1

1

Teaching Evolution to Nonmajors: Methods for Increasing Understanding

and Acceptance

Susan Fisher

fisher.14@osu.edu

2

An Uphill Climb

•  Surveys of Ohioans reveal: 40% believe in a geocentric universe (1980)

•  AC Neilsen Poll—13% of North Americans have

NEVER heard of global warming •  40% of Americans don’t know what DNA is

2006 National Geographic Poll on Acceptance of Evolution by Country

3

Why are Americans so resistant to evolution?

•  Western European nations accept evolution at rate of about 80%

•  Only country in study that ranked lower than US was Turkey

•  Americans resistant because of unique confluence of religion, politics, public (mis)understanding of science

4

Evidence of these problems abound

•  “Evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are lies straight from the pit of hell meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.”

•  Georgia Rep. Paul Broun

5

And Still More….

•  “I’m not a scientist, man,” •  “ I think there are multiple

theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries. “

6

2

7

In Biology Class, things are dire….

• 50-60% of Biology 101 students believe they are the direct descendents of Adam and Eve who lived in the Garden of Eden 4,000-6,000 years ago

• Dinosaurs and humans co-existed • The Creationism Museum teaches that T. rex used to be a vegetarian

8

Low levels of evolutionary knowledge and high levels of misconceptions are ubiquitous

(Ross Nehm)

–  General public (e.g., Brooks, 2001; Newport, 2004);

–  High school students (e.g., Deadman and Kelly, 1978; Clough and Wood-Robinson, 1985; Demastes et al., 1995; Stallings, 1996);

–  Undergraduate students (e.g., Bishop and Anderson, 1990);

–  Undergraduate biology majors (e.g., Grose and Simpson, 1982; Dagher and BouJaoude, 1997, Nehm and Reilly 2007);

–  Science teachers (e.g., Pankratius, 1993; Affanato, 1986; Zimmerman, 1987; Tatina, 1989; Osif, 1997; Nehm, 2005; Nehm and Shoenfeld, in press).

–  Medical students (e.g., Brumby, 1984);

Increasing education

9

Persistent Misconceptions about Evolution: Nature of Science

•  Evolution can’t be proven •  Evolution can’t be refuted by observation •  Evolution can’t be true because no one was there to

observe it •  Evolution is just a theory

10

Persistent Misconceptions about Evolution: Evolutionary Theory

•  Chance cannot produce complex traits •  No fossil forms between apes and humans •  Mutations are harmful •  Dinosaurs and humans co-existed •  Organisms become more complex

11

Persistent Misconceptions about Evolution: Natural Selection

•  Use & disuse explain appearance & disappearance of traits

•  Traits/mutations appear when needed •  Change is caused by the environment

12

Understanding evolution is important

•  Genomics, disease models, Darwinian medicine •  Pharmacogenomics, antibiotic resistance •  Conservation biology, invasive species •  Oil and gas exploration •  Forensics, paternity testing •  Agriculture, GM foods, selective breeding

3

13

Why Bother?

•  Biology 101 students won’t be scientists •  But they will become teachers, policy makers and

voters—and there’s a lot of them •  Students need to be able to evaluate differing claims

about how the world works •  Training our students to a model rejected in the 19th

century won’t increase competitiveness in the 21st •  Even having an intelligent conversation is difficult in

polarized climate

14

Study Goals

•  We did research on Biology 101 students

•  Teach students to have rational, nuanced discussions about complex issue without vitriol, animosity or recrimination

•  Broaden students understanding of evolution and acceptance as a biologically valid explanation

15

Research Questions--2006

•  Do student attitudes about the theory of evolution change after they have experienced a suite of instructional strategies designed to increase their understanding of evolution (1. revised lecture on Darwin, 2. expert panel discussion on whether science and religion can be reconciled, 3. group discussion about evolution and society.

•  Do students think that the individual methods in the suite are well designed and effective?

16

Study Setting

•  Large midwestern university

•  Nonmajor GEC course

•  Large lecture taught by faculty - over 600 students

•  Inquiry labs taught by GTAs

17

Biology 101 Demographics n

Characteristic 2006 2007 Female 351 304 Male 326 331

Non-Resident Alien 10 African American 49 45 American Indian/Alaskan Native 4 3 Asian/Pacific Islander 29 26 Hispanic 18 15 White 544 518 Race/Ethnicity Unknown 23 28

Rank 1 179 132 Rank 2 304 316 Rank 3 137 134 Rank 4 54 53 Rank S (Special) 3

18

Student Majors in Biology 101

Agricultural Technical Institute 1 17 Allied Medical Professions 6 10 Architecture 28 Arts and Science 26 19 Biological Sciences 11 2 Business 168 197 Communication 41 Continuing Education 1 Dental Hygiene 7 Education and Human Ecology 53 55 Engineering 8 3 Environment and Natural Resources 1 1 Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences 17 Humanities 40 48 Mathematical and Physical Sciences 4 10 Music 4 9 Nursing 48 42 Office of Academic Affairs 1 Pharmacy 2 Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 120 Social Work 6 8 The Arts 41 Undergraduate Student Academic Services 98

4

19

Overview of Teaching Strategies

Strategy I –a revised lecture on Darwin

•  His history

•  His influences (Paley, Lyell, Malthus)

•  Genesis of Natural Selection

•  Reaction in Darwin’s time and now

•  Creationism including Intelligent Design, Theism, Deism, Atheism

Evolution vs. Creationism Continuum

•  From Scott 2000 •  Intelligent design spans both young & old earth perspectives

•  Lots of IDers accept large parts of evolution

•  Variation in degree of biblical literacy

•  More than two choices •  It’s a continuum not a

dichotomy

20

21

Rationale for this Teaching Strategy

•  Historical context is important •  Darwin as human being vs. antichrist •  Natural selection settled science

•  Natural selection and the modern synthesis

•  Increase understanding of nature of science

22

Strategy II: a Constellation of Scholars

•  2006--Four scholars working at the nexus of science & religion

•  Panel Discussion •  Scholarly Lectures •  Written Assignment •  Streaming of Panel •  Broadcast on WOSU-TV •  Video archived on library website

Year Two Panelist:

•  Francis Collins

23

Panelists from 2008-2012

•  2008—Connie  Bertka,  Carol  Anelli  and  Joan  Roughgarden,  panelists  

•                           David  Brancaccio,  moderator    

•  2009—Franciso  Ayala,  Eugenie  ScoG  and  Denis  Lamoureux,  panelists  

•                           Neal  Conan,  moderator    

•  2010—Andrew  Newberg,    panelist  

•                         Neal  Conan,  moderator    

•  2011—Nicholas  Wade,  Lionel  Tiger,  panelists  

•                           Neal  Conan,  moderator    

•  2012—Michael  Shermer,    Karl  Giberson,  panelists  

•                         Neal  Conan,  moderator  

24

5

Lectures Given By Panelists

•  God after Darwin: can Faith and Evolution be Reconciled? Lecture by John Haught (2006)

•  A Brief History of the Evolution Teaching Controversy from Dayton, TN to Dover, PA. Lecture by Ed Larson (2006).

•  The Language of God-A scientist presents evidence for belief by Francis Collins (2007)

•  Our Constitution’s Intelligent Design by Federal Judge John Jones (2008)

•  The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer (2012)

25 26

Rationale for Strategy

•  Students think they have only 2 choices

•  Expose students to views of important scholars

•  Give students permission to hold religious and scientific views

27

Strategy III

•  WOSU-TV, Facilitated Discussion with the Council on Public Deliberation

•  3 perspectives: students discuss pro and con •  Perspectives: 1) If biology departments believe that the theory of evolution is

central, it should be covered in introductory courses; 2) Since there is a public controversy, both sides should be

taught; 3) Students who object to evolution should be given alternative

work.

In 2005 and 2006….

•  Students were given materials to read in advance of the discussion

•  In later years, we used the NOVA video Intelligent Design on Trial for this purpose

28

29

Rationale for Strategy

•  Discover what students, themselves, think

•  Probe how malleable their thinking is.

•  Gain experience in having civil discourse

30

Data Collection Methods

•  Measurement of Attitudes about the Theory of Evolution (MATE) - Pre and Post-test

•  Group Discussion Observations and Document Analysis

•  Student Evaluations of Each Strategy

•  Concept test questions on hourly exams and final

6

31

Preliminary Results

•  Feedback on Panel Discussion

•  Statistical analysis of MATE

•  Statistical Analysis of Student Assessment of Strategies

32

Panel Discussion Observations

•  Students were very reticent about asking questions •  Some students seemed to engage issue, some

merely tolerated it •  Student papers of variable quality •  Most Students could identify extremes •  Degree of reconciliation varied

33

CPD Discussion Observations

•  Students don’t understand the terms science, hypothesis , theory, falsifiable, testable

•  A large percentage of students have compartmentalized evolution and religion—especially those who self-identify as Catholic (NOMA)

•  When NOVA video on the Dover controversy used, many student comments about constitutional issues

•  When students are forced to let science and religion occupy the same space, which one wins?

•  Should we force students to confront this? •  Tone of comments was uniformly productive and respectful

even when students strongly disagreed

34

Table 1. Comparison of the student responses on the MATE pre and post tests

2006 Pre-test MATE ave.= 74.1 (n=150) Post-test MATE ave= 77.7 2007 Pre-test MATE ave.= 73.2 (n=305) Post-test MATE ave.= 77.9 Mate scores below 65= low acceptance of evolution MATE scores of 65-75=moderate acceptance of evolution MATE scores of > 75=high acceptance of evolution

35

Student Evaluation of Intervention Strategies

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

The

subj

ect m

atte

rof

this

activ

ity w

aswe

ll org

anize

d.

The

activ

ity w

asin

telle

ctua

llyst

imul

atin

g.

The

activ

ityen

cour

ages

stud

ents

to th

ink

for t

hem

selve

s.

I lea

rned

a g

reat

deal

from

this

activ

ity.

The

inst

ruct

or/fa

cilita

tor

crea

ted

anat

mos

pher

eco

nduc

ive to

lear

ning

.

The

activ

ityco

mm

unic

ated

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g ev

olut

ion

and

the

natu

re o

fsc

ienc

e cl

early

.

Evaluation questions

Aver

age

scor

e

LecturePanel DiscussionFacilitated Discussiona

a

a

b b b

b c

c

36

Discussion Questions

•  How can we be sure a particular strategy was effective?

•  Were changes on MATE significant?

7

Critique of MATE Results

•  Not a controlled experiment •  No follow up to determine if change is

long term •  Did fundamentalist/evangelical students

opt out? •  Did students give expected answer

rather than the answer that reflected true beliefs?

37

The Good News is that ….

•  It is possible to make measurable changes in student acceptance and understanding of evolution

•  A suite of techniques are available •  We can move the needle •  “From so simple a beginning…”

38

39

A Marketing Campaign for Evolution?