hstructor interview but fomd that the

individual responses themselves were diverse, in some cases. 1had not expected such diversity

of thoughts and opinions both intra- and inter-institutions. 1had assumed that fkst year biology

instructors would have some cornmon ground since the courses are supposed to be tramferable

and since dserent instnictors within institutions teach the same courses to students. Even with the constraints of transferability and team-teaching, autonomy in the classroom most decidedly exists. Themes which emerged fkom the analysis of instructor interviews included: viewpoints on evolution as a theme: how prïor experiences and interests influence current teaching; the content versus concept tradeoE, perceived problems of an evolutionary theme; and, opinions on whether it helps or does not help biological understanding. Each instmctor taked about these issues but their views were diverse.

Catalytic validity

Lather (1986, p. 67) argues that catalytic validity contributes to "data credibility checks" in qualitative research because the participant's involvement in the research may evoke meaning for him or her that is gratieing or illuminating. The contextual significance of shed experiences between researcher and participant becomes transparent in a manner thar is difficult to explain but serves to remove the researcher fiom a position of controI. It was a pleasant surprise to me that most of the students were eager to take part; they commented that it was satisSing for them to kdly speak to someone who was interested in what they had to Say about their educational experiences. One instructor said he did not often get an opportunity to talk about biology and teaching with anyone and that it was enjoyable to do so. Another instmctor thanked me for invithg him to participate; he thought our coiieagues should engage in similar discussions so that we 'Would know where everyone was coming fiom." These unexpected testimonials contributed to the catalytic validity of the hdings by showing that the research process led to self-examination and fiee expression of views for some of the participants.

Reflexivi-

The most difficult aspect of this research had to do with my familiarity with the subject of study. 1 agree with Hammersley and Atkinson (1983, p. 71) who state that "researchers must take care not to become straitjacketed by the beliefs that are typical of the social circles in which they move." It is tme that my preconceptions about evolution are strong. This made it difficult to behave as Schutz's stranger (in Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983) while conducting this research. LeCompte and Goetz (1982, p. 44) report that 'tesearchers attempt to suspend preconceived notions and even existing knowledge" - an ideal worth strivîng for but unredistic for me in this snidy. Instead, 1see the importance of reflexivity as argued by Hammersley and

At!h,nson (1983, p. 15) who state that 'iYe must work with the knowledge we have . . . subjecting it to systematic uiquiry where doubts seem jutiiïed." It has not been possible for me to be entirely objective or neutral. 1 have attempted to hdout if students and instructors find evolutionary theory useful for understanding biology. My role as a fernale biology instructor for several years prevents me fiom cornpletely removing biases and preconceptions. Sowever, someone outside of my role probably would not have atternpted this type of research. My years of teachg and leaming biology have enabled me to interact with numerous students and colleagues and permitted me to question some aspects of teaching this subject. The greatest impact on my thinking that didactic teaching methods were not worbg came fiom the redization that many students do not have a signincant understanding of concepts. They are good at memorization but fail to adequately explain, apply, analyze or synthesize biological knowledge. 1saw this as a senous problem given that 1had biithely assumed shidents would lemabout the relevance of biology dertaking one course. Perhaps some students corne away with this understanding, but many do not. 1 began to think that many students could benefit fkom a more concept-based curriculum utilizing evolutionary theory because it is one of bioiogy's most central and organizing principles. They would truly be given the oppominity to understand bioiogy and its amazing relevance. Without understanding, the relevance may be lost in the dull body of facts that students are forced to mernorize.

'This chapter provided some background about how 1became interested in doing this study. It reviewed the process which was used to obtain information and the method of analysis.

The andysis led to the discovery of themes which will be discussed in the next chapter.

Attempts to address the problems of reliability, validity and reflexivity as they pertain to qualitative research were discussed. CWTERIV

STUDENTS' AND INSTRUCTORS' PERCEPTIONS OF SOME ASPECTS

OF BIOLOGY EDUCATION

Students in biology have important things to Say about how curriculum and teaching

strategies affect their learning. They seem to know what they want to leam, yet are often not

given opportunities to provide input. Biology instructors have multiple views and perspectives

on education which may or may not meet the learning needs of the students. In this chapter 1wiil

present the information obtained fiom inte~ewswith both the students and instnictors along

with my analysis of perceptions on leamhg teaching and evolutionary biology .

Students' Perspectives on Evolution and Leamina in Biology

Analysis of the student interviews revealed some information about students' thoughts on how they lemand the meaningfulness of the learning. During our conversations we talked about evolution as a theme but discussed some general topics such as the nature of science, methods of leaming assessment, prior and/or concurrent experiences, and criticisms of some teaching methodologies. Some statements 1heard from a majority of the participants regarding the utility of evolution as a theme for a biology curriculum included the following five main ideas: evolution heips with understanding biology; evolution provides a fiamework; evolution ties everything together; evolution should be a mandatory tapic; and, using evolution as a theme decreases memorization. For this work, 1have chosen to present evidence proMded by the students' words which allowed me to arrive at identification of the preceding five categories. In some cases 1have added terms in parentheses so that the quotations make sense grmatically but do not alter the overall meanhg or intent of the discourse. 1will then discuss two minor themes which deserve mention in this study - religious opposition to evolution instruction and

increased awareness of the relationship of humans to other species.

The data presented below were obtained fkom students who aitended two diEerent post- secondary institutions. David, Andrea, Crystal and Beth are students fiorn Simon Fraser

University who have completed or were enrolied in Biological Sciences 102. Ethan, Heather,

Farrah IqGai1 and Jennifer have completed Biology 110 and are fiom Douglas College. All of the narnes were chosen by myself and are fictitious.

Understandino Biology

Students generally thought that evolutionary theory was usefid for understanding biology but they ofien qualified their answer. Heather is a mature student who is embarking on a second career. She has always been interested in science but initially chose another employment path for pragmatic reasons. In order for her to sustain interest u1 a subject, she "wants to know what's behind the facts" and wants 40 know more (rather than) just skim the surface." Heather thought that :

(Evolution) helped w ith respect to leamhg the dzyerent phyla. I think it would be quife dflcuZt to dzfferentiate onefrorn the oiher . . . wiîhout afiamework 1 think if'sa good fool in teaching many other topics in biology. As a framework (evolution) is ohy. On its own, it 's rather dry.

The theory helped make sense of the many facts because it provided a sense of orderliness. In

Iearning a subject Heather finds it useful to "lmow something about the process and how different systems interact." She recognizes that different topics in biology such as ecology and genetics fit into an evolutionary framework and that a fiamework helps shidents draw

Ian had attended a different institution for a year but had been unsuccessful. He was undecided about his future plans until rccently but now hopes to pursue a career that involves

some biologicd knowledge. He enjoys leaming how systems work and "has always been

interested in biology in some way" but avoided taking biology courses because there was so

much memorbtion. Ian was very matter of fact in his responses and was able to grasp that

evolution as a concept was irnplicit in the curriculum.

Evolution is obvious, even though it 's not stated. I think the theory of evohtion (ir) irnportanffor understanding. For me. ifl can understand a way things went JFom here ta here ro here, then if makes more sense. So evolution makes sense and I think yoou have ro teach what makes sense and ifyou have proof about things, that 's whut you have to teach.

For Ian, "disbelief' in evolutionary theory is an increddous notion.

I think it would be interesting to have somebody try and teach me a creation theme. I'd like to hem what they have to say, arguments for it, becazrse Ijust can 't imagine any. I can imagine sining there and (thinkin@ well, no, that 's evolution,

Ethan is a self-motivated learner and he enjoys biology although as a high school student he was an underachiever. In Biology 110 evolution was not emphasized but he has pnor knowledge of the concept fiom taking subjects such as geology and geography. He finds evolutionary theory interesting, logical and useful for understanding the concepts.

men evolution is brought into the picture Ifind things a bit more interesting to learn. It 's a broader concept.

As far as theories go, it seems pretty sound Ir seems logrgrcalIIn what science do yoou not accept a theory that has not been disproved? Idon 't think there 's any wqy to avoid a discussion of evolufion and Idon 't see any reason why you should anyhow.

h S that, oh yeah, kind of feeling. It will definitely he@you rernember things beiter.

Farrah studied high school sciences in another province but had not taken biology at a senior level. She is interested in doing Merstudies in neurobiology and psychology but

has enjoyed introductory biology. Farrah thinks that evolutionary theory is a basic concept in

biology that helps her Ieam.

Ir .i realZj useful to teach it because you see how organisms udapred We can see how we arrived 1 think all my biology understanding is based on evolutionary theory. It 's a good theory that explains how organtrms evolve fiom simple to coompZex.

She described the exlition of nervnus systems in terms of organisms evolving adaptations

which provided novel solutions to surviving in different environments.

I had a very engaging conversation with David who seemed to have adopted a worldview

similar to my own. It was interesting that David had a background in the arts but was venturing

into the sciences mainly due to his interest in biology. He found the concept of evolution useful

and meanin30flll.

I think it 's a big mz%i,ing concept rhat you can look at and ir helps you to under- stand why a lot of things are the way that they are and it helps you to understand the concepts, al1 the stuffwe look at in 102, everything. Ithink it gives a lot of insight into how rhings happened. Itjust makes a lot more sense. It pulls it all together.

It helps you learn because it ties everything together; it gives you an understanding that S relevant to life. It gives you an idea of what 3 going on in the world around you as far as the natdprocesses are concerned.

David appreciates how conceptual understanding facilitates leaming because if things make sense then intemalization of ieaming can dso occur. During our discussion it became clear to me that David understood what the rneaning of scientific theory entailed. He talked about how evolutionary theory is accepted in scientific circles as "a reasonable explanation" for explaining change through time and that it could be used in research because scientists cmtest predictions based on the theory. He appreciated a thematic scientific curriculum because he felt there were more opportunities to ask questions and that-information was presented less dogmaticdy.

Skepticism is the on& way to develop a deeper zrnderstanding, asking questions and not believing things until you 're totali'y convinced or not believing things untilyoufind the inth thar you believe, is one of the most important things in l$2.

Research investigating the use of constructivist teaching practices to enhance leaming in science

illustrates that effective learning often depends on providing students with opportunities which

question their beliefs or pior ideas (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). If a particular scientific

explanation displaces prior beliefs, the student is more likely to accept it. Like David, he or she

has to be convinced that the alternative explanation is bettrr and makes more sense than prior

beliefs.

Crystd, a student who originally preferred engineering, enjoyed the thematic approach to

les-g biology and is 'tery interested in how the world works, holisticaily." In general she

finds an evolutionary theme beneficial and stimulating.

I think it tatally helps you understand biology. I can 'tput my finger on why it exact& does; I think it gives a fi-amework Before. 1 thought biology was kind of boring. But I ihink it S realb interesting to hear how it all came about and how it got to rhat levez. It definitely changed my idea about biology and it defnitely made me start &O tvant to take more courses in biology.

Beth enjoys biology but dislikes mernorization. She found that a thematic method of learning contrïbuted to better attainment of concepts because it helped her "see a whole picture."

Beth also thinks that evolution helps her understand other concepts in biology.

It gives me sornething to follow and then you can piece pieces together, like in a puzzle. It 's easier zyyou have a general background picture to put pieces on [O the puzzle. I found that having .a connecting theme through the whole thing helped.

Andrea Iikes biology but is very undecided about her fûture. She has considered teaching but is open to other alternatives. Andrea concurred that evolution is useful for understanding

54 mainly because it helped explain relationships between organisms and the mechanism which resdted in adaptations. She tends to ask %hy7' questions and evolutionary explanations best answered them for her.

It (evolution) gives you a better understanding of what 's going on It really gives you the "why ", why things are like they are. It shows why things happen and why it S Zike this and flot like something else. lalways want to know why. You need to know the background.

Jennifer thought that an evolutionary theme made sense because "it's the basis of biology" and it provided a "framework that summed al1 (the concepts) together." However, she felt that leaming had to corne fiom within and thal it depended on a personysattitude. She had disliked biology in hi& school because the subject was not grounded in anything she perceived as important. Her attitude changed when she "found something that (she) was interested in" - a career (physiotherapy) that required some biologieal knowledge.

Most of the students seemed to value a theme or uniQing idea to facilitate learning and understanding in an introductory biology course. They mentioned how evolutionary theory helped them form connections and explanations. Students often commented that "evolution ties everythhg together" and "evolution provides a fimnework." They seemed confident that the theme of evolution would help them remember what they had learned.

The Memorization Problem

The reason students clairned to have an increased ability to retain knowledge came fiom the students' perceptions that an evolutionary theme helped them to increase understanding and decrease rote memorization. For example, Beth does not equate memorization with "knowing":

I'm not reaZZy that great at rnemorizing things so ifIfincl something that 1can gei my hands onto. then that helps me figure it out. Just being able tu ZogrgrcnZly think my way throzrgh it really helps a loi, but memorizing is not one of my strongpoints. I found rhat having a connecting theme through the whole thing helped me tu understand

I don 't think that memorizing is a good way to Zearn because 1 can mernorize some things and then write the test the next dqand then the next day it 's gone because I don 'r need it anymore. Ifyou really want to learn you have to under- stand and comprehend.

In 102 there was more thinking instead of mernorization. You could think your way through a problem.

Heather had some interesting things to Say about survey courses and the amount of content therein.

Ifind that $1'~given a whole series of fucts to mernorize, I Zose inleresr quickly. I want to corne out with a greater understanding of what it is I'm trying to learn. Ifyou understand what's behind the fucts, it 's easier, it S not a matter of mem- oriring and it becomes something that you know. With mernorization you don 't learn anything; you learn a bunch oftrivia.

Gail wants to become a dental hygienist She seems to enjoy biology but is dissatisfied w-ith some aspects of the Bioiogy 110 curriculum. I asked Gai1 whether Biology 110 improved her biological literacy. She was not very impressed with the emphasis on content and memorization.

Doreen: Did you feel that it improved your biological literacy?

Gail: I don 't think it improved my biological Ziteracy at al2 (except that) I learned a lot about plants. Just the way (the course) was set up, I couldn 't really get into it. IfeZt it was a Zor of work and a lot of straight memorizing.

Doreen: It didn 't improve your Zi feracy.

Gd:No, it was a lot of information rrndyou weren 't too sure about what was important or about what we were supposed tu learn. wewere expected to) memorize it for the test but 1 wanted to know why. 1 Zike ro think I'm Zearning sornefhing because 1 want to Zearn it and understand it, not just because a test is corning up. Gai1 found that too many discomected facts prevented her f?om understanding concepts.

If fhey had a theme like Darwin 's evolutionq theory, then Biology 110 would be more understandable. It seems that ail the facts are scattered uround and you learn things ench week but it doesn 't really corne together at all. If seems like you 5;e memorizing a whole bunch of stufl and that 's pretty much it. There S not really a basic structure ro ir. There was much stufbut you can 't really organire the information and understand it.

Ethan claims that he has a good memory and thinks that is why Biology 1 10 was easy for him because %the's a lot of memorization.'' However, he admits that "if you ask me sornething the next day after taking a quiz, it's far gone. It's in my short-term memory and out again." On the other hand, he is willing to make an effort to spend extra time outside of class to make the leaming more meaninggful by observing nature on his own or reviewiag material with classrnates.

Ethan is a student who is taking responsibility for his own learning, which is very commendable, but he is only one snident. Unfortunately, if there is no assessrnent of this leaming, except by an objective quiz, the instnictor falsely assumes that mernorization of objectives constitutes learning, whereas the information from some of the participants of this study clearly shows that it does not. The students themselves know that memorization is regurgitation! 1am at a loss to comment Meron this issue because 1am sure some instructors are aware of this pro blem but they either do not think there is anything that cmbe done about it or do not think that anything is amis

Instead, I will again retum to the inte~ewidormation to articulate the dissatisfaction some students attribute to mernorization. Ian is aware that biology may be ditncult to under- stand and discusses this aspect of biology education from a student's perspective.

A lot of biology seems to be just straight memorization It 's hard to remember it because you 'rejust Qing to remember it. you don 't really know it. Ifyou could start tu understand it, ifrhere was a better way to make people under- stand it, then it would work a lot better for rernernbering and knowing it.

Ian's words go slraïght to the heart of the matter in regards to problems with understanding.

Adult leamers like Ian understand the flaws inherent in îrying to lemby memorization.

Sirnilarly, constructivist theory recognizes how mimetic instruction is flawed because students simply commit new information to short-tenu memory then repeat it on a multiple-choice test

(Brooks & Brooks, 1993). They have not acquired a deep understanding.

~n

Most students were very aware of the dilemma faced by biology teachers who include evolution in the curriculum. The evolutiodreligion conflict which sornetimes arises in biology classrooms rernains prevalent today almost one hundred and forty years after Darwin published

The Origin. The students who 1 interviewed did not adhere to any religious beliefs and 1 realize that diis bias may distort the data. However, when discussing the disadvantages of an evolutionary theme, students most often commented on religious opposition to evolutionary theory.

Andrea commented that she thinks that some people do not lke science "because of the theory of evolution. Lots of religious people just don't want to believe it at dl." She hds scientific explanations for evolution and the origin of lXe (in particular) "comforting" because they ofZered plausible explanations rather than the magical "boom" of creation (something arising fkom nothmg). Andrea deems the rnythical creation story to be very unconvincing because nothkg sirnilar to it happens today. For Andrea, the scientific mode of knowing seems to have become entrenched in her thinking as the primary explanatory mechanism for describing the events and processes of some natural phenornena. This seems to be an example of how leaming about evolutionary theory led to conceptual change ui diis individual.

David pondered about the controversy between evolutionary theory and religion and was

aware that '-religion complicates things a lot." However, he asserted that a person's views on

evolution came down to beliefs. Some people believe that there is a creator while David believes

'~atevolution is the way things happened because it just makes a lot more sense to me." He

finds fault with the attitude of some religious people who place humans above everything else.

They refuse to believe the theory of evolution because they perceive that humans are god-like and

"coddn't possibly have simply evolved from other animais."

Gail thought that trying to bring religion into science education was "not right at all." In

fact she is upset that creationists try to undemine evolutionary theory. "(They) don? have any

proof for creationisrn!" Gail has leamed that there are "many facts that show natural processes

are involved" in the evoiution of living things.

Ali of the students interviewed dismissed religious opposition to evolution as an excuse

to omit it fiom the curriculum. Of course, the opinions of students with strong religious beliefs

may have differed.

The Relationship of Humans to Other Species

I will be honest and admit that 1was disappointed with the data concerning this topic

since evidence ro correlate species' intemelatedness with knowledge of evolutionary theory was

weak. 1 personally thuik this topic is the most important reason to teach evolutionary theory but some of the inte~ewparticipants had acquired this understanding fkom prior experiences. Four students thought that an understanding of evolution helped them understand the close relation- ship of humans to other species. David has acquired an environmental ethic fiom his own interest in the outdoors and volunteering for some environmental groups. He was aware that there are interrelationships between humans and other organisms but that Biology 102's evoiutionary theme "clarified it a bit."

I've alwqys thought that humans were too big on thernselves. But we need rhe things that the environment provides. Humans like to think of themselves as sophisticared but all we did was make things more complicated and that 's what 3 wrecking the environment. We Ive become too dependent on material rhings.

David is very concemed about how greed and apathy in our society are detrimental to the environment but is at a loss to know what to do. He just hopes to continue doing his part by

"acting locally" and perhaps pursue a career that involves conservation.

Farrah cares about other species and it bothers her that humans tend to dominate them.

She ùiùiks that people "haven't been taught that we're related to them; they see them as inferior to us." She thlliks that some biology education which included evolutionary theory would help people see species interrelationships.

1 think rhat we should teach them evolutionary theory. It would help to see ozirselves more wirhin our environment instead of controlling it. We need to recognize that we 're part of it. We Ze not the creator of the environment; the environment is our creator.

For a long tirne people thought thut they were the best, that there was us and them, but now because of evolutionary tlzeory, we see it S not like that. We me more relared than we thoughr we were.

For Crystai, the evolutionary theme of 102 taught her that "humans were kind of unnatural, the exception, because we're changing our environment all the time." She came to the conclusion that "humans don't really fit because of what we've done." However, she understands that "evelything we do has a great effect on the whole earth because of our large

60 population" and that other living things desenre respect.

Andrea thinks that evolution teaches us a few things about the place of humans in the environment. She used to believe that "humans were the best and that they dedthe earth" but she has been humbled somewhat due to an understanding of evolution. ''My big ego was shot down and 1was put in my place." She is concerned that humans are detrimentally changing the environment and womes that other species may not adapt to it. She opines that humans have evolved a large brain through the directiodess process of evolution but are taking this gift of nature for granted. "We have a highly convoluted cerebrd cortex which rnakes us really smart and it evolved by accident. We're so lucky to have this big bnin but now we7reabushg the environment and that's not our purpose."

The data does not strongly support the hypothesis that an appreciation of hurnadother species interconnectedness is increased by & understanding of evolutionary theory. Some of the students were individuals who had prior knowledge of environmental issues; they did not require a bioIogical ar-ment based on evolution to convince them that protection and conservation of ecosystems \vas important to the survival of dl species. However, the student cornments above suggest that a conceptual framework of evolution rnay add to their understanding of interrelationships and provide a sound theoretical basis to help expand their thinking on this topic.

AIternative Views

Although students agreed that evolution helped to provide a theoretical fiamework for understanding, some did not thuik that the biology curriculum should necessady incorporate an evolutionary theme as the principal idea. Doreen: Do you think it would be a good idea for Douglas to incorporate the evolutiona~ytheme into the curriculum?

lun: I don 't how ifit has to be brought up more. Ithink that what I've been leurning pretty much tells me.

Doreen: So you 're aware thui the underi'ying theme for explaining biology is evolution even though ifs not expZicit.

lan: 1 don 't know ifexplicitly saying it is necessarily that important as long as the czirriczdum impliciti) includes evolution. It 's obvious to me thar (evolution) is being taught even though it S not stated

Later in our conversation Ian changed his mind a bit. He thought that perhaps "evolution should

be taught directly" in order to organize the content better.

Jennifer thinks that it is good to include evolution in the curriculum because it is the

"basis of bioiogy" however, she does not think that you need it. For example, she has arrived at an appreciation of other organisms through field trips and learning about natural history.

I'm not interested spec~jicallyin evolution. I'm interested in a wide variety of things. Vthe course wns completely on evoZution and 1 thought ir was really diy, it would iurn me right OR

There 's nothing like going on a field trip; it 's great. Learning about organisms and actzrally seeing them NI their environment really helps me uppreciate thern.

Jennifer's interest and enjoyment of biology provide the motivation she needs to learn it.

Although there is a lot of memorization, she could haudle the content. "1 fïnd biology interesting so 1can absorb it a Little better." Not al1 students have Jennifer's advantage of intrinsic enthusiasm for the subject. Although 1respect her views on biology education and need to take them into consideration, 1am not convinced that the Biology 110 c~cuiumis satisfactory the way it is.

1 have attempted to present an unbiased, accurate analysis of the data from the student interviews. As the reader can appreciate, 1read and tried to make sense of many pages of

tramcribed materid. It was not possible to incorporate ail the words of ail the -dents, but 1

have nied to present the data as a shared experience between myself and the participant. 1

believe that the snidents responded opedy and honestly; they were not obligated to take part in

this study and 1am gratehl that they toolc tirne to have interesthg conversations with me. I am

responsible for conveying the inte~ewmoments to others and hope that some of the candor,

expressi~eness~and wondemil originality of the students was conveyed. The interpretations of

the data are mine alone and 1have tried to avoid over-analysis.

The data fiom the student interviews suggests that the concept of evolution has merit for understanding concepts in biology, decreasing memorization and, to a lesser extent, improving understanding of the rdationship of humans to other species. The religisn/evolution controversy was bnefly discussed by some students but was not problematic fur them. These conclusions are tentative and should not be construed as representing essentialism or positivism. For example, 1 did not direcdy ask a student if a theme of evolution helped to decrease memorization. Their comments simply emerged unexpectedly.

Instructors' Perspectives on Evolution and Teaching BioIow

The interviews with the instnictors tended to be quite lengthy (up to ninety minutes). Al1 the instructors were male and had extensive experience with biology education at the post- secondary level. Four instructors had achieved a Ph.D. in Biology and one had a M.Sc. Only one of the instnictors had formal training in education. In identifjhg the participants for the pqose of this study, I chose fictitious names for the instmctor participants. Owen and Tom are instnictors fiom Simon Fraser University while Martin, Dimitci and Paul are fiom Douglas College. 1 interviewed the instructoe in order to obtain some sense of their attitudes toward

teaching and their thoughts on thematic curricda, evolution as a theme and how to help students

lem.

There were distinct contrasts for me, the researcher, between the interviews wi~

instructors and students. During the -dent inte~ews,the atmosphere was very conversational

and seemed more like a sharing of information and experiences. As stated previously, 1 was not

in a position of control at all, nor were the students. While inte~ewingthe instnictors there was

a different tone with three of them. There were times when 1 felt a little uncornfortable and

thought that the participant was controlling the interview. This rnay or may not be a problern, but

in some cases the comments seemed to suggest that my training in education was not vaiued and

that arguments from science educators had no bearing on how science should be taught at the

post-secondary level. 1will provide one exampie fiom the data which provides evidence for my

interpretation. Although al1 the participants gave permission to have their statements published, 1

have chosen to omit the source of the following quote: "There are a lot of educational fads going

on. I think that science curriculum should be decided by the scienàncally trained." With the o&er two instnictors, the interviews were more relaxed and involved a mutual sharing of ideas.

After several attempts at trying to organize the large volume of interview data into categories, 1was able to establish that there were five main themes pertinent to education that were revealed by the inte~ews.These five main ideas included: the ment of using or not using evolution as a unimg theme in inûoductory biology courses; the content versus concept trade- off;problems with the evolutionary theme; views on whether evdutionary theory helps or does not help students understand biology; and, how pnor experiences and interests influence current teaching. I will attempt to present data fiom the interviews which exhibit these categones.

Evolution as a Theme in Biolom

Four of the five instmctors thought that evolution is an important theme in biology,

however only two presently use it in teachhg the curriculum. Owen believes that "evolution is

defitely one of the primary unifjk~gthemes in biology."

Most of the tirne, having a theme helps the student fit details into a wider picture. A lot offrst year biology students can 't see the forest for ~hetrees. They Ire so immersed N? rhe detuils that they don 't see where the derails actzralZyfir.

He added that there are "other uniQing themes such as the Central Dogma" but "in 102 almost eveqthing falls back on evolutionary theory."

Tom is quite passionate about the importance of evolutionary theory to biology: 'Tt

(evolution) just is." He articulated how evolution serves as a mingtheme in the following way :

The on& central, organi?ing>ameivork that biology really has, thar '.Y a good one, is evolution. Idon 't think you can do modern biology without it.

The thing about biology is that everything is connected; there 's alwuys a pathway back to the central theme. All biologicalphenomena are, by their vev nature, intimateZy connected with evolution. 1want to give (students) a fiamework that will be &fiarnework.

As 1 was acquainted with Dimitri pnor to interviewhg him, 1bew that he had strong views on the importance of evolution. During the interview I leamed that he would only suppoa the teaching of evolution if there were assurances that only "qualified" science teachers taught it.

Dimitri insisted that he was one of the "converted" as he wholeheartedly acknowledges that evolution is a central concept in biology: ccEvolutionis one of the big, abstract concepts in science." He advocated using evolution as an underlying theme because it is so obviously "one

65 of the big concepts over the last couple of centuries" and that any thoughtfd person wouid see its relevance to our world.

It 'sph ilosophically interesting, it 'spolitically inter esting, it 's scientifcdy interesting, it helps e~lainthe mentstae of the world - what has happened. what Jsgoing to happen, in a sense. It 's shaped everything. Ifpeople are interested in exploring ire und having un academic interest in some subject area, ifyou can 't be stimulated by one of the thoughrs that have shaped our world, there 's not much hope for you.

He thinks that "evolution should be explained to people very early and used." However, he is concerned that teachers who are not trained in biology are unable to teach evolution properly.

Ifevolution is presented as a concept to improve people 's understanding of what 's in the biological world, I'm all for it. But (no0 zyit 's jusr lip service ro the idea that evolution occurs.

Let '.Ysay there is G grade 12 biology course where evohtion is the theme and suddenly Ive have a social studies teacher or a P.E. teacher teaching it. There 's going to be a lot of hand waving. There '.Y no interest in the subject- Ifyou have biologsts teaching evolurion as we understand it, lin all for it.

Dunitri is cntical of the school system because he thinks that "students spend 12 years of being conditioned to go through the motions and pay lip seMce in order to get through." He claims that students in his classes are "not capable of doing critical thinking, they are not capable of making decisions and they are not capable of motivating themseives." He thinks that part of the problem (especially in science education) is due to teachers who are scientifically illiterate.

This view is supported by some publications which advocate science education refom. In

Rutherford and Ahlgren (1 989), the problem of insufficient science training for elementary and, in some cases, secondary teachers, is cited as one of the reasons for scientific illiteracy in the general population.

Other instructors were not very enthusiastic about using evolution as a theme in teaching the cumcdum. Paul does not use evolutionary rheory to expiain biological phenornena because he feels that students are "not interested in the history" and he thinks that 'The historical approach does not provide a hook to capture interest." He thinks that students hd4kelevan~y important'' so he focuses on the "imrnediacy of the organisrn." In the Biology 110 course, he supposes that

%e theme is there but 1don? ident* it as an evolutionary theme. The evolution is always there in rny curriculum but it's not overt."

In rny reaching 1 don 't stress evolution as a subject in and of itseK but certainl'y the concepts are there. I try tu show irendr and 1 think the studenis are picking up the idea of evolution.

He reflected on what he perceived students needed in a fïrst year biology course, then added an interesting comment about ho w evolution does have utility :

So, what 1 think we need to do is some of everything. We need to do some vocabulary, some homeostasis, some adaptation but, in order for the thing not to become a cumbersome megalith, sornewhere in there has got to be evolzition as the backbone. So that when everything stcrts to ger a litde floppy, you can aalways get support in the backbone.

Paul agreed that an evolutionary theme has ments but in his case "the wonderment of nature is more impoam to me than evolution."

Martin admitted that he is "not wefl read in evolution" and feels that he "doesn't know enough." He does not like to put constraints on people's thinking and prefers '20 see people developing their own fiamework or their own context."

1 think that the problern with having a unzSE,ing theory imposed on people is rhnt everyone then becomes part of the establishment thinking and it 's harder to have breakîhrough ideas ifpeople aren 't thinkingfiom dz#ierentpoints of view.

At one point during the inte~ew,Martin seemed to become agitated because his desire for an ideal educationd environment conflicted with the reality of the classroom. This is a real haïr ripper for me. 1feel that students should be in a position to select and consrrucf and come up with their own fiamework There S a however, and that is a lot of ihem won 't do it. Most sttrdents me not thoughtful people who are doing a lot of reading and hying to coonsrruct a world or a mind of their own. Iguess it T a matter of Zesser of evik, 1don 't know. In an ideal world everyone would be creative and thoughtfu. But we don't [Ne in thar world and how to come up with a real approach is a very dzgerent question than my ideal responses to yours.

Mmin conceded that students may need direction to promote leaming but he would not use the theme of evolution. He maintains that '-there are various aspects to biology which evolution doesn't lend itself well,"

Concepts versus Content Trade-off

Generally, if there is an emphasis on concepts instead of content, it is reflected in the curriculum as less coverage of content. Instnictors recognize this situation and have different opinions as to whether there are costs or benefits. Three of the instnictors advocated teaching concepts and two of the instnictors advocated teaching content.

Owen thinkç that "concepts are very important-" He suggests that "concepts should be ingrained in the student" and that %ere are a certain number of basic concepts the student should have.??

Tom is unhappy about emphasizing too much information: "The Somation is unimportant; it gets in the way and is messy."

In a sense. an understanding ofevolutionary theory annihilates the fucts and understanding the fiarnework fs the important thing. Many people believe that you just give (the students) information and you test them to see how well they remember all of it and to me, that 's reprehensible. It 's a waste of mind

He thinks that 'youoveforgone the opportunity to leam the subject by focushg on facts." Martin agrees that memorization interferes with leaming. Students "need to have their

beliefs challenged; discovery and knowledge of topics are more important than memorization."

There are various ways that you can learn andyou don 't have to focus on the fartual side of things. In fact, you can focus on an approach to Zearning biology (that ernphasizes relevancy) and the facts wtll corne.

In recognizing the importance of substance over details, Owen, Tom and Martin may help

their students achieve scientific literacy. Lutz (1996) argues that scientinc Literacy cannot be

defined simply by what we know, but by acquiring a repertoire of the practices and processes of

science. According to Lutz (p. 235 ), "knowledge and skiils that are Ieamed in context and

applied to real-life situations are likely to be understood and remembered. This implies that we

need to teach science that has personal relevance to the students."

Dimini is not prepared to sacrifice content in order to emphasize concepts.

Dimitri: (BioZogy) is one of the most diverse and content heayv subjects I've ever seen and I think that 's one of the uppealsfor sorne folk You t?yand sort out this nzass of information Other people are overwheZmed by it; they don 't like a lot of information. I thinkpeople hme to be mentallyjlexible. A lot ofpeople are not mentallyflexible, so biology isn 'tfor everyone. So what do Ive do? Do we change bioZom to (accommodate) the Zcnvest common denorninator or do we make it more elitist? I'dprefer the elitisl approach. mose that can do the mental bymnastics for it, stay in it.

Doreen: 1think elitist is too strong a term.

Dimitri: Mvbe the term hm some connotations. What I'M suying by elitist is that the people with an interest in bioZogy take biology.

Hargreaves (1994, p. 99) has raised this issue of Merences in teaching traditions. He notes that there is a tradition that "is deeply rooted in an eh,male-dominated tradition devoted to the compuisory education of able pupils for university entrance, business and the professions."

Dimini's views contrast sharply with mine. I am interested in trying to help more learners acquire bioliteracy, regardless of their fume plans, and have elaborated on my reasons elsewvhere

in this document. Other researchers have commented that too much content is detrimental to

leaming. For example, Lutz (p. 224) as&: "mat is the use of teaching (students) great

checklists of facts, concepts, laws, and so forth, when most students have forgotten their meaning

within a few days and have forgotten they ever heard of them by the time they start their adult

lives?? 1I that Dimitri may not appreciate that the majority of students in introductory

biology at a college do not intend to major in the subject. The college provides university

transfer courses but after leaving many students pursue other programs not related to biology that

are provided by universities or other post-secondary institutions. 1also do not agree that

reducing content irnplies that the curriculum is addressing %e lowest common denominator."

Exploring context-driven and issue-oriented topics can be very challenging, engaging and

rneaningfbl for both the leamers and the teacher.

Paul is not sure that content should be de-emphasized and suggests that teaching evolution would result in omitting other topics fiom the curriculum.

These cozirses are alreadyfull. Ifyou put more emphasis on the theory of evolution, rhen you 're de-emphasizing some fhing else which LF more important.

He thinks that "biology is too complicated to remove al1 content" adthat "at some point the students have to have some help in getting the content." He maintains that it is the instructor's role to give students information. He commented on the issue of control and how direct teaching permits him to be in a position of contml.

In the class, you con~ol.It 3 a real comfortable position to be in. Yozr control whar 's going to happen in there and the students basically have goi to do whar you tell [hem to do or iî Li their tough luck Ifs a very comfortable position. It S total control. Hargreaves (1994, p. 175) reports that %ere are elements of the control impulse that attract

many teachers to that setting."

Problems with the Evolution Therne

Tom hdsthat the evolution theme is a very big problem for one group of students.

"(Evolution is) a stumbling block for those with religious beiiefs. Theyyreso poorly trained

about this . . . so, 1 ttiink it is an obstacle for many of them." However, he does not think that

teachuig evolution should be de-emphasized because of religious opposition.

Owen uses the theme of evolution, but not too much. "You need to guard against pushing

evolution and trying to fit it into everything. Ifsjust adding more information that they have to

know. We have to be careful that we don? overemphasize the theme."

Martin does not agree with giving prominence to a singular idea.

Having a theme irnposed on students implies that everyone becomes pmt of the establishment thinking. There 's un inherenrflmv in setting up the cult of the expert; evolzrtion doesn 't have n corner on thinking. You 're limiting what biology is with evolzrrion as an underlying theme.

He thinks that it is "important to put things in context and that you need some sort of fiarnework

on which to hang things," but does not think that "evolution is the only conceivable fiamework."

Dimitri likes evolutionary biology and thinks it is very important but he is not certain that

students are up to the challenge of learning about it.

They have a lot of information, they have been exposed to a lot of topics but they don 't really have an undersfanding of what biology is other than mem- oriring lists and rnaybe memor izhg 2fe cycles. Students are so biologically illiterate thit is too dzflculf to teach evolution or use evolution to help them understand

1thought that this was a paradoxical comment given that some of the literature argues that if students leam the major ideas or concepts, they may acquire biological literacy (BSCS, 1993). Paul is more interested in ecology and natural history and has no personal interest in

evolution. He argues that "evolution is a historicd context and 1can't see how it's relevant to the

student." He is concemed that evolutionary theory may not stand the test of the.

Science could be wrong about evolution. I don 't want to push it on people as being the tiltimafe realizarion they have tu accept. I don 't challenge their beliefs.

Paul's comments above are puzzling to me because they seem to downplay the notion of

a scientifk theory. Evolution by natural selection is a parsimonious explanation for biological

change over the; that's dl. There is some debate and controversy regardhg the rnechanism of

natural selectionper se but 1do not think that implizs evolution is 'krong..' Chernists teach the

atomic theory without worrying that it could be wrong and likewise, physicists teach Newton's

Iaws. It seems to me that religious opposition to evolutionary theory has become so entrenched

in North American society that biology educators are afkaid to support the theory which has been

instrumental in broadening the knowledge in their field.

Hel~inoUnderstanding

Four of the five instructors comrnented on this issue and were equally divided on whether

evolutionary theory helps or does not help students understand biology .

Owen advocates the use of a thematic approach in teaching. He suggests that "most of the tirne, having a theme helps students fit details into a wider picture."

Tom enthusiastically supports the idea of evolutionary knowledge to acqiiire under- standing.

An understanding of evolution is esseniid tu understand basically anything about biology. Whenyou understand the theoretical backbone of the subject, then you .how the subject.

However, he thinks that it is dficdt to measure whether students have a better understanding and he does not have any direct evidence which illustrates it. Of the five instnictors, Tom is the most enthusiastic and supportive of incorporating evolutionary theory into a biology curriculum.

He also argues that it provides a theoretical basis for understanding humans and how they- affect the environment,

To understand anyrhing about rhe human condition and the currenr problerns the globe faces, an understanding of evolution is essential- They are not going to be able to make any kind of contribution to undersranding any of these things without nfirm understanding of what evolution is and how it 3 occurred

Tom hopes that even students who are not majoring in biology will be able to understand the world better if they understand the relevance of biology.

Not all of these students are going io become professional biologists, but they 're dlgoing fo become citizens and they alZ should understand some of these things in order to be able to appreciate everyday things thar they hear abour.

On the other hand, Paul and Martin did not agree that an evolutionary theme enhanced learning and understanding. Paul "prefers the systems approach and natural history'? but revealed that he thinks evolution is apparent in the curriculum without him actually teaching it.

"But evolution has to be there as a covert theme because thatts how organisms make sense."

Paul does not think that evolution needs to be emphasized in the biology courses he teaches.

i like other people to be aware of (evolution) and to explore ït as a theory but I (do not) rhink they 're missing out on samething by not understanding ir.

Martin is the most skeptical of an evolutionary theme and thinks %ere are aspects of biology that evolution doesn't cover particularly well" and that "other themes may be more appropriate." However, after thinking it over, he remembers that he has used evolution to explain some topics.

W7en discussing ber metobolism, we tell the students rhar the liver detoxzjîes. Up to this point in time the liver has been good ar detoxifcation, but in todq '.Y new environment with so many new toxins, the Ziver hm mt evolved rnechanisrns to adequately detoxz3 those new toxins.

Aithough Paul and Martin are reluctant to incorporate evolution into their teaching, they are able to think of situations where evolution helps with understanding.

The Influence of Pnor Experiences and Interests on Teaching

The questions 1 prepared did not specincdly address the issue of prior expenences or influences on present teaching philosophy but the topic came up during four of the interviews. I think that this data has some relevance for my study.

Although Tom has achieved success as a university researcher and teacher of biology, he maintains that he does not owe it to encouragement nor inspiration f?om his years as an undergraduate. His interest in biology stems fkom "'his own interest in natural history and ecology" which began dunng his childhood.

1 can still remem ber the event ver y clearly. 1was in third grade and got one of those little books for collecting pictures of birh that were being Offered in, I thin% Blue Ribbon coffee and Red Rose tea. Istill have those albums. That 3 tvhat started me 08

I had a lof of exposzrre as a kid w ith camping trips with my family and 1spent a lot of time doing all dlfferent kindî of outdoor activities. I suppose a big disappointment in undergraduate education for me was no real opportunity to realize that. And biology as practiced in the universiiy was a very dzrerent thing than your own sort of passionate interestjbr it that you had as a kid. It seemed to evaporate once you got inside the walls here.

Tom acknowledged that university biology was mostiy dissatisfying for him.

The thing ihat struck me was how the academic subject here did not retain any of the excitement that I felt for it in my own experiences as a boy and as a teenager.

Consequently, he almost leaped at the chance to develop a first year bio!ogy course because "he didn' t want his students to repeat the disappointing experiences he had as an undergraduate in biology." He has tried to develop a fist year biology course ivhich is releva builds problern-

solving and critical thinking skills, and provides a conceptual hework grounded in

evolutionary theory which may help the student retain biological literacy Iater in life.

Paul seems to have developed a keen interest in biology whiie a teenager. In his case his

peer group was very influentid, not his teacher.

I can 't say my high school teacher turned me on (to biology). It was mainly rny fiendi, my peer group. There was a core offour fi-iends and three of us were realZy into biology and it was the three of us thut stirnulated each other. We 1earnedfi.om each other.

His interest in biology started with nanual history.

I jus[ liked e-xploring the woods and ponds uround where 1 lived and 1just became fascinated with the organisms and wanted to learn more about them. Most of ivhat I see in biology is adzptaiion not necessmily evolution. I didn 't read the "Origin of Species" until I was a pdstudent. .. but it S kind of dull. you know. So, I was never really interested in evolution as a subject. It wm just a ivay of better undersfanding the organisms that I like to obseme.

In Paul's case, bis own experiences affect how he teaches.

It S a matter of familiarity, it S what makes the most sense tu me. I didn 't get info (biology) because of evolution. I got into it becazrse of natural histov. I just see a wonderment of nature and that 's what i try to bring about in my classes is this wonderment, rather than a principle.

The comments from Tom and Paul shedmernories of my own childhood. Like Paul 1 used to play with my sisters in a forested area not far fiom where my family lived in a small

Ontario town. And, like Tom, 1collected bird stamps and became quite knowledgeable about bird identification and naturd history when 1was sain elementary school. One of rny most treasured possessions was one of the Golden Guide series about birds. Natural history was my earliest influence but I believe 1have become a better biologist through my readings and understanding of evolutionary theory. Dimitri found that his undergraduate courses influenced him. He took several courses

which included evolution, such as biogeography, comparative zoology and geology . As a

graduate shident he was involved in blocking the legai challenge of creationists trying to

introduce their views to the Ministry of Education in the early 1970's.

A group of grad students al UBC, myself included, thoughf that the creation scientists were pushing religious indochination, rat& than teaching science, so ive organized a group that challenged the @roposed) legislation and had some success in blocking it. So, in order to curry forward that political action effective&, 1 had to be really up on my understanding of evolution I considered it pari of my responsibility as a scientist to stand up for science when it was being assaulted and misrepresented.

Martin was never interested in biology as an academic subject until he attended college.

He started as an English major but switched to biology after taking one course that he liked.

"English was too easy and there were too many opinions." He thought that biology \vas "more

challenging and more black and white." Because he had read a lot of philosophy he was

interested in "howing what the truth was." Later, he realized that was a naive notion but felt

there was still "something inherently fascinating about biology." He focused on molecular

biology, genetics and physiology because he was interested in how these subjects applied to

The instructors' stories about their past show that sometimes people have very early

experiences that affect them profoundly while others have their views shaped by events that

occur in very early adulthood. In either case, pnor beliefs tend to be entrenched and defended when challenged.

The views from the instructors seemed to be so disparate that 1 could not make kn conclusions about educational implications except to Say that those who want to implement change need to bear in mind that there will be resisance in such a heterogenous group as educators. The instnictors al1 have very deep-rooted, individuaiistic views about teaching and evolutionary theory. Some adhere to the %aditional"or modem school of a curriculum based on aven knowledge and incontrovertible fact (Hargreaves, 1994). Others are more open to the postmodern world where processes of hqujr, analysis, information gatherïng and aspects of learning-how-to-learn have become more important goals for teachers. It seems that the latter educational principles benefit students more.

In comparing and contrasting the student and instructor interviews, 1think there is a paradox. Al1 of the students clearly approve of studying relevant issues and concepts which help understanding and enhance leaming. Yet, some of the instructors do not seem to be in tune with the needs expressed by these most important stakehoiders. The paradox which unfolds is that in some cases the students know what their leaming needs are but the instructors do not.

Paul, Dunitri and Martin teach a swey course packed with content. They understand that evolution is a major idea in biology but are not enthusiastic about including it in the curriciilum and do nor thhk it has much value as a pedagogical tool. Their midents (Gad! Ian,

Farrah, Ethan: Heather and Jennifer) like biology but some of them expressed hstration because there was too much emphasis on memorization which they feel should not be the primary goal of education. They would like some changes in the method of instructional delivery and in the curriculum, including more emphasis on comecting themes such as evolution.

The Simon Fraser students (David, Beth, Crystal, and Jennifer) recomrnended the evolutionary theme-based biology course. They liked the course the way it was and could not think of any changes they would make. In this case, Tom intentiondty revised the fist year course in order to incorporate relevance and major concepts. It is interesting that the irnpetus for his actions seemed to stem fiom his own dissatisfaction as an undergraduate.

In the following chapter 1wiU surnmarize the findings fiom the analysis of the interviews and outline some suggestions and implications for biology education. CHAPTER V

SwY,SUGGESTIONSy AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BIOLOGY EDUCATION

Introduction

Biology students enrolled in nrst year post-secondary programs are a diverse set of

Leamers who attend colleges and universkies in order to Mnll requirements for fùrther education andor employment. Regardess of their future plans most of these learners are shoehomed into science courses offering mostly homogenous cmicula 1seriously doubt that science curricula at the fnst year level will ever by tailored to meet the particular needs of individual learners who have various reasons for being in these programs. Since scarce resources preclude this ided, 1 would like to argue that the curriculum shodd provide a solid foundation upon which students cm build their knowledge. 1have chosen to examine the perceptions, opinions and experiences of two groups of stakeholders (the students and the instructors) who are involved in biology education in order to see if solid foundations are valued or taken into consideration in the learning environment.

Biology is probably the most complex science with the widest range of topics. Biology educators are realizing that a survey course of many biology topics is inadequate for the acquisition of deep understanding. A survey course may be appropriate for prospective biology majors who are undecided about their area of specialization as it may introduce an undecided student to a topic they subsequently choose as their major field of study. On the other hand, a survey course has little utility, in my view, for students who are not majoring in biology because they regard enrollment in the course as a "hoop" through which they must jump in order to proceed with their education. Perhaps there are post-secondary educators who see nothing awry with this scenarîo. However, I think that the education of both biology majon and nonmajors is being short-changed if the ctmîcdum lacks strategies which incorporate oppominities for leamers to acquire higher cognitive skills. 1have observed that teaching courses that are high in content can only be done at the expense of higher cognitive skill acquisition. The concem which has brought ùiis matter into sharper focus is the issue of scientific illiteracy which seems to be prevalent in North American rociety, at kast in the general population. The argument maintains that a scientificalIy illiterate citizenry is unprepared to cope with rapidly changing technologies and insecurity in the workplace. I would like to add that scientific literacy is part of literacy overall. It may not ultimately be necessary, but it is desirable, in a complex world.

Smmq

I have attempted to investigate the utility of evolutionary theory as a pedagogical tool to enhance understanding of biology. The Literature pertah.kg to sciencehiology education refom advocated using main ideas, major concepts andor themes in science curricula in order to help develop bioliteracy (BSCS, 1993; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989). However, there seems to be

Little research which has investigated this issue, therefore, I was interested in exploring it myself and subsequently completed this snidy.

Another factor which &ove me to investigate biology education and seek hnprovements in ils teaching was the tension 1felt between how biology is taught and how 1think it should be taught. My personal beliefs strongly support biology education refonn but I thinlc that this research has provided me with arguments that have a more paipable theoretical grounding. In teaching biology or any other subjecf a necessary goal should be that students corne to understand the subject, not just passively receive information. Passively receiving information is a poor method of achieving understanding. Introductory bioIogy is often taught as a survey

course where the student must memorize a vast amount of information. There may be a

laboratory session where the student practices some "hands-on" activities, but often they consist

of completion of tasks with precise instructions and pre-detemiined answers. Students go

through the motions of memorking factç and completing laboratories with little real-world

reievance. They often do not acquire understanding and 1 think that this is unacceptable

considering the importance of biology to everyone's lives and to the fate of the globe. A

curriculum based on an organizing keworkwhich elucidates the science of biology could

provide au avenue toward biological understanding. Evolutionary theory is biology's fiamework

but it has been grossly misunderstood and omitted fiom biology education, much to the detriment

of teachers and students. This shidy hcorporated qualitative methods in order to better

understand students' and instructors' perspectives on the situation in biology education and to see

if there was any ernpincal evidence which defended my premise that change is required in

biology curricula.

The participants of this study included both students and instructors fiom two post-

secondary institutions, Douglas College and Simon Fraser University. I was acquainted with the participants fiom Douglas College but not those fiom Simon Fraser. h order to collect

information for this study, al1 the participants completed a personai interview stnictured around a set of questions that 1prepared. After banscribing the interviews, the process of analysis began.

I chose to try to identm themes which were pertinent to education that the data revealed.

The student interviews yielded seven themes while the instnictor inte~ewsyielded five themes.

Analysis of the data fiom the student inte~ewstended to show that students fkom both Douglas College and Simon Fraser University thought that an understanding of evolutionary theory helped them to understand and leam biology. The five major recmgthemes which were identined included: evolution helps with understanding biology; evolution provides a hmework; evolution ties everything together, evolution shouid be a mandatory topic; and, using evolution as a theme decreases memorization. The two minor themes hcluded religious opposition to evolution instruction and increased awareness of the relationship of humans to other species. Two students thought that evolution was an important concept in biology but did not think that it should be emphasized too much-

Such is the nature of biology education and trying to teach evolutionary theory. Some students may be aware that there is a concept known ~s evolution but they are not very interested or think that it is boring. Tnese attitudes may be a reflection of the absence of evolution education in North American biology curricula for so many years. It is one of the most perplexuig and hstrating issues in science education. It is well known by practicing biologists that research programs depend on the theoretical basis provided by evolutionary theory, yet biology education has ignored or paid lip service to it. As Tom reflects, lacking an understanding of biology and evolution is "not only short-sighted in the extreme but extrernely destructive for humans and their planet." Personally, 1am very concerned that efforts to increase evorution in biology education may be too late. Global environmental problems have reached crisis proportions in many areas because humans have not made smart decisions about the impact of their activities on the environment. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that organizations such as the

National Research Council (1990) have included staternents in important documents on education which promote evolution in biology education: Evolution must be taught as a naiural process, as a process rhat is asfundamental und importanr in the living world as any basic concept ofphysics one can name. neevidence rhat supports evolution- physical meosurements of the age of the earth. the fossiZ record. patterns of similarity in bo&pZans, the records lefi in the primory stmctzrres of nucleic acids andproteins - should all be examine4 and students should 6e led to see how such disparate knowledge bits together tu form an elegant and coherent whole. @. 33)

The concept of evolution is complex and takes time to leam, consequently it is a 'poor cousid' to

the factual checklist of topics that many students are taught. Yet, the students adarnantly object to

mernonzing facts for the sake of a test. They loudly question this practice because it lacks

relevance and meaning. Altematively, 1think that they should be given some credit for being

mature enough to think.

Analysis of the information fiom the instructor inte~ewsrevealed five major themes

regarding teaching and evolutionary theory: the ment of using or not using evolution as a

unifying theme in introductory biology courses; content versus concept tradeoff; problems with

the evolutionary theme; views on whether evolutionaq- theory helps or does not help students

understand biology; and. how prior expenences and interests innuence current teaching. Two

instmctors teach an introductory biology course that has evolution as a theme and three

insmctors teach an introductory biology corne that does not have an evolution theme. Of the

latter three, one insmictor supported an evolutionary theme but did so afier voicing a caveat. He

would only support evolution in bioiogy education if quaiified teachers taught it.

Analysis of the instructor interviews revealed how important prior beliefs and experiences

were in formulaiing present teaching philosophies. Paul and Dimitri who had positive

undergraduate experiences are certain that their students can Iearn in a similar fashion to the way they leamed. Tom's undergraduate experience was mostiy negative; his own personal interest in biology provided the major srimulus for pwsuing biology academically. He thought that the

person teaching biology lacked passion - "biology failed miserably in keeping the inspiration

dive." He was instrumental in completely revising an introductory biology course because he

did not want students to experience the same disappointment that he had. During the interview,

he also revealed that teaching introductory biology was a "satisfiing experience because

everything was exciting for me, too. 1actually unpacked a lot of sniff that 1 had never Iearned."

Another issue which revealed insight into prior beliefs was the concept versus content tradeoff. If instmctors are reluctant to decornpress content, then it is very difficult to introduce more leamer-centled, constmctivist views of teaching. AU of the research dealing with science education reform which I have read ( BSCS, 1993; Good, et al., 1992; Rutherford and Ahlgren,

1989; Yager, 1996; etc.) argue that too much content impedes scientific literacy and clouds the issue of the nature of science. Some insû-uctors are willing to change and teach more concepts and less content but some are not.

The information provided by the instnictor inte~ewsyielded the five common themes mentioned above but the comments and opinions related to each category were very diverse.

Suggestions and Im~licationsfor Biolow Education

important theme which biology educators may want to address is that a thematic cuniculum may increase understanding and decrease mernorization. Students are generally

'himed off' by mernorization and do not thuik that it hamuch educational value. Tobias (1992) has investigated how capable and promising students turn away fiom science for the wrong reasons. Some of these students disfie the competitiveness and dislike the dogrnatic nature of science instructional practices. The Douglas College students seemed to endure the present c~culumbut voiced opinions about how it could be better. They disliked memonzation and

wodd like oppominities for engagement with relevant issues. Students want and should receive

opportunities to become part of biology's learning or knowledge communi~.Bdee (1993) has

elaborated on how collaborative leaming (learning through socid construction of knowledge)

may help students become members of the sarne knowledge communities to which their teachers

belong. In a con-ctivist setting the students criteria for better biology education could be met -

instruction would not be transmitted passively and students wodd be able to make their own

rneanings of issues or phenomena related to biology. As MacKinnon (1 99 1) has pointed out, a

very important pedagogical principle of constmctivism holds that "students should be actively

engaged in the leaming situation and become more aware of the purposes that lie behind

instruction" (p. 11). It is apparent that constmctivist principles are relevant for Iearners of dl

ages and shouid be considered as tools in adult classrooms.

For science educators the message seems clear. It is imperative that passive ways of

teaching yield to interactive ways. It might be usem, for example, to adopt a more constnictivist

view of teaching in order to improve the learning environment for students. 1think that a

"thematic" curriculum coulc! provide such a constructivist hmework. Table 1 presents a

comparison of pedagogies based on traditional and "thematic" cunicula. A recegtheme

which emerged fiom the students' comments was that an evolutionary theme helped with

understanding - it seemed to provide a conceptual scaf5old on which to hang new information.

Some students stated that "evolution makes a lot of sense" and that it '%es everything together."

As an evolutionary theme highlights the major orga-g concept in biology, it behooves biology educators who are interested in changing fiom passive to active instructional practices to investigate its utility as a pedagogical tool.

Table 1. Comparison of Pedagogies Based on Traditional and "Thematic" Biology Curricda.*

Traditional Biology Curriculum "Thematic" Biology Cumculurn

Emphasis is on a broad overview of facts. 1 Emphasis is on biology's most important concepts. I I Strict adherence to a fued curriculum is valued. Learning which promotes quality of understanding is valued.

Activities rely heavily on textbooks and workstieets. Activities rely on prhary sources of data and "hands on" materials. Direct teaching rnethods which promote dissemination A variety of indirect teaching rnethods which prornote of information are used exclusively. interaction is primarily used. ( Instnictors seek the correct answer to validate student 1 hstructors promote critical thinking by seeking the 1 learning. (Responses are mainly objective.) students' points of view. (Responses are mainly subjective.) 1 Assessment of student leaming is almost entïrely by 1 Assessrnent of snident learning is varied and 1 summative testing. formative. It includes reports, oral presentations, original lab research and forma1 testing. Students prharily work alone. Students primarily work in groups. "Adapted from Brooks, J. and M. Brooks. 1993. In Search of Understanding: the Case for Consmtctivisr Classroorns. As cited in Current Thought on Learning, Cognition, and the Curriculum, a Surnmav by M. McLaren ( 1 994)

The Simon Fraser University students were ver-receptive to an introductory biology course based on the theme of evolunon. They were happy to be fieed f?om the chore of memorization and seemed to enjoy both the teaching and the exposure to stimulating ideas which the course provided. The course does not provide a thoroughly consû-uctivist environment as outlined in Table 1, but it is a beginning toward teacbg and leaming which lead to understanding.

If biology education included more emphasis on the fiamework of evolution, students may acquire a better understanding of biology and its relevance. Invoking a theme which is a major organizing framework could provide a positive way of struchiring learning so that students experience whole-to-part rather than part-to-whole leaming (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Brooks and Brooks have also argued that "stnicturing curriculum around "big ideas" and broad concepts

provides multiple entry points for students" (p. 58). As 1tried to illustrate in Chapter II, the

concept of evolution by natural selection has utility for making connections and investigating

important areas of biology such as ecology or molecular biology in depth. If concepts do not

have dtiple links with how one thinks about the world, then they are not likely to be

remern bered. L evning and understanding an important "big idea" like evolutionary theory may

help fosîer biological literacy.

Wandersee (1992, p. 204) has provided the following operational definition of biological

literacy which I will reproduce here in order to reiterate its importance:

A brief definition of biological literacy rnight be the ability ofa studentkitizen to do the folIowiIlg:

a) understand a basic set of biological concepts and all-pervasive principles about life on earth;

b) rnodi@ hisher persona1 actions in view of their potential impact on the biosphere; and

c) assimilate and evaluate new information and knowledge about biological issues and advances as comrnunicated by the mass media, and then apply it during personal and societal decision making.

How can students acquire biological literacy if they must memorize (then forget) content? The student may even develop a Iasting disdain for the subject (Wandersee, 1992). The attributes of a biologically literate citizen demand critical thinking skills and the ability to use biological knowledge for understanding relevant issues. Biological literacy is fundamental to understanding the living world and is best achieved by studying fewer topics in greater depth. It is dso seems to be diBcult to acquire without an understanding of evolutiooary theor)..

Educational implications of the data fkom the insimctor inte~ewsare mixed. Sorne instructors are ambivalent toward educational change, some have trîed change and others are resistant. DifFerences in viewpoints seem to stem fiom individualistic personal beliefs about curriculum and teaching.

Four of the five instructors had no formal training in education which is a common phenomenon in post-secondary institutions. Strong teaching skills have not been hi@y valued until recently in some universities and this may be part of the problem which is contributing to poor understanding in biology and other sciences as well. Schulman (Personal Communication,

1995) elaborated on the topic of how teaching as a profession is undervalued and how it is sometimes not central in post-secondary institutions. He thinks that few academic scholars are soood teachers because institutions have set low standards for teaching - being adequate is enou&. Fomuiately?that situation is changing with a number of universities setting up centres for improving teaching (Teaching and Learning in Higher Educarion, 1998). 1agree with Jones

(1991) who recommends that "it is time that science faculty become aware of the current trends in science education and they must be willing to accept a pedagogical paradigm shift different fiom their own schooluig" @. 362). If instructors are not aware of educational approaches such as constnictivism, they will have little inclination to deviate fkom the sram quo.

Sometimes exposure to different methods of teaching science is met with skepticism and resistance. Teachers may resist change because they are committed to their present instructional approach, are concemed about the effect of different methods on student learning, or concemed about classroom control (Brooks and Brooks, 1993). These issues came up during the instmctor interviews. Paul liked to be in control and knew he wodd lose it in a setting where students had more input and interaction. He also thought that students could not leam everything on their own and needed direct instruction for the more dintcult topics. BMee (1993) who supports collaborative learning, also surrenders to direct teaching activities nich as lecture, Ml?and recitation: "There are times in every college and university course when the besr thing teachers cm do is tell midents something, make them repeat something, or ask them to respond to questions" @. 9). Dimitri îhought that his own educational experiences were exemplary and could be used for his own mode1 of teaching. The instructors were unaware of a constmctivist view of teaching. They were not taught that way themselves and they think that their current instructional practices are working. Further research into insmctors' perspectives and ways to increase the profile of excellence in teaching at the post-secondary level may be useful.

The results of this study provide tentative evidence that an evolutionary theme helps students to understand biology and attain bioliteracy. It might be useful to conduct studies which track students fiom first year to a later point in tirne who had experienced different learning environments and assess their leveIs of biological understanding and biological literacy.

However, 1 rhuik that this research shows that studentç might benefit f?om a biology c~culum which presents more concepts such as evolution and decreases the arnount of content which is exemplified by long lists of facts and defhitions. It would also be usefid to develop curriculum materials based on current biological research which provided more examples of evolution in action. Students could benefit fiom instruction in understanding that evolution provides ançwers to the why questions in biology and that an understanding of evolution makes the study of biology meaningfui. 1 think that humans need to "reconnect with the web of life" and reduce our

"alienation from natureY'(Capra,1996). In order to achieve this reconnection, some awareness and appreciation of the living world is required and ought to be more transparent in biology education. Evolution in biology education may have potential for understanding the living world and recognizing that hurnankind shodd accept more responsibility for taking care of the pla.net.

Sornewhere in there has gor ro be evohtion as the backbone. E%en everyrhing starts to get a litîle floppy, you can always get support in the backbone. Berra, T. 1990. Evohtion and the Myth of Creatioionism. Stadord Califomia: Stanford University Press.

Benton, M. 1993. Fow feet on the ground. In The BookofLfe, ed. S.J. Gould, pp. 78-125. Toronto: Penguüi Group.

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (B SCS) 1993. Developing Bioiogzkal Literacy.

B irke, L. 1995. On keeping a respectful distance. In Reinventing Biology, eds. L. Birke and R. Hubbard, pp. 75-88. Indiana University Press.

Bishop, B. and Anderson, C. 1990. Student conceptions of naturd selection and it role in evo lution. Jozrrnal oflesearch in Science Teaching 27(5):4 15-427-

Brooks, J. and M. Brooks. 1993. In Search of Understanding: The Cusefor Constructivist Classrooms. Virginia: Association for SupeMsion and Curriculum Development.

Bmffee, K. 1993. Collaborurive Leaming: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Campbell, N. 1996. Biology. Menlo Park, Califomia: Benjarnin/Cummings.

Capra, F. 1996. The Web of Life. New York: Doubleday.

Catalvst Nwlerter. 1994. Report fiom the Science K-12 Curriculum Cornmittee. 38(1): 1- 12.

Clough, M. 1994. Diminish students' resistance to biological evolution. The American BioZogy Teacher S6(7):409-4 15.

Demastes, S and J. Wandersee. 1992. Biological literacy in a college biology classroom. BioScience 4263-65.

Demastes, S., et al. Students' conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in evolution. Science Educution 79(6):637-666.

Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray.

Dawkins, R. 1976. The Serj;sh Gene. Oxford University Press.

Dobzhanslq, T. 1973. Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The Arnerican Biology Teacher 35(3): 125-129. Dussart, G. and M. Nicholls. 1996. The teaching ofevolution at universi~ylevel - an alternative approach. Journal of Biological Education 30(2): 107-1 1 1.

Ehrlich, P., et al. 1995. The Stork and the Plow: the Equity Annver to the Human Dilemma. New York: Putnam's Sons.

Eisner, E. 1985. The Educational Imagination: on the Design and EvaZuation of School Pro,oraams. New York: Macmillan.

Eldredge, N. 1995. Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Eldredge, N. and S. J. Gould. 1972. Pmctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In Models ofPaleobioZogy, ed. T. J. M. Schopf, 82-1 15. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper.

Eve, R. and D. Dunn. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology and creationisrn in the classroom? Amencan Biolo6y Teacher 52(1): 10-2 1.

Ewald, P. 1994. Evolution of lnfectious Disease. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fox, S. and K. Dose. 1972. Molecular Evolution and the Origin of life. San Francisco: Freeman.

Futuyma, D. 1983. Science on Trial: the Casefor Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books.

Good, R. et al., eds. 1992. Proceedings of the 1992 Evolution Education Research Conference- Louisiana State University.

Gould, S.3. 1993a. Darwin and Paley meet the invisible hand. In Eight Little Piggies: Reflections in Natzrral Hisrory, pp. 138- 152. New York: Norton & Co.

Gould, S.J. 1993b. The golden rule: a proper scale for the environmental crisis. In Eight Little Pigs-es: Refections in Namal Histov, pp. 41-5 1. New York: Norton & Co.

Gould, S.J. 199 1. Justice Scalia's misunderstanding. In Bully for Brontosaum: Reflections in hraturalHistory, pp. 448-460. New York: Norton & Co.

Gould, S.J. 1989. WonderficZ Lifer The Burgess Shale and the Nature ofHstory. New York: Norton & Co.

Gould, S .J. and N. Eldredge. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. PaleobioZogy 3: 115-1 5 1. Grace, E. 1997. Biotechnology Umipped: Promises and Realities. Toronto: Tnfolium Books.

Greene, E. 1990. nie Logic of University students' misunderstanding of na& selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27(9):875-885.

Hammersley, M. and P. Atkùison. 1983. "Chapter 1". Ethnography: Principles in Practice, UK: Tavistock.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248-

Hargreaves, A. 1994. Changing Teachers, Changing Times. New York: Teachers College Press.

Herreid, C. 1994. Case studies in science - a novel rnethod of science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23 (4):22 1-229.

Hodgson, E. 1990. Long-range perspectives on neuro bio iogy and behavior. Arnerican ZooZugist 30:403-505.

Jensen, M. and F. Finiey. 1997. Teaching evolution using a histoncally rich curriculum and paired problern solving instructional strategy. The American Biology Teacher .S9(4):208-2 12.

Jones, R. 1994. First-year science students : their only year? Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(6):356-362.

Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1995. Refipring Li& Columbia University Press.

Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Krebs, C. J. 1994. Ecology: the experimental anabsis of distribution and abundance, 4" ed. New York: HarperColhs College Publishers.

Lather, P. 1986. Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and a soi? place. Interchange 17(4):63-54.

Lawson, A., et al. 1990. An inquiry approach to nonmajors biology. Journal of College Science Teaching May 1990:340-346.

Leakey, R. and R. Levin. 1995. The Sixth Extinction: Pattern of Life and the Future of HzrmanX-ind. New York: Doubleday. Lecompte, M. and J.P. Goetz. 1982. Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographie research. Rmiew of Educational Research 52:3 2-60.

Levin, R. 1984. Science as a way of knowing - molecular evolution. American Zoologist 24(2): 45 1-464.

Levine, J. and K. Miller. 199 1. Biology: Discoverhg Lif. Toronto : Heath and Co.

Lord, T. and S. Marino. 1993. How university students view the theory of evolution. Journal of CoIZege Science Teaching May 1993,353-357.

Low, B. and J. Heinen. 1993. Population, Resources, and Environment: Implications of Human Behavioral Ecology for Conservation. Population and Environment 15(1):741.

Lutz, M. 1996. The Identification of Science Concepts in STS Teaching That are Really Essential. In Science~TechnoZogy/Societyas Refonn in Science Education, ed. R. Yager, pp. 2 19-226. State University ofNew York Press.

MacKinnon, A. 1995. The Cumculum, Too Much "Tic" - Too Little "Talk". Catalyst 3 8(6):22-26.

MacKinnon, A. 199 1. A Constmctivist View of Science Teaching. Unpublished manuscript. Simon Fraser University.

Masters, Judith C. 1995. rEvolutionary Theory: Reinventing our Origin Myths. In Reinventing Biology; eds. L. Birke and R. Hubbard, pp. 173-187. Indiana University Press.

Mayr, E. 199 1. One Long Argument: Churks Darwin and the Genesis of Modem Evohrtionaw Thozight. Harvard University Press.

Mead, J. and L. Scharmann. 1994. Enhancing critical thinking through stmctured academic controversy. The Amencan BioZogy Teacher 56(3):4 16-419.

Memam, S. 1988. Case Srudy Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mix, M., et al. 1996. Biologv: the Network of Life. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Moore, J. 1990. A Conceptual Framework for Biology - Part III. Amencan Zoolugist 30: 1-122. National Research Council. 1990. FuIfiZIing the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation 's Schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press in Proceedings of the 1992 Evolution Educntion Research Conference, ed. R. Good et al., p. 1 1. Louisiana State University.

Ne&, D. 1982. The Creation Conh-oversy. New York: Norton & Co.

Nickels, M., et al. 1996. Better biology teaching by emphasizing evolution and the nature of science. The Arnerican Biology Teacher 58(6), 332-336.

Orr, D. 1992. Ecological Literaq: Education and the Transition to a Postmodem World. Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.

Project 2051. Project 206 1 is a long-terni initiative of the Amencan Association for the Advancement of Science to reform K-12 education so that al1 graduates are science lit erate,

Prothero, D. 1995. Punctuated equilibrium at twenty: A paleontologicd perspective. Skeptic 1(3):38-47.

Ridley, M. 1993. Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.

Rutherford, F. and A. Ahlgren. 1989. Science for Al2 Arnericans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Science as a Way of Knowing Series (vol 1-m.1984-1990. Arnerican Zoologisr.

Scott, E. 1994. The stniggle for the schools. Nafural History. July, pp. 10- 13.

Schopf, J, (ed). 1983. Earth 's Earliest Biosphere: Its Origin and Evolution. P~ceton,N. J. : Princeton University Press.

Shiva, V. 1993. Democratizing biology: reinventhg biology f?om a feminist, ecological, and tiird world perspective. In Reinventing Biology, eds. L. Birke and R. Hubbard, pp. 50-7 1. Indiana University Press.

Stnckberger, M. 1996. Evolution, 2nded Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

Suzuki, D. 1985. Reflections on the limits of science and technology. Arnerican ZooIogtst 26: 889-894.

Tamir, P. 1993. The curriculum potential of Darwin's theory of evolution. Interchange 24(1 & 2):73-85. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Newsletter of the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, No. 23, Nov 1998.

Tobias, S. 1992. Revitalking UndergraduateScience: my Some Things Work and Most Don 't. Tucson, Arizona: Research Corporation.

Todd, P. 1984. Teaching evolutionary theory as general education. Journal of General Education 3 5 (4):2 12-228

Udovic, D. 1994. What Matters in Non-Majors' Biology. Unpublished paper presented at the Northwest Biology Instmctors Conference, Spokane WA.

Volpe, E. 1984. The shame of science education. American Zoologist 24(2):433-411.

Wandersee, J. 1992. Untitied. In Proceedings of the 1992 Evolution Education Research Conference, eds. R. Good, et al, pp. 204-205. Louisiana State University.

Weiner, J. 1994. The Beak of the Finch. New York: Vintage Books.

Williams, G. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

Williams, G. and R. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. The QmrterZy Review of BioIogy 66(l): 1-18.

Wivagg, D. 1994. Bioliteracy. Serninar presentation at the Northwest Biology listructors Conference, Spokane WA.

Yager, R. ed. 1996. Science/TechnoZogy/Socie~as Reform in Science Education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Zimmeman, M. 1987. The evolution-creation controversy: opinions of Ohio high school biology teachers. Ohio Journal of Science 87(4): 115-125 quoted in How university students view the Theory of Evolution by Lord, T. and S. Marino. 1993. Journal of College Science Teaching May, 1993:353-357.

Zook, D. 1995. Confkonting the evolution education abyss. Journal of Research in Science Teachirg 3Z:llll-l120. Appendix A

AN INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

1WOULD LIKE TO INTERVIEW STUDENTS WHO HAVE COMPLETED BIOLOGY 102.

TO ASK YOUR OPINIONS AND DISCUS S YOUR

EXPERIENCES

FOR A RESEARCH STUDY TO COMPLETE A MASTER'S DEGREE IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

PLEASE SEE ME TODAY AFTER THIS LECTURE.

THANK YOU! SIMON IFRASER UNIVJERSITY

INFORMED CONSENT BY PAICTICIIPANTS TO TmPART IN A RESEARCH PRBjECT

The University and those conducting this project subscnbe to the ethical conduct of research and to the protection at al1 tirnes of the interests, cordort, and safety of participants. This form and the information it contains are giveven to you for your own protection and full understanding of the procedures used in this research project. For this research project you will be interviewed in a private location and your responses will be taperecorded. You will be asked a set of questions which pertain to teaching and leaming in post-secondary introductory biology. The questions will focus on the issue of tising evolutionary theory as a theme for understanding biology.

Your signature on this form will signi@ that you voluntarily agree to participate in the project.

Having been asked by Doreen Dewell of the Education Faculty of Simon Fraser Universiw to participate in a research project, 1have read and understood the above procedure.

I understand that I may withdraw my participation in the project at any tirne.

1also undeetand that I rnay register any cornplaint I might have about the project with the researcher, Doreen Deweil, or with Robin Barrow, Dean of the Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser Univers iîy.

1understand that information which 1provide will be included in the results ody if 1agree that my opinions have been accurately interpreted.

1 have been informed that the research material will be held confident by the principal investigator. At the end of the study, the researcher will erase the tapes and destroy the tape transcripts.

I agree to participate by taking part in an interview with the researcher as described above at a tirne and location that are mutually convenient.

NAME (please print): ADDRESS:

SIGNATURE: WITNESS: DATE: ONCE SIGNED, A COPY OF TNlS CONSENT FORM WILL BE PROVIDED TO YOU. IMAGE NALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED -A fN24GE. Inc -= 1653 East Main Street ----. - Rochester. NY 14609 USA ------Phone: 71 6/48Z-O3OO ---- Fa: 71 61288-5989

O 1993, Applied Image. 1%. All Rights Resenred