biology teachers’ conceptions of the diversity of life and the historical development of...

This article was downloaded by: [Paloma Silva]On: 02 April 2014, At: 06:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Biological EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Biology Teachers Conceptions of theDiversity of Life and the HistoricalDevelopment of Evolutionary ConceptsPaloma Rodrigues da Silvaa, Mariana A. Bologna Soares deAndradeb & Ana Maria de Andrade Caldeiraaa Sciences Faculty, UNESP, Bauru, Brazilb UEL, Londrina, BrazilPublished online: 31 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Paloma Rodrigues da Silva, Mariana A. Bologna Soares de Andrade & AnaMaria de Andrade Caldeira (2014): Biology Teachers Conceptions of the Diversity of Life andthe Historical Development of Evolutionary Concepts, Journal of Biological Education, DOI:10.1080/00219266.2014.882377

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.882377

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Biology Teachers Conceptions of theDiversity of Life and the HistoricalDevelopment of Evolutionary Concepts

Paloma Rodrigues da Silvaa*, Mariana A. Bologna Soares deAndradeb and Ana Maria de Andrade CaldeiraaaSciences Faculty, UNESP, Bauru, Brazil; bUEL, Londrina, Brazil

Biology is a science that involves study of the diversity of living organisms. This diversity has alwaysgenerated questions and has motivated cultures to seek plausible explanations for the differences andsimilarities between types of organisms. In biology teaching, these issues are addressed by adopting anevolutionary approach. The aim of this study was to compare the extent to which the beliefs of 20 pub-lic high school biology teachers in the Bauru region of So Paulo in Brazil exemplied the most signi-cant historical concepts regarding evolution. Data from open-ended interviews with teachers wereanalysed and coded. The analysis of the interviews revealed how participating biology teachers under-stood and explained biological evolution. The assessment of teachers conceptions about evolution indi-cated that many responses expressed current scientically accepted concepts, such as transformism,natural selection, gradualism and common descent. However, some teachers also provided responses thatcombined scientic concepts with non-scientic notions, such as nalism, verticality and adaptation tothe environment. Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate biology teachers understanding ofevolutionary processes.

Keywords: Teaching of biology; Conceptions of teachers; Biological evolution

Introduction

Biology is a science that involves study of the diversity of living organisms. People fromvarious cultures have always sought plausible explanations for the processes responsiblefor differences and similarities between types of organisms. This diversity is central tothe teaching of biology, which adopts an evolutionary approach to understanding theseissues. Because biological evolution encompasses all areas of biology, evolution is theunifying and central theme that explains both the differences and the similarities betweentypes of organisms.

*Corresponding author. Sciences Faculty, UNESP, Bauru, S. Paulo 17033360, Brazil. Email:[email protected]

2014 Society of Biology

Journal of Biological Education, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.882377

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

Gould (1996) argues that the process of evolution is the most important and the mostmisunderstood of all biological concepts. It is important to examine how this subject ispresented in the classroom because the teachers role is to enable students to learn aboutscientic concepts and to distinguish scientic from non-scientic concepts.However, acceptance and understanding of this theory, its concepts and its models

remains controversial for biology teachers. In his work, Smith (2010) thoroughly dis-cussed the differences that distinguish the concepts of knowledge, acceptance, beliefand understanding. Smith suggests that to understand biological phenomena, it is neces-sary for students to comprehend the epistemological assumptions sustaining the theory ofevolution and to accept evolution as a valid scientic explanation. We agree with Smithsdifferentiation; although beliefs of a non-scientic nature coexist among students andeven among teachers, the process of teaching and learning evolution, which relies on sci-entic ideas and beliefs, requires that students understand the nature of each explanation,distinguish between the scientic and the non-scientic and, furthermore, use scienticknowledge to understand biological phenomena. Smith demonstrates that students mayagree with different explanations but that this does not necessarily preclude comprehen-sion if the students clearly understand the origins and assumptions of each explanation.Although studies indicate that religious belief is a contributing factor to non-acceptance

of evolutionary theory, aspects inherent to teacher training and a lack of knowledge andmisconceptions regarding evolution are also limiting factors (Nehm and Schonfeld 2007;Nehm, Kim and Sheppard 2009; Paz-y-Mio-C and Espinosa 2012).Some of these studies also relate to teachers knowledge of biological evolution and

the nature of science. In a survey of 1039 teachers, Rutledge and Warden (2000) showedthat low acceptance of evolutionary theory was related to the teachers low level ofunderstanding of the nature of science; namely, the teachers showed a low level of under-standing regarding how scientic knowledge is generated, the means by which the valid-ity of scientic knowledge claims is established, and the attributes engendered toscientic knowledge claims as a result of scientic methodology (Rutledge and Warden2000, 25).The situation is no different in Brazil. Studies also indicate teachers misconceptions

and an absence of knowledge on topicsincluding evolution, the origin of life, chemistryand biologywhich enable greater understanding of evolutionary theories (Meglhioratti,Caldeira, and Bortolozzi 2006; Cerqueira 2009).Those studies indicated there was no direct relationship with the decrease in religious

convictions about biological evolution even with teachers increased understanding of evo-lutionary theory. According to Quessada and Clment (2010), evolution and creationismare not necessarily conicting perspectives. Gould (1999) also argues that religion andscience are non-overlapping magisteria, having separate domains of teaching authority.We understand that teachers may have their own ideas regarding religion; however, inbiology classes, teachers should encourage students to understand scientically developedarguments. In another study on the evolutionary conceptions of Brazilian biology teachers,Caldeira, Arajo, and Carvalho (2011) identied a high percentage of creationist teachersin Brazil who failed to abandon their religious beliefs when teaching biology.In this study, the authors (2011, 318) asked, Why do the respondents accept both

creationist and evolutionist ideas, with no apparent conict between them? Does this

2 P.R. da Silva et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

constitute an obstacle for evolution teaching? One possible answer to the rst questioncan be taken from the model of changes in conceptual prole (Mortimer 1995), whichexplains that people do not need to abandon or replace their previous/alternative concep-tions to understand a scientic conceptthat is, it is possible for two or more meanings ofthe same word or concept to coexist in a single person, to be evoked in the suitable con-text.As stated by El-Hani and Bizzo (2002, 19):

the teaching of science should, above all, show students how a set of problems is solved by thescientic perspective, broadening the spectrum of possibilities available to them. Now, the ques-tion of whether or not students believe in the scientic conceptions, rather than only understandthem, can be properly understood as a problem of an intimate nature of the student being exam-ined by him in the context of his worldview, in the light of ideas that have strength and power.

As Smith (2010) has suggested, the teachers role in the classroom is to provide learningsituations that allow students to understand the theory of evolution and to accept it as avalid scientic explanation. The students and teachers individual beliefs, whether scien-tic or not, do not present an obstacle if they understand the origins and assumptions ofeach belief. In other words, giving equal weight to scientic and non-scientic assump-tions may hamper the teaching and learning process.Therefore, the focus of this study centres on teachers perspectives of evolution and

their knowledge related to the origin, development and modication of living organisms.Regarding the conceptual aspects of biological evolution, we considered another keyaspect related to teachers understanding of evolutionary theory and knowledge of thehistory of science. Rudolph and Stewart (1998) showed how knowledge of the history ofsciencein this case, how Darwins theory has been received and understood by thescientic community since its publicationmight decrease differences and misunderstand-ings between teachers in their knowledge of biological evolution. The understanding thatthe currently studied evolutionary theory has a history with many subjects, explanations,concepts and models generated the following questions: What biological explanations ofevolution occur in biology teachers discourse? How may we relate these explanations tothe historical design of evolutionary theory?

Research Issues

Because it is important for teachers to fully comprehend the process of evolution, weinvestigated how a sample of 20 high school biology teachers explained the diversity oforganisms. The aim of this study was to compare the concepts of the teachers who partic-ipated in this research with the most signicant historical concepts and explanations forthe diversity of organisms and the processes through which organisms change. Fromancient times until the eighteenth century, theorists did not adopt an evolutionaryapproach to explain variations among species. Evolutionary theories emerged only in thenineteenth century, and thinking on this topic has continued to develop until the present.Therefore, a historical survey of these explanations illustrates the many theories that haveaddressed the diversity of living beings, from broad and religious approaches to themodern scientic approaches that emerged in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Biology Teachers Conceptions 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

Methodology

This research was conducted with a group of 20 high school biology teachers from publicschools in the region of Bauru, So Paulo, Brazil, and was characterised as a purposefulsampling study (Patton 2002). The research was a component of a larger study, the objec-tives of which were to understand teachers concepts of biological life and the relation-ships between the teachers concepts of life and their understanding of the evolutionaryprocesses of living beings.We observed that 18 of the 20 teachers held concepts of evolution that affected their

discourse on the concept of life. With this in mind, we aimed to identify how teachersunderstood the concept of evolution using historical categories as benchmarks. Somequestions used in the interview questionnaire were selected for the evolutionary analysis,including: Do you think that a denition of life is important? Why?; In your opinion,what is life?; Several scientists mention articial life because some computer virusesshow characteristics typical of living beings (self-organisation, competition, growth,development and adaptive evolution, among others). What is your opinion on that mat-ter?; How do you think life appeared on Earth?; Many people believe that life was cre-ated by or is a gift from God. What is your opinion on that matter? How do youapproach this topic in the classroom?All teachers possessed a degree in the biological sciences, which is a prerequisite to

teach biology in Brazil. The subjects mean age was 40.7 years old; the youngest was24 years old and the oldest was 55 years old. The average time for which the subjectshad taught was 14.3 years; the shortest teaching time was ve years and the longestteaching time was 32 years. The majority of the interviewed teachers identied them-selves as Catholic (60.0%). The remaining teachers identied themselves as spiritualists(15.0%) or Evangelicals (5.0%), or stated they were without a dened religion (20.0%).However, even those who do not identify with any specic religion are immersed inBrazilian religious culture, which is composed primarily of Catholics, Protestants andneo-Pentecostals.The interviews were conducted individually, audio-recorded and subsequently

transcribed.To identify teachers concepts of evolutionary processes, a historical review of these

processes was conducted to determine the units or categories of analysis (Patton 2002).The teachers conceptions were then grouped according to the conceptual similarities thatcharacterised the categories described in the historical review. Although the categorieswere established a priori according to the historical review, one category emerged afterdata analysis; namely, Dawkins selsh gene concept.We emphasise that it is not our goal to generalise the data observed in this study; how-

ever, the importance of this type of research is signicant because studying a particularcase may identify general aspects that can be related to other convergent situations. Fur-thermore, we understand that linking case studies with other research strategies enablesgreater enrichment in the development of new knowledge.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

Historical Review

The historical review was guided by the work of Mayr (1982) and described concepts ofdiversity, organisms development and transformations in three historical periods: the rstperiod (origin without evolution), which explained the diversity of life without adoptingevolutionary theories; the second period (pre-Darwinian evolution), which includedLamarckian concepts; and the third period (post-Darwinian evolution), which covers theperiod from Darwins work to contemporary theories about evolutionary processes (Mayr1982).To provide an overview, the review focused only on the most prominent explanations

and theories within each historical period.

The First Period: Origin without evolution

The explanations of biological diversity that arose between classical antiquity and the nine-teenth century did not adopt an evolutionary approach. Mayr (1982) notes that because sci-ence, as we currently understand the term, was not fully established during this era,philosophical and scientic explanations of biological diversity were drawn from differentelds of knowledge and were strongly inuenced by religion and individuals ways of life.During this period, there were six concepts and explanations related to the diversity of

organisms: xism, nalism, essentialism, typology, creationism and spontaneous generation.

Fixism. From classical antiquity until the nineteenth century, xism was a widelyaccepted concept to explain the diversity of living beings. According to adherents of x-ism, life forms do not undergo any modication after their creation. Until the emergenceof the theory of evolution at beginning of the nineteenth century, xism was the domi-nant paradigm in the natural sciences (Freire-Maia 1997). Thus, the predominant world-view was that humans lived on an unalterable planet populated by unchanging species.

Finalism. Another concept during this period was nalism, which is based upon the ideathat changes in life forms occur for a purpose. These concepts were based on Platonicand Aristotelian ideas, the latter of which studied the ultimate ends of society, humanityand nature. According to Vlastos (1978), Plato proposed the existence of a God who cre-ated the universe by forging matter to conform to ideal models. For Aristotle, every eventoccurring in nature served a purpose (Ross 2009). Aristotelian theory focused on the tele-ological question to what end? and sought to identify the purpose of organisms.

Essentialism. Essentialism was also a recurring concept in earlier centuries. Essentialistauthors defended the existence of an essence that differed from one species to anotheror argued that each species had an internal mould that dened its shape. Essentialistideas are present in Christian theology, which claims that God created living beings basedon a scale of complexity that begins with inanimate matter and proceeds through plants,inferior animals and humans to angels and superior beings (Futuyma 1997). Thus, thenatural sciences of the time were limited to cataloguing the functions of animals andplants to identify Gods plan. These ideas prevailed until the end of the eighteenth


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, when new ideas regarding the originof the species emerged.

Typology. Typology is the concept that subtypes are based on a limited number of basictypes. This concept initially appeared in the works of Aristotle and Plato and wasexpressed in the eighteenth century by Buffon and De Maillet. Ross (2009) notes thatAristotle proposed there was an ideal type for each species based on its specic purpose.Variations observed in the same species were explained by material imperfections ratherthan by natures nal cause. In the eighteenth century, the concept of typology appearedin Buffons writings. For example, Buffon proposed that contact with different environ-ments led felines such as tigers, lions, leopards, pumas and domestic cats to originatefrom an ancestral cat species (Meyer and El-Hani 2005). De Maillet also appealed to thisconcept when he proposed that seeds originating with marine living beings later devel-oped into all of the other species.

Creationism. Creationism, which presumes that all living beings were created by a supe-rior being, was another widely occurring concept. This idea appeared in Aristotle andPlatos work, which compared God to an artist who was responsible for creation (Vlastos1978). Creationism was an accepted concept in the scientic community at the beginningof the nineteenth century, before new evolutionary theories were proposed. Because itwas widely accepted, the creationist concept inuenced scientic and philosophical expla-nations about biological diversity during this period.

Spontaneous generation. The concept of spontaneous generation, which is based on thepremise that living beings can arise from inanimate matter, was also prevalent during thishistorical period. This concept, which originally appeared during ancient times, persisteduntil the nineteenth century. According to Meyer and El-Hani (2005), Buffon argued thatspontaneous generation originated new types of living beings and that environmentalinuences increased the diversity of living individuals.

The Second Period: Pre-Darwinian evolution

According to Mayr (1991), the period between the eighteenth and nineteenth centurieswas marked by the rst inquiries into evolution. This period was also important becausetheories and discoveries from comparative anatomy, geology, paleontology and systemat-ics (Grene and Depew 2004) contributed to new ways of thinking about organismsdiversity. Although there were important scientic developments during this time and theworks of various thinkers addressed the concept of evolution, none of them had madethe decisive step of converting the unbroken chain of a created sequence of ever greaterperfection into a line of descent (Mayr 1982, 343). Thus Lamarcks theory was impor-tant for the development of evolutionary theories, because Lamarck replaced this staticworld picture by a dynamic one in which not only species but the whole chain of beingand the entire balance of nature was constantly in ux (Mayr 1982, 352). Lamarckcontributed to knowledge of the living world with the rst inquiries into the principles


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

underlying changes in organisms. During this period, the four fundamental principlesillustrated in the Lamarckian theory of the evolution of the species were: living beingstend to increase in organic complexity, which is illustrated by the major categories of ani-mals and plants; the environment inuences changes in animals organs; the use and dis-use of structures; and the inheritance of acquired traits.

Adaptation to the environment. One of Lamarcks four basic laws and a fundamentalprinciple of his theory was the environments inuence on modications in organisms.According to Gould (1992), the concept of adaptation to the environment was based uponthe idea that organisms become aware of and adapt to environmental changes by develop-ing a shape, function or behaviour that is appropriate for the new environment.

Verticality. Verticality was a recurring concept in Lamarckian theory. Lamarck argued thatmodications of living beings increased complexity in the growth and the development oforganisms and that organisms improved as they evolved due to the inherent power of life.

Use and disuse. Use and disuse was also one of Lamarcks fundamental principles,because the modication of organisms was not seen as a passive process. Rather, envi-ronmental changes that altered organisms needs produced changes in behaviours that ledto the greater use or disuse of certain structures or organs. This use or disuse determinedthe extent to which structures did or did not develop.

Inheritance of acquired traits. Another Lamarckian theoretical principle was the inheri-tance of acquired traits, the concept that physiological changes acquired during an organ-isms life could be transmitted to its offspring. It should be noted that Darwin alsomentioned the principles of use and disuse and the inheritance of acquired traits in Onthe Origin of Species:

Variability is governed by many unknown laws, more especially by that of correlation of growth.Something may be attributed to the direct action of the conditions of life. Something must be attrib-uted to use and disuse. The nal result is thus rendered innitely complex (Darwin 1859, 43).

I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certainparts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modications are inherited (Darwin 1859, 134).

Third Period: Post-Darwinian evolution

The modern period includes evolutionary theories and concepts from Darwin to the pres-ent. Darwins work provides a starting point for this period because of its importance forsubsequent evolutionary theories, as well as its overall contribution to biological knowl-edge.

Darwin was not the rst to advance a theory of evolution, but he was the rst not only to proposea feasible mechanism, namely, natural selection ... but also to bring together such overwhelmingevidence that within ten years after 1859 hardly a competent biologist was left who did not acceptthe fact of evolution. (Mayr 1982, 427)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

This time period has been marked by the establishment of biology as a scientic eld, aswell as the appearance and rapid development of the eld of genetics. These two factorscontributed to the formation of evolutionary theories, although these theories have exhib-ited disagreement in certain respects with regard to the concepts of transformism, naturalselection, gradualism, common descent, genetic variation, punctuated equilibrium, neutral-ity and the selsh gene.

Transformism. After the nineteenth century, the concept of transformism appeared in thescientic community. Transformism, which is opposed to the xism of earlier periods, isa variant of evolutionary theory which proposes that species transform over time.

Natural selection. Inuenced by biological evidence from the study of fossils, compara-tive anatomy and embryology, Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection in On theOrigin of Species, which was published in 1859. Darwins view of modications in livingbeings was that species evolved by a process of selection based on abundant biologicalvariants.

In a section titled Circumstances favorable to natural selection, Darwin stated:

A large number of individuals, by giving a better chance for the appearance within any given per-iod of protable variations, will compensate for a lesser amount of variability in each individual,and is, I believe, an extremely important element of success. Though nature grants vast periods oftime for the work of natural selection, she does not grant an indenite period; for as all organicbeings are striving, it may be said, to seize on each place in the economy of nature, if any onespecies does not become modied and improved in a corresponding degree with its competitors,it will soon be exterminated. (Darwin 1859, 102)

The publication of On the Origin of Species generated considerable discussion, and theconcept of natural selection was used to explain extinction but not the appearance of newspecies. Moreover, the theory did not provide an explanation for the mechanism underly-ing genetic modications, which was only provided by the later synthetic theory of evo-lution.

Gradualism. The concept of gradualism, which appeared in theories proposed at the endof the nineteenth century, is currently widely accepted. This variant proposes that evolu-tionary modications are progressive and result from the accumulation of small modica-tions over several generations. It is possible to nd the concept of gradualism inDarwins workthe idea that living beings modications occur gradually rather thansuddenly.

Common descent. By the end of the nineteenth century, there was increasing acceptanceof the theory of common descent, which proposes that all living beings share a commonancestor. Darwin mentioned this principle in On the Origin of Species:

All the individuals of the same species, and all the species of the same genus, or even highergroup, must have descended from common parents; and therefore, in however distant and isolatedparts of the world they are now found, they must in the course of successive generations havepassed from some one part to the others. (Darwin 1859, 461)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

This concept remains prevalent in scientic concepts of the evolution of organismsbecause evidence from molecular biology has corroborated Darwins claim.

Genetic variation. With the development of genetics in the twentieth century, evolution-ary theories began to be directly associated with genetic knowledge. The synthetic theoryof evolution emerged between 1936 and 1950 (Mayr 1988).

According to Futuyma (1997), the synthesis of evolution and genetics is based on fourfundamental principles: genetic variations in populations are produced by random muta-tions and recombinations; evolution occurs in populations due to modications in geneticfrequencies based on random genetic drift, genetic ow and natural selection; most adap-tive genetic variations exhibit small phenotypical effects in individuals; and diversica-tion occurs through speciation.Therefore, in neo-Darwinian biological evolutionary theory, evolution of species over

time is based on organisms ability to produce copies of themselves that maintain basicgenetic characteristics over generations, as well as modications of genetic material dueto processes of mutation and recombination.

Punctuated equilibrium. Based on observation of the fossil record, Eldredge and Gould(1972) proposed the concept of punctuated equilibrium (also termed the punctuatedequilibria or punctuational model). This theory claims that the evolution of speciesconsists of a pattern of long periods of static equilibrium without signicant variationfollowed by periods with high levels of genetic mutations that produce modications(Gould 1997).

Neutrality. Neutrality is a scientic evolutionary concept proposed by the Japanese genet-icist Kimura in 1968. Adherents of the concept of neutrality argue that the variations thatappear throughout generations occur too rapidly to be explained by natural selection.Thus, most observed modications are selectively neutral, and most substitutions andpolymorphisms occur due to the xation of selectively neutral varieties through geneticdrift (Futuyma 1997). Despite disagreements between selectionists and neutralists in the1970s and the 1990s, most contemporary scientists do not adopt only one point of view.Currently, most scientists accept that both neutral modications and modications withadaptive value exist.

Selsh gene. This historical revision is guided by the work of Mayr (1982, 1991) who,like other authors, has adopted the traditional adaptationist view. According to Gardnerand Welch (2011), adaptation is a property of individual organisms. Adaptation worksthrough natural selection to maximise an organisms tness. Dawkins has proposed analternative to this view of adaptation that relies on the idea of evolution. Dawkinss self-ish gene concept claims that adaptation is properly located at the level of the gene(2011). According to the selsh gene idea, the gene is the fundamental unit of evolution,whereas individuals are only war machines or gene survival machines (Dawkins 1976).Therefore, over hundreds of thousands of years, natural selection acted by selecting geneswith greater replication capacities.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

Although the construction of scientic knowledge regarding the processes involved inbiological evolution is broader and more complex than the historical review presentedhere, this study identied the major theories and current knowledge of evolution to deter-mine concepts related to the data collected from participating teachers.

Data and Results

Because this study sought to identify concepts about the origins of biological diversity ina sample of teachers and to compare them to concepts found throughout history, the his-torical review presented above was used to establish categories for the analysis. Each his-torical period was adopted as a category, with the related concepts forming subcategories.Therefore, the teachers conceptions were classied in terms of the following categories

and subcategories:

Category A: origin without evolutionSubcategories: Fixism (A1); nalism (A2); essentialism (A3); typology (A4); creation-

ism (A5); spontaneous generation (A6).

Category B: pre-Darwinian evolutionSubcategories: Adaptation to the environment (B1); verticality (B2); use and disuse

(B3); inheritance of acquired traits (B4).

Category C: post-Darwinian evolutionSubcategories: Transformism (C1); natural selection (C2); gradualism (C3); common

descent (C4); genetic variation (C5); punctuated equilibrium (C6); neutrality (C7); selshgene (C8).It should be noted that categorising the teachers responses required coders to acknowl-

edge the contradictions and dualities inherent in human thought (Bardin 1977). As aresult, a teachers response could be simultaneously assigned to two or more categories.Teachers responses that exemplied the different categories and the frequency of the

different types of responses are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3. In presenting the dialoguebetween the interviewer and a teacher, the former is designated by the letter I and the lat-ter by the letter T.In Table 1, the responses of 11 of the teachers (T1; T2; T3; T8; T9; T11; T12; T13;

T18; T19; T20) were classied in Category A (origin without evolution). The responsesof some of these teachers were classied in more than one subcategory within CategoryA because teachers responses often exhibited contradictions and dualities that simulta-neously reected two or more categories and subcategories.Teachers responses were related to theoretical concepts of the period in four of the six

categories presented in Table 1.The xist conception (subcategory A1) appeared in the responses of one participating

teacher. In the example in Table 1, this individual stated that a superior being had createdall existing living beings and, although some of these creatures had disappeared, thesurviving creatures had never changed. Creationist ideas were also observed (see below).The nalist conception (subcategory A2) appeared in two teachers responses. One tea-

cher (T20) in this subcategory stated that modications of living beings served a divine


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

purpose and that evolution had a nal goal determined by a superior being.This statement also exhibits the creationist concept. The other teacher (T11) in thissubcategory expressed the idea that the goal of the constant modications experienced by

Table 1. Teachers responses that exemplify Category A (Origin without Evolution) and the number ofteachers for each subcategory

Category SubcategoryNumber ofteachers Examples of responses

A: OriginwithoutEvolution

A1 (Fixism) 1 (T3) T3: (...) I believe that God created allspecies. .. some persisted, right, andothers disappeared. .. .

A2 (Finalism) 2 (T11, T20) I: Many people believe that life was createdor that it is a gift from God. What is youropinion on this matter?T20: Yeah. .. evolutionism is undeniable.Now, evolution tends to kill creationism.Yeah. .. how do things occur without ahigher power? Life on Earth needs aconductor. There is a conductor, someonedictating where things go.I: And how do you think life on Earthappeared?T11: I think life appeared precisely fromthis, bacteria, cells that developedthemselves, until everything. .. untileverything at last became what we seetoday.

A3 (Essentialism) 0 Not mentioned.A4 (Typology) 3 (T2, T3, T18) I: Do you think that God created men and

all the other living beings?T2: Yes, from a common ancestor, in thatsame species, for instance, He could havecreated a dog, and then have modied itfrom then on. A man could have beenmodied from that, like only one manwas created, and then races came up, likein dogs.

A5 (Creationism) 9 (T1, T2, T3, T8,T9, T12, T13,T18, T19)

I: How do you think life appeared on Earth?T2: Even though I am a biologist, bycreation.T3: I believe that God created all species. ... some persisted, right, and othersdisappeared. .. .T18: I think life is a gift from God. Its thatnature. .. . God allowed us to evolve. Godcreated and we evolved.

A6 (SpontaneousGeneration)

0 Not mentioned.

Note: It should be noted that the statements presented are only examples of responses, and other evidencesupported the assignment of interview responses into this category and into a particular subcategory.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

life forms in the past was to achieve the shapes and forms that can currently be observed.This statement exhibits the concept of nality, because the teacher used a Portugueseterm (nally) that describes an achieved goal rather than conveying continuity ormomentum.Neither the essentialist (subcategory A3) nor the spontaneous generation (subcategory

A6) concepts appeared in any teachers responses.The typological concept (subcategory A4) was observed in the responses of three

teachers. The example presented in Table 1 expresses the concept of creationism in addi-tion to typology. This combination of concepts was found in the three responses thatreected this subcategory.Creationism (subcategory A5) was one of the most frequent subcategories found; nine

teachers expressed this concept. The responses of three teachers (T2, T3 and T18) exem-plied this subcategory and expressed the idea that living beings arose due to the inter-vention of a superior being.Table 2 presents concepts in Category B (pre-Darwinian evolution), which included

theories that reected the beginning of biological thought about organisms development.These concepts were expressed by only ve of the teachers (T3; T4; T7; T9; T16). Noneof the participating teachers mentioned the concepts of use and disuse (subcategory B3)or the inheritance of acquired traits (subcategory B4).

Table 2. Examples from teachers statements that exemplify Category B (pre-Darwinian evolution) andthe number of teachers for each subcategory

Category SubcategoryNumber ofresponses Examples of responses

B: Pre-DarwinianEvolution

B1 (Adaptation tothe Environment)

3 (T3, T9,T16)

I: In your opinion, what is thedifference between a living and anonliving being?T16: What do I think? I think theircapacity to modify and evolve,adapting to the environment.

B2 (Verticality) 2 (T4, T7) I: How do you think life appeared onEarth?T7: It (the Earth) comes from wayback .. . rst of all its organismswere developing into other livingbeings until larger beings wereformed and then they became whatwe are today by evolving during allthese years.

B3 (Use andDisuse)

0 Not mentioned.

B4 (Inheritance ofAcquired Traits)

0 Not mentioned.

Note: It should be noted that the statements presented are only examples of responses, and otherevidence supported the assignment of interview responses into this category and into a particularsubcategory.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

Table

3.Examples

from

teachersstatem

entsthat

exem

plifyCategoryC(post-Darwinianevolution)

andthenumberof

teachers

foreach

subcategory

Category

Subcategory

Num

berof

responses

Examples

ofresponses

C:Post-Darwinian

Evolution

C1(Transformism)

3(T10,T15,

T16)

T15:Evolution

lines

arenot

theonly

ones,they

pointto

everydirection,the

mostcurrentlycorrectsituation....itiscontextual.

C2(NaturalSelection)

3(T10,T14,

T15)

T10:Although

eukaryoticandprokaryoticorganismsexistitisnot

possible

tothinkthat

a...a...how

canIputit?an

evolution

incomplexity

ofthe

eukaryoticcellhappened,buttheeukaryoticandtheprokaryoticcells

areas

much

evolved,because

bothexisttoday

onplanet

Earth,so

prokaryota

and

eukaryota

areresultsof

evolution,how

ever

prokaryotics

survived

also

because

they

arewelladaptedto

thisday....

C3(G

radualism)

6(T4,

T7,

T10,

T11,T14,T15)

I:How

doyouthinklifeappeared

onEarth?

T15:Ibelieve

that

lifecamefrom

asingle,primordialorganization,a

chem

ical

organizationthat

was

puttogether

littlebylittleandthen

itform

edtherstcells,then

camethenuclei,andthen

cametheprokaryoticand

eukaryoticcells,then

thisquestio

nisplaced

inbiology.

C4(Com

mon

Descent)

4(T10,T15,

T16,T17)

I:And

how

doyouthinklifeon

Earth

appeared?

T16:Ibelieve

inthehypothesisof

theBig

Bang,

afterthat

thecoacervate,that

aprimitivelifeform

could

havebeenableto

evolve

andtransform

itselfinto

severaldifferentorganisms,that

iswhatIbelieve,until

proven

otherw

ise.

C5(G

eneticVariation)

0Not

mentio

ned.

C6(Punctuated

Equilibrium)

0Not

mentio

ned.

C7(Neutrality)

0Not

mentio

ned.

C8(Selsh

Gene)

1(T14)

I:How

doyouthinklifeappeared

onearth?

T14:Ah...with

constant

changes.The

mainprocessconsistedin

larger

molecules

trying

toreplicateandthen

comingtogether,comingtogether,form

edtherst

organism

,which

joined

others

...Ithinkthepurposeof

those,thoseorganism

s,thosemolecules

was

toreplicate,so

thattoday

thereareresearcherswhocall

livingbeings

asmachines

ofwar,war

machines

controlledbygenes,

includingtheselsh

gene,whichwewould

then

bemereinstrumentsof

the

will

ofgenes,thosemoleculeswiththat

desireto

replicatethem

selves.Thus,

lifeappearswith

constant

changesin

thosemolecules.

Note:

Itshould

benotedthat

thestatem

ents

presentedareonly

exam

ples

ofresponses,andotherevidence

supportedtheassignmentof

interview

responses

into

thiscategory

andinto

aparticular

subcategory.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

The concept of adaptation to the environment (subcategory B1) was observed in threeteachers responses. The teachers response presented in Table 2 expressed the idea thatlife forms underwent modication to adapt to the environment in which they lived. Thoseadaptations would be the result of interactions between living beings and environmentalfactors, including water, light and temperature, among others.The idea of verticality (subcategory B2) was also found in the responses of two teach-

ers. The response of one teacher (T7), which exemplied this subcategory, expressed theidea that evolution led to an increase in size (ie an increase in complexity).Table 3 presents concepts in Category C (post-Darwinian evolution), which repre-

sents concepts currently accepted by the scientic community. Of the teachers, eight(T4; T7; T10; T11; T14; T15; T16; T17) expressed concepts that were classied in thiscategory. However, none of the participating teachers mentioned the concepts of geneticvariation (subcategory C5), punctuated equilibrium (subcategory C6) or neutrality(subcategory C7).The concept of transformism (subcategory C1) was expressed in three responses. The

teachers response presented in Table 3, as well as other teachers responses that wereincluded in this subcategory, expressed the idea that environmental modications led tonatural selection of individuals, which altered the species. The responses of two teachers(T10 and T15) in this subcategory were also classied as subcategory C2natural selec-tion.The concept of natural selection (subcategory C2) was expressed in three teachers

statements. Although the teachers response presented in Table 3 was not completelyorganised, it expressed a basic, clear and precise knowledge of the currently accepted the-ory of evolution. This is signicant because this theory is a component of the paradigmof modern biology.The concept of gradualism (subcategory C3) was expressed by six of the participants.

The teachers response presented in Table 3 indicates that the appearance of new speciesis gradual rather than sudden.The idea of common descent (subcategory C4) was found in four teachers responses.

As the example in Table 3 indicates, the responses that constituted this subcategoryexpressed the idea that living beings originated from a single common ancestor.Finally, the concept of the selsh gene (subcategory C8) was identied in the response of

only one teacher. Table 3 shows that the teacher had knowledge of this subject. Some stud-ies indicate that, in Brazil, elementary school teachers base their classes almost exclusivelyon textbooks (Gayn and Garca, 1997; Nez et al. 2003; Xavier, Freire, and Moraes2006). In addition, studies have shown that the evolution-related content of such textbookshas changed little since the 1970s (Megid Neto and Fracalanza 2003; Bellini 2006). Thesetextbooks refer only to the assumptions of Lamarck, Darwin and Neo-Darwinism. In addi-tion to containing frequent conceptual errors, most of the textbooks used in Brazil do notdiscuss any of the theories that appeared after Neo-Darwinism. Therefore, it seems signi-cant that one teacher expressed ideas related to the selsh gene theory.Figures 1 and 2 summarise the data. Figure 1 presents the number of teachers in each

category, which makes it possible to assess conicting responses in Categories A and Cbecause, historically, the concepts in Category A are not consistent with the concepts inCategory C that explain how changes in organisms increase biological diversity. Figure 2


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

presents the number of teachers in each subcategory. Figure 2 reveals that subcategoriesA5 and C3 occurred most frequently in teachers responses.

Discussion and conclusions

According to analysis of the interviews, we emphasise some conclusions regarding howthis sample of biology teachers understood and explained biological evolution based onthe question: what is life?When evaluating teachers evolutionary concepts, we realised that most of the inter-

viewed teachers (16 responses) expressed concepts from Categories A and B that are notcurrently accepted in scientic biology. The most prominent and frequently expressedconcept was creationism, expressed by nine teachers. It should be noted that the study

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Category A Category B Category C

Figure 1. The number of teachers in Category A (origin without evolution), Category B (pre-Darwinianevolution) and Category C (Post-Darwinian Evolution)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

Figure 2. The number of teachers in the different subcategoriesNote: A1 (Fixism), A2 (Finalism), A3 (Essentialism), A4 (Typology), A5 (Creationism), A6 (SpontaneousGeneration), B1 (Adaptation to the Environment), B2 (Verticality), B3 (Use and Disuse), B4 (Inheritanceof Acquired Traits), C1 (Transformism), C2 (Natural Selection), C3 (Gradualism), C4 (Common Descent),C5 (Genetic Variations), C6 (Punctuated Equilibrium), C7 (Neutrality), and C8 (Selsh Gene). It shouldbe noted that classifying teacher responses required us to consider contradictions and dualities in theevidence. A teacher might simultaneously be classied in two or more subcategories


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

did not focus on teachers personal beliefs, because they have the legal right to their ownreligious beliefs; this study investigated this subcategory because responses about evolu-tion are relevant to educational programmes.A teacher of natural sciences must know, comprehend, accept and use scientic knowl-

edge in the classroom, allowing the students to learn the knowledge that sustains scien-tic inquiry. This does not mean that personal values and beliefs should be considered tohave equal value to scientic concepts in a science classroom. In the classroom, the tea-chers role is to motivate the students to know and comprehend scientic concepts and toaccept these concepts as scientically valid. It is the schools role to teach students tounderstand the diverse nature of different types of knowledge and the ability to distin-guish between scientic and non-scientic knowledge.Therefore, one point that should be emphasised in this study and which can contribute

to the teaching of evolution is that teachers creationist concepts affect the explanationsof biological knowledge. This analysis provided no clarity regarding how biological top-ics should be addressed in light of evolutionary theory. This factor will directly affecthow students learn biology, risking introducing conceptual errors and misconceptions.The assessment of teachers conceptions of evolution demonstrated that eight partici-

pants responses expressed current scientically accepted concepts, such as transformism,natural selection, gradualism and common descent. However, the responses of someteachers (T4, T7, T11 and T16) also included statements that combined scientic con-cepts with non-scientic ideas, such as nalism, verticality and adaptation to the environ-ment.Although this sample of teachers held currently accepted ideas, these ideas coexisted

with other non-scientic concepts; namely, several misunderstandings were noted regard-ing scientic concepts. This duality of ideas might cause conceptual distortions in dia-logues between teachers and students or during discussions of other biological concepts.It was encouraging to nd that many teachers (eight) expressed evolutionary concepts

based on recent scientic theories. These statements revealed the extent of teachersknowledge of current concepts of evolution. However, many of the responses combinedscientic concepts with ideas from ancient times and past centuries that are not currentlyaccepted in scientic biology.Some of the subcategories, such as genetic variation, punctuated equilibrium and neu-

trality, were not expressed in any responses. There are two likely explanations for this.First, because the aim of the interview was to explore teachers concepts of biologicallife, the questions did not allow the interviewees to approach the topic in depth. Further-more, punctualism and neutralism are two recent theories in Brazilian undergraduatedegrees, which this sample of teachers might have ignored. We highlighted that one tea-cher provided a response that might be classied in the selsh gene (C8) category, anidea which has recently become widespread in Brazil and is currently heavily debated inacademia.Although teachers understanding of Category C concepts was classied as related to

current concepts of biological evolution, the study ndings indicated that presenting thetheory of evolution remains difcult because the teachers responses did not provide aneffective explanation of evolution, but only reected ideas that were related to knowledgeof this topic.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

The analyses of the understanding of teachers in Category C, although considered closeto the current discussion of biological evolution, showed that the evolutionary theme wasan obstacle to teaching. The teachers ineffectively explained evolutionary themes, andtheir lessons consisted of considerations approaching currently accepted scientic knowl-edge and approximations with unsupported explanations, including creationist ideas.The most important point arising from this studys data was the absence of clarity

regarding biological explanations based on an evolutionary perspective in teachersspeech. This problem may be regarded as an epistemological starting point when organ-ising curricula content for teacher training. Although this study did not directly assessteachers knowledge of the history of science related to evolution, we believe that histori-cal studies might signicantly contribute to the understanding of the nature of scienceand scientic knowledge of evolutionary theory.We believe it is important that teachers fully understand the mechanisms of biological

evolution. The teaching of biology and students learning of evolutionary concepts willbe impaired if teachers comprehension of biology is affected by epistemological difcul-ties regarding the nature of biological knowledge about evolution.It is important to stress that evolution is a central and unifying concept in all areas of

biology, and the appropriate application of this topic can make science less fragmented.In other words, biological evolution constitutes a paradigm in contemporary biology thatcan contribute to a learning process that addresses the complex characteristics of naturalsystems.Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate biology teachers knowledge of

evolution. Evolutionary approaches cannot be discussed in the classroom based onnotions that are contrary to scientic knowledge. Whether teachers misconceptions areintentional or unintentional, they are undesirable, because biology teachers serve as inter-locutors between students and the creation of biological knowledge. The process ofobserving teachers biological thinking and arguments reveals inconsistent conceptswhich may contribute to distorted student concepts.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Fundao de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado deSo Paulo (FAPESP).

References

Bardin, L. 1977. Lanalyse De Contenu. France: PUF.Bellini, L. M. 2006. Avaliao Dos Conceitos De evoluo Nos Livros didticos. Estudos Em Ava-

liao Educacional 17 (33): 728.Caldeira, A. M. A., E. S. N. N. Arajo, and G. S. Carvalho. 2011. Brazilian Teachers Conceptions

about Creationism and Evolution. In Authenticity in Biology Education: Benets and Challenges.A selection of papers presented at the 8th Conference of European Researchers in Didactics ofBiology (ERIDOB), edited by A. Yarden and G. S. Carvalho. Braga, Portugal.

Cerqueira, A. V. 2009. Representaes Sociais De Dois Grupos De Professores De Biologia Sobre OEnsino De Origem Da Vida E Evoluo Biolgica: Aspiraes, Ambiguidades E Demandas


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

Prossionais. Dissertao (Mestrado em Educao em Cincias e Sade), Ncleo de TecnologiaEducacional para a Sade, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.

Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species. London: W. Clowes and Sons.Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selsh Gene. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.Eldredge, N., and S. J. Gould. 1972. Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In

Models in Paleobiology, edited by T. J. M. Schopf. New York: Doubleday.El-Hani, C. N., and N. M. V. Bizzo. 2002. Formas De Construtivismo: Mudana Conceitual Econstru-

tivismo Contextual. Ensaio: Pesquisa Em educao Em cincias 4 (1), 14152150. http://www.fae.ufmg.br/ensaio/v4_n1/4113.

Freire-Maia, N. 1997. A Cincia Por Dentro. Petrpolis, RJ: Vozes. 262.Futuyma, D. 1997. Evolutionary Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Gardner, A., and J. J. Welch. 2011. A Formal Theory of the Selsh Gene. Journal of Evolutionary

Biology 24: 18011813.Gayn, E., and P. E. Garca. 1997. Como Escoger Un Libro De Texto? Desarrollo De Un Instrumento

Para Evaluar Los Libros De Texto De Ciencias Experimentales. Enseanza De Las Ciencias,nmero extra, V Congresso, 249250.

Gould, S. J. 1992. The Pandas Thumb: More Reections in Natural History. London: W. W. Norton.Gould, S. J. 1996. Three Facets of Evolution. In How Things Are: A Science Tool-Kit for the Mind, edited

by J. Brockman and K. Matson, 8187. New York: Harper Perennial.Gould, S. J. 1997. Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York: Three

Rivers Press.Gould, S. J. 1999. Non Overlapping Magisteria. Skeptical Inquirer, July/August, 5561.Grene, M., and D. Depew. 2004. The Philosophy of Biology: An Episodic History. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Mayr, E. 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Mayr, E. 1991. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Megid Neto, J., and H. Fracalanza. 2003. O Livro didtico De cincias: Problemas E solues. Cin-

cia & Educao 9 (2): 147157.Meglhioratti, F. A., A. M. A. Caldeira, and J. Bortolozzi. 2006. Recorrncia De Ideia De Progresso Na

histria Do Conceito De evoluo biolgica E Nas concepes De Professores De Biologia: InterfacesEntre produo cientca E Contexto scio-Cultural. Filosoa E Histria Da Biologia 01: 107123.

Meyer, D., and C. N. El-Hani. 2005. Evoluo: O Sentido Da Biologia. So Paulo: Editora Unesp.Mortimer, E. F. 1995. Conceptual Change or Conceptual Prole Change? Science & Education 4 (3):

265287.Nehm, R. H., S. Y. Kim, and K. Sheppard. 2009. Academic Preparation in Biology and Advocacy for

Teaching Evolution: Biology versus Non-Biology Teachers. Science Education 93 (6): 11221146.Nehm, R. H., and I. S. Schonfeld. 2007. Does Increasing Biology Teacher Knowledge of Evolution

and the Nature of Science Lead to Greater Preference for the Teaching of Evolution in Schools?Journal of Science Teacher Education 18: 699723.

Nez, I. B., B. L. Ramalho, I. K. P. Silva, and A. P. N. Campos 2003. A seleo Dos Livros didti-cos: Um Saber necessrio Ao Professor. O Caso Do Ensino De Cincias. Revista IberomericanaDe Educacin, 112.

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Paz-y-Mio-C, G.A. Espinosa. 2012 Educators Prospective Teachers Hesitate to Embrace Evolution due

to Decient Understanding of Science/Evolution and High Religiosity. Evolution: Education andOutreach 5 (1): 139162.

Quessada, M. P., and P. Clment. 2010. The Origins of Humankind: A Survey of School Textbooksand teachers Conceptions in 14 Countries. In ERIDOB 2010 Programme and Abstracts of the8th Conference of European Researchers in Didactics of Biology, 34. Braga, Portugal: Universidadedo Minho.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

Ross, D. 2009. A Metaphysics - Aristotle. Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision.Rudolph, J. L., and J. Stewart. 1998. Evolution and the Nature of Science: On the Historical Discord

and Its Implications for Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35 (10): 10691089.Rutledge, M. L., and M. A. Warden. 2000. Evolutionary Theory, the Nature of Science & High School

Biology Teachers: Critical Relationships. The American Biology Teacher 62 (1): 2331.Smith, M. U. 2010. Current Status of Research in Teaching and Learning Evolution: I. Philosophical/

Epistemological Issues. Science & Education 19: 523538.Vlastos, G. O. 1978. Plato: A Collection of Critical Essays. France: University Of Notre Dame Press.Xavier, M. C. F., A. S. Freire, and M. O. Moraes. 2006. A Nova (Moderna) Biologia E a gentica Nos

Livros didticos De Biologia No Ensino mdio. Cincia & Educao 12 (3): 275289.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [P

aloma

Silva

] at 0

6:26 0

2 Apr

il 201

4

Abstract Introduction Research Issues Methodology Historical Review The First Period: Origin without evolution Fixism Finalism Essentialism Typology Creationism Spontaneous generation

The Second Period: Pre-Darwinian evolution Adaptation to the environment Verticality Use and disuse Inheritance of acquired traits

Third Period: Post-Darwinian evolution Transformism Natural selection Gradualism Common descent Genetic variation Punctuated equilibrium Neutrality Selfish gene

Data and Results Discussion and conclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences

biology teachers’ conceptions of the diversity of life and the historical development of...

Documents