University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A comparative study of American, Australian, British, and Canadian museum visitors' understanding of the nature of evolutionary theory

(USC Thesis Other)

A comparative study of American, Australian, British, and Canadian museum visitors' understanding of the nature of evolutionary theory

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
®
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF AMERICAN, AUSTRALIAN,
BRITISH, AND CANADIAN MUSEUM VISITORS’
UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
by
Linda M. Abraham-Silver
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2005
Copyright 2005 Linda M. Abraham-Silver
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3196769
Copyright 2005 by
Abraham-Silver, Linda M.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3196769
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
For my husband, Brad Silver, and our children, Caroline and B. J., for their love,
support, and encouragement.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My deep appreciation is extended to my dissertation committee members—Dr.
William McComas, Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, Dr. Shrinidhi Iyengar, and Dr. Richard
Clark—for their time, interest, and wisdom.
My professional colleagues from abroad granted access to both their institu
tions and to their staff and made this research study possible: Robert How, Natural
History Museum, London, England; Penny Hamilton, Natural History Museum, Lon
don, England; Lynda Kelley, Australian Museum of Natural History, Sydney, Aus
tralia; Brent Cooke, Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, Canada; and Scott
Mair, Capital Regional District, Victoria, Canada.
I am also grateful to my professional colleagues in America, who initiated and
participated in the original U.S. study and who inspired this one: Dr. Betty Dunckel,
Dr. Bruce McFadden, and Dr. Shari Ellis at the Florida Museum of Natural History in
Gainesville; Dr. Jim Kisiel at California State University, Long Beach; Dr. Lynn
Dierking at the Institute for Learning Innovation, Annapolis, Maryland; Judy Scotch-
moor at the University of California, Berkeley; and Judy Koke at the University of
Colorado at Boulder.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION............................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................ iii
LIST OF TA BLES....................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
Identifying the Problem ........................................................................ 1
Purpose of S tu d y .................................................................................. 3
Research Questions.............................................................................. 5
Methodological Overview................................................................... 5
Assumptions ........................................................................................ 6
Limitations of the Study ...................................................................... 7
Delimitations........................................................................................ 8
Definition of Term s.............................................................................. 9
Amechanistic................................................................................ 9
Creationist .................................................................................... 9
Darwinian...................................................................................... 9
Lamarkian .................................................................................... 9
M isconception.............................................................................. 10
Static Selection.............................................................................. 10
Teleological.................................................................................. 10
Transmutation Evolution A (Mutation Only).............................. 10
Transmutation Evolution B (Hybridization) .............................. 11
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................... 12
Evolution Education in the United States: Historical C ontext 12
Public Views of Evolution in the United S tates.......................... 14
Public Views of Evolution in the Classroom .............................. 16
The Pedagogical and Epistemological Challenges in Teaching
Evolution...................................................................................... 20
Attempts to Develop Effective Teaching Strategies for
Evolution Education...................................................................... 22
Historically Rich Curricula ......................................................... 23
Conceptual Change M odel........................................................... 23
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Combining Approaches: Historically Rich Curriculum,
Conceptual Change, and Problem Solving.................................. 24
Misconceptions About Evolution and the Issue of Language . . . 27
Misconceptions and Naive Explanations About Evolution
and Natural Selection ........................................................... 30
Museum Visitors and the Topic of Evolution............................ 34
Conclusions.......................................................................................... 44
3. RESEARCH M ETH ODOLOG Y........................................................... 47
Research Questions.............................................................................. 47
Nature of the S tu d y ............................... 48
Participant Recruitment............................................................... 48
Instrumentation ............................................................................ 50
Data Collection Protocol ............................................................. 52
Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 58
Validity and Reliability........................................................................ 61
Construct Validity ........................................................................ 61
External Validity .......................................................................... 62
Internal V alidity............................................................................ 63
Reliability...................................................................................... 64
4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS...................................................................... 66
Overview............................................................................................... 66
Survey Analysis.................................................................................... 67
Rejection of Evolutionary Theory by Study Site ....................... 67
Acceptance and Rejection of Evolutionary Theory in
Great B ritain .......................................................................... 68
Acceptance and Rejection of Evolutionary Theory in
Canada .................................................................................. 71
Acceptance and Rejection of Evolutionary Theory in
A ustralia................................................................................ 72
Demographic Data and the Rejection of Evolutionary
Theory.................................................................................... 75
Understanding the Fossil Record: Part I I .................................... 77
Understanding the Sequence of Geologic Time: Part I I I 82
Understanding Natural Selection as the Mechanism on
Which Evolutionary Theory Operates: Part IV ................. 85
Explanatory Frameworks and the Rejection of E volution 86
Explanatory Frameworks and Levels of Education................... 90
5. DISCUSSION............................................................................................... 92
Overview............................................................................................... 92
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Recommendations for Addressing the Issue of Evolution
Education in the United S tates..................................................... 94
The Case for National Science Standards.................................... 95
Implications for Teaching the Nature of Science....................... 96
A Role for Museums and Science Centers ........................................ 98
Recommendations for Further Study and Final Thoughts................ 100
REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................102
APPENDICES................................................................................................................109
A. CODING MANUAL ...................................................................................110
B. VERBAL RECRUITMENT SCRIPT ........................................................139
C. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: PART I (THREE VERSIONS) ..................141
D. CODING CHART .......................................................................................146
E. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ........................................................................ 148
F. POSTER USED IN PART II OF INTERVIEW SURVEY ...................... 153
G. FOSSIL/FOSSIL CASTS USED IN PART II OF INTERVIEW
SURVEY.................................................................................................155
H. FOSSIL WORD CARDS USED IN PART III OF INTERVIEW
SURVEY.................................................................................................157
I. PICTURE CARDS USED IN PART IV OF INTERVIEW
SURVEY.................................................................................................159
J. WORD CARD USED FOR PART IV OF INTERVIEW
SURVEY.................................................................................................161
K. INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT....................................................163
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
1. Overview of Surveys Designed to Assess Public Acceptance of
Evolution and Their Findings (Question: “Human Beings
Developed From an Earlier Species of Animals, True or
False?”) ............................................................................................. 15
2. Overview of Teaching Strategies and Their Effectiveness in
Evolution Education.......................................................................... 26
3. Misconceptions About Evolution Held by University Students .......... 32
4. Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution:
Rej ection Rates by Age ................................................................... 37
5. Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution:
Rejection Rates by S ite..................................................................... 39
6. Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding of Evolution:
Rejection Rates by Education Level................................................. 40
7. Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution:
Explanatory Frameworks for the Mechanics of Evolutionary
Theory ............................................................................................... 41
8. Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution:
Relationship Between Explanatory Frameworks for the
Mechanics of Evolutionary Theory and Education Level (by
Percentage)........................................................................................ 43
9. Overview of Surveys Collected per Non-U.S. S ite ............................... 58
10. Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution:
Non-U.S. Rejection Rates by Site..................................................... 68
11. Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution:
Non-U.S. Rejection Rates by Age and Percentage (N= 118)......... 76
12. Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution:
Non-U.S. Rejection Rates by Education Level and Percentage
(N= 122) .......................................................................................... 77
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13. Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding of the Sequence of
Geologic Time, by Percentage...................................................... 83
14. Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution:
Explanatory Frameworks for the Mechanics of Evolutionary
Theory in Non-U.S. Museums, by Percentage................................ 87
15. Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution:
Relationship Between Explanatory Frameworks for the
Mechanics of Evolutionary Theory and Education Level in
Non-U.S. Museums, by Percentage................................................. 91
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The study was designed to identify the beliefs held by visitors to natural history
museums with respect to evolution and its mechanism. Visitors’ levels of rejection and
acceptance of evolutionary theory, their associated explanatory frameworks, and
understanding of the nature of biological evolution were examined to determine
whether differences existed between populations of museum visitors in the United
States, Australia, Canada, and Great Britain.
Data were collected at three natural history museums located outside of the
United States and compared with existing data from previous studies conducted using
the same methodology in American natural history museums. One hundred sixty-one
museum visitors were interviewed in person in the non-U.S. sites; their interviews
were tape recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed (using primarily chi-square) to
identify similarities, patterns, and relationships among the data sets.
Museum visitors outside of the United States demonstrated much lower levels
of rejection of evolutionary theory when compared with data collected in the U.S.
museums (an overall 2% rate of rejection was observed in the non-U.S. sample, while a
9.5% rejection rate was observed in the American sample). Surprising results included
the finding that non- U.S. individuals held similar levels of naive conceptions with
regard to the nature of evolutionary theory and the sequence of geologic time when
compared with their American counterparts. Less than half of all museum visitors
interviewed outside of the United States were able to describe natural selection, the
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mechanism by which evolution is thought to operate. Study participants showed con
sistent and deeply held tendencies to apply teleological or Lamarkian explanations to
describe the mechanism for evolutionary change. Significant correlations between
participants’ age, their level of education, and their rejection or acceptance of evolution
were not found among the data derived from these non-U.S. samples. A distinction
was identified between individuals who used an event-oriented ontology to describe
the way in which evolution operates and those who utilized an ontology that was more
equilibrium oriented. Participants who ascribed to an event ontology were more likely
to use non-Darwinian explanations for evolution than those who viewed evolution as
more reflective of an equilibrium ontology.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Identifying the Problem
Thirty years ago Dobzhansky (1973) made the statement that “nothing in biol
ogy makes sense except in the light of evolution” (p. 125). This statement has been cor
roborated countless times by scientists and science educators and is echoed in more
recent statements published by numerous national organizations dedicated to supporting
and promoting science education in the United States. The National Academy of Sci
ences (1998) stated that “to teach biology without explaining evolution deprives stu
dents of a powerful concept that brings great order and coherence to our understanding
of life” (p. 3). Moreover, in Science for All Americans, sponsored by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Rutherford and Ahlgren (1990)
affirmed that “the modem concept of evolution provides a unifying principle for under
standing the history of life on Earth, relationships among all living things, and the de
pendence of life on the physical environment” (p. 63). Likewise, educational,
practitioner-based organizations have published statements underscoring the impor
tance of a thorough treatment of evolution in science curricula, as evidenced in state
ments on teaching evolution published by the National Association of Biology Teachers
(NABT; 2004) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA; 2003), both of
which supported the position that evolution is a major unifying concept of science and
should be included as part of the kindergarten-college science frameworks and
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
curricula. The NSTA (1997) stated that “if evolution is not taught, students will not
achieve the level of scientific literacy they need” (p. 1). The NABT has pointed out that
explanations or ways of knowing that invoke non-naturalistic or supernatural events are
outside the realm of science and are not part of a valid science curriculum. Yet, in spite
of the widespread acceptance of evolutionary theory by the global scientific community
and in the face of overwhelming evidence, the public debate about if and how evolution
should be taught has remained the single most contentious issue in science education in
the United States over the past century.
Research studies completed and published by the National Science Foundation
(NSF; 2003) and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE; 1999) have shown
that close to a majority of Americans reject biological evolution as an explanation for
change over time, and similar Gallup polls have indicated that the rate at which Ameri
cans reject evolutionary theory has been extremely consistent over the past 2 decades
(Brooks, 2001). Gallup polls have also revealed that only a third of Americans agree
with the statement that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is well supported by evi
dence (Brooks). Further studies have demonstrated that even among the population that
accepts evolution, deep-seated misconceptions about the theory—in particular about the
mechanism of natural selection— prevent a majority of Americans from fully under
standing this principle so central to biological science (Demastes, Good, Sundberg, &
Dini, 1992; Smith, 1994; Sundberg, 2003).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Purpose of Study
For well over 100 years, natural history museums have existed as a cornerstone
for research in biological evolution. For almost as many years, these institutions have
made it a part of their mission to educate the American populace about the natural sci
ences including evolution by exhibiting objects such as fossils—the tangible evidence
of evolution—and by developing accompanying educational programs for teachers,
students, and families. In an effort to better understand how museum visitors, as a
subset of the American population, compare with the general public in their concep
tions, assumptions, and acceptance levels of evolutionary theory, a consortium of U.S.-
based natural history museums forged a partnership probe this issue. Participating in
stitutions included the Florida Natural History Museum located in Gainesville, Florida;
the Denver Museum of Nature and Science; the Natural History Museum at the Univer
sity of Kansas, located in Lawrence, Kansas; the Smithsonian Institution’s Natural
History Museum, located in Washington, D.C.; the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County; and the George C. Page Museum of La Brea Discoveries (La Brea
Tarpits), also located in Los Angeles, California. The goal of this collaborative effort
was, first, to understand whether museum visitors rejected evolution at a rate consistent
with that of the general American population and, second, to ascertain whether museum
visitors held identifiable misconceptions about evolutionary theory, as well as the rate at
which these misconceptions existed (Dunckel & McFadden, 2001). It was hoped that
by better understanding visitors’ attitudes about and understanding of evolution,
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
museums would be better positioned to develop exhibitions and education programs
that would be more effective for teaching the theory of evolution.
The museum study shed some light on connections between rejection levels of
evolutionary theory and the naive conceptions that museum visitors held about evolu
tion. However, given the unique nature of American attitudes about evolutionary
theory, the researchers felt that replicating the study in countries whose populations
reported higher acceptance rates of evolutionary theory might provide a deeper under
standing of how rejection rates were or were not influenced by an individual’s knowl
edge base. By comparing the overall rejection and misconception levels from U.S.-
derived data sets with the levels of rejection rates and misconception levels recorded in
the selected non-U.S. sites, researchers hoped to draw conclusions about whether a
correlation existed between understanding levels and rejection levels of evolution
theory and natural selection. A broader understanding of how Americans’ misconcep
tions about evolution differ from or resemble the misconceptions held by individuals in
other Western countries and whether these are relatable to rejection levels might help to
inform American public policy with regard to national efforts to enhance science educa
tion, to influence curriculum standards, or generally to stimulate the national dialogue
about evolution education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Questions
The following research questions were utilized in the present study:
1. What is the relationship between the evolution rejection rates for American
visitors to natural history museums and Canadian, British, and Australian visitors to
natural history museums?
2. What misconceptions regarding evolution and natural selection are held by
visitors to natural history museums in Canada, England, and Australia; and how do
these misconceptions compare to those held by their American counterparts?
3. How do the misconceptions held by these groups vary in type and
frequency?
4. Do certain types of misconceptions correlate more strongly with rejection
rates?
Methodological Overview
This research project was a replication of a study conducted in the United States
between the spring and fall o f2003; it utilized both qualitative and quantitative metho
dologies. A survey instrument was developed to capture demographic data about
museum visitors, including levels of education, museum going habits, age, ethnicity,
and gender. Qualitative data, including individuals’ explanations of fossils, the fossil
record, biological change over time, and the sequencing of evolutionary events, were
collected via in-person interviews. The study was conducted at three separate non-U.S.
locations: the Natural History Museum in London, England; the Australian Museum of
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Natural History located in Sydney; and the Royal British Columbia Museum located in
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Adult visitors were selected at random to partici
pate in oral interviews, and their responses to the survey questions were recorded on
audio tapes and transcribed. Efforts were made to ensure equitable representation
across age ranges, as well as to account for a balanced representation with regard to
males and female respondents. Only adults aged 18 or older were invited to participate
in the study. Transcripts of all interviews were coded and tabulated as common themes
emerged. Frequencies were calculated to identify which misconception categories were
reported most frequently. Statistical analysis, primarily chi-square, was used to identify
possible relationships between misconceptions, reported rejection or acceptance of
evolutionary theory, and demographic data (e.g., age and education level). All data
analysis for the project was handled in the same manner as the data collected for the
U.S. study. The same scoring rubric was utilized, and the researchers who coded the
U.S. data were also used to code the non-U.S. data. All interviews were conducted in
English.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for this study:
1. The researcher assumed that the data collected in the original U.S. study
were representative of the greater American natural history museum-going public and
would therefore be useful in informing museum exhibition design.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. The researcher assumed that individual respondents would respond honestly
to all aspects of the survey, including demographic questions and questions about per
sonal beliefs regarding evolution.
3. The researcher assumed that data sets collected in the non-U. S. sites were
representative of the greater Australian, British, and Canadian natural history museum-
going public.
Limitations of the Study
The setting and institutional policies of the selected study sites presented certain
limitations on the internal validity of the study:
1. The researcher was limited to interviewing respondents during either the
summer or fall months of the year. Seasonality may impact museum visitation; there
fore, the respondents interviewed might not have reflected the year-round visitation
demographics.
2. Each museum site set its own admissions policies. The Royal British Co
lumbia Museum and the Australian Museum of Natural History require visitors to
purchase admission tickets for entry. The Natural History Museum in London has
recently eliminated all admissions fees. The presence or absence of admission fees
might have impacted visitation patterns, as well as the general demographic nature of
visitors.
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. Each of the three museum sites is located in large urban cities. Therefore,
the results might not be applicable to natural history museums located in smaller cities
or in more rural areas.
Delimitations
There are limits to the external validity and generalizability of this study:
1. This investigation examined visitors to natural history museums and their
knowledge and acceptance levels of evolutionary theory. The findings might not be
applicable to the nonmuseum-going public.
2. Individuals who choose not to visit natural history museums may have
similar or dissimilar explanatory frameworks for evolution and natural selection; thus,
the study’s findings might not be applicable to broader populations.
3. The study targeted populations in countries with cultures that are Western in
orientation. The findings may or may not hold true for populations that are non-West
ern in character, and they may not be generalizable to populations in countries without
the Judeo-Christian histories shared by those sites represented in this study.
4. It is important to recognize that limits relative to the setting itself exist. This
investigation was carried out exclusively in natural history museums. The findings may
not be generalizable to other types of museum settings. For example, the data relative
to natural history museum visitors may or may not be useful to planetariums, botanical
gardens, or zoos interested in creating exhibitions about evolution. Further investiga
tion to determine the similarity or dissimilarity between visitor demographics would be
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
necessary to determine whether a museum without a natural history focus could usefully
apply the findings.
Definition o f Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Amechanistic
An explanation for evolution which holds that species change, but no mecha
nism is specified in the explanation.
Creationist
A religious belief that relies on a literal interpretation of the bible and holds that
every living species was created by God.
Darwinian
An explanation for evolution that includes the idea that natural selection is the
mechanism that produces change over time and accounts for the biodiversity present on
Earth today.
Lamarkian
An understanding of evolution that includes the notion that there is a “tendency
to progression” or an automatic process by which all living things become more com
plex. This explanation includes the notion that living things “need” to fit into their en
vironment and that as individual life forms try to fit in, their individual efforts produce a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
bodily change. Often this is followed by the notion that these identified acquired char
acteristics are passed along to offspring.
Misconception
A belief or set of beliefs that differ from accepted scientific understanding. Mis
conceptions are also sometimes referred to as naive conceptions in the body of this
study.
Static Selection
An explanation for evolution that acknowledges that a range of variation exists
at the outset; the individuals (species) at one end of the range die off, leaving only indi
viduals at the other end and ignores gradual development of the trait.
Teleological
An explanation for evolution that includes the notion that there is a goal—either
natural or, in some cases, theistically designed—to the evolutionary process. This ex
planation includes the idea that more highly evolved life forms exist at higher levels in a
hierarchy of living organisms.
Transmutation Evolution A (Mutation Only)
The belief that species change through a sudden mutation in one individual that
spreads through reproduction and eventually characterizes the entire population.
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Transmutation Evolution B (Hybridization)
The belief that either species change occurs when one species mates with an
other or species change occurs when superior individuals mate with each other and
produce superior descendants.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Evolution Education in the United States:
Historical Context
As a foundation for this study, it is important to examine the American phenom
enon of the common rejection of evolutionary theory as a national issue, and it is criti
cally important to understand that anti-evolution sentiment and the concern about
evolution theory and its place within the public school curriculum are issues that histori
cally do seem to be uniquely American. As a country, the United States stands out
among other developed nations for its low acceptance rates of evolution. Most polls
have indicated that less than half of all Americans accept evolution, while comparative
polls place the acceptance levels of evolution among Europeans at around 80% (Brooks,
2001; Miller, 1987). Examining why this is so is central to addressing the issue. Scott
(2000) of the NCSE, a nonprofit organization that works to improve science and evolu
tion education and to keep tabs on anti-evolution movements around the United States,
suggested that the low acceptance levels of evolution reported among Americans reflect
the “unique settlement and religious history” (p. 815) of the United States. Scott identi
fied three key factors that have contributed to America’s state of affairs with regard to
evolution education:
1. America’s system of formal education is decentralized. As a country, the
United States does not adhere to one central national curriculum or school system.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scott asserted that this situation allows for great independence at the local school level.
One need only look at several schools within a single school district to observe that the
same respondents are not necessarily covered in the same proportion, in the same order,
or even at the same grade level across neighboring schools. The development of the
American school system might be viewed as a product of America’s pioneering history.
As the nation developed and as frontier communities set up their own school systems,
national interests made way for local interests, allowing for the decentralized education
system that exists in the United States today. As local schools and school districts enjoy
a fair degree of power and flexibility, they are able to greatly influence curricular deci
sions.
2. America does not have a national religion. Religion in the United States is
decentralized and shares a history similar to that of U.S. education system. Congrega
tional, rather than hierarchical, religious systems are the hallmark of religion in Amer
ica; religiously affiliated groups are accustomed to greater local control and input in
decision making in their communities than their western European counterparts.
3. Between 1915 and 1920, America experienced a surge of Christian funda
mentalism that has endured in the United States but was never successfully exported to
Europe. Often referred to as the awakening of Protestant Fundamentalism, this move
ment advocated for a more literal than contextual interpretation of the Bible. The fun
damentalist viewpoints advocated during the early part of the 20th century are still
widely held by large numbers of Americans, who purport not only that evolution should
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
not be taught in public school but also that creationism has a rightful place in the formal
school science curriculum.
Understanding the historical context in which this debate has played out and
continues to play out is critical in setting the stage for developing solutions to the evo
lution education dispute in America.
Public Views o f Evolution in the United States
Research studies conducted by Gallup and other institutions have been able to
shed some light on the general public’s comprehension of and views on evolution
theory. Most of these polls and surveys have found that a substantial number of Ameri
cans do not accept evolution; moreover, these studies have shown that over the past 20
years, little has changed in the American public’s beliefs about evolution and the origins
of life (Brooks, 2001; NCSE, 1999). Gallup results from polls taken in 1982,1993,
1997,1999, and 2001 have shown that less than half of the population of the United
States accepts the theory of evolution as an overarching biological principle (Brooks).
Additional studies published by the American Museum of Natural History (1994, as
cited in NCSE, 1999), the International Center for Scientific Literacy at the Chicago
Academy of Sciences (1996, as cited in NCSE, 1999), andtheNSF (1997, as cited in
NCSE, 1999) have provided further evidence that confounds the finding that the major
ity of Americans do not accept evolution. For example, 45% of respondents to Gal
lup’s February 19-21,2001, poll on evolution reported that “God created people pretty
much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so” (Brooks,
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2001, p. 9). Additional data collected by the NSF (1997) between 1993 and 1997
supported Gallup’s findings that less than half of the U.S. populace believes that human
beings evolved, or developed, from earlier species of animals. However, this finding
was recently revised in the NSF’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2002, published
in 2003, which reported that for the first time, a majority (53%) of respondents an
swered “true” to the statement, “Human beings as we know them today, developed from
earlier species of animals” (p. 1). In response to a similarly worded question, “Human
beings developed from earlier species of animals, true or false?” asked across the pre
viously cited studies and included in Table 1 below, less than half of the participants in
all but the most recent NSF study answered “true,” indicating a consistent nonaccep
tance of evolutionary theory.
Table 1
Overview o f Surveys Designed to Assess Public Acceptance ofEvolution and Their
Findings (Question: “ Human Beings Developed From an Earlier Species o f Animals,
True or False? ” )
Study Year(s) % agreement
American Museum of Natural History 1994 45
Chicago Academy of Sciences 1996 44
Gallup 2001 45
National Science Foundation 1993-1997 44-47
National Science Foundation 2002 53
Note. Adapted from Science and Religion in America (Poll and Survey Data), by Na
tional Center for Science Education, 1999, Berkeley, CA: Author, p. 1.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Even among biology teachers, where one would expect to find strong support of
evolution, there remains doubt about the legitimacy of evolutionary theory. Research
ers Eve and Dunn (1990) found that in their sampling of 387 high school biology teach
ers selected randomly from the membership list of the NSTA, 39% agreed with the
statement, “There are sufficient problems with the theory of evolution to cast doubt on
its validity” (p. 14). Forty-five percent of the same teachers surveyed agreed with the
statement, “Adam and Eve were the first human beings and were created by God” (p.
14). In their review of biology teachers across several states, Weld and McNew (1999)
found that a third (33%) of biology teachers did not believe that evolution is central to
biology and placed little to no emphasis on evolution in their classes.
Public Views on Evolution in the Classroom
Perhaps because substantial numbers of Americans do not accept evolution
themselves, many report that they do not want evolution taught in public schools (Scott,
2000). The debate about whether evolution ought to be taught in American public
schools can be traced from the infamous Scopes trial of 1925, which challenged the
state of Tennessee’s authority to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, to the
equally famous and recent decision by the Kansas State School Board to eliminate evo
lution from the list of subjects tested on the state’s standardized tests, thereby effective
ly rendering evolution a topic superfluous to the science curriculum (as cited in
National Center for Science Education, 1999).
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the past few years alone, a series of ongoing events demonstrate that not much
has changed since 1925. The fact that a majority of Americans still believe that
evolution should not be taught in public schools was evidenced by a poll conducted by
Time Magazine 2 weeks after the 1999 Kansas decision to remove evolution from the
state’s science content standards. The survey found that more than 61% of respondents
felt that evolutionary theory should not be taught in (public) schools (as cited in NCSE,
2002). Even in cases where evolution is accepted as part of the teaching curriculum, the
debate over whether to give equal time to alternate explanations for the origin of species
arises, along with arguments for class time dedicated to teaching the “evidence” against
evolution. Following the initial 1999 Kansas decision to remove evolution from the
science content standards, a Gallup poll (Brooks, 2000) showed that 68% of those sur
veyed indicated that they would favor teaching creationism, along with evolution in
public schools. Only 29% of those surveyed opposed introducing creationism in public
schools (Brooks). Ellis’s study (1983) found that in some states, up to 69% of biology
teachers wanted creationism to be incorporated into science curricula, and up to 30%
admitted to teaching creationism in their science classes. Finally, Eve and Dunn’s
(1990) research indicated that 30% of science teachers would choose to teach only cre
ationism in their science classes, if forced to choose between curricula featuring either
creationism or evolution.
Noted evolution educator Eugenie Scott (2000) has suggested that it is Ameri
cans’ desire for fairness and democracy that provides those advocating equal time for
creationism, intelligent design (ID), or other alternative anti-evolution notions with one
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of their most successful tactics for eroding or blocking efforts to present evolution in
public school science courses. This sentiment was echoed by the findings of Eve and
Dunn (1990), who reported that 43% of the high school biology teachers they polled
agreed with the statement, “Regardless of the validity of the concepts of special crea
tionism and evolution, proponents of each should be allowed equal time to express their
views in science classes in schools” (p. 15).
In addition to reviewing survey data, one need only look at state school board
decisions and legislation introduced in the United States in recent years to understand
the opposition to the teaching of evolution. Recently an anti-evolution bill was intro
duced in the Washington State Senate, citing that the teaching of evolutionary theory “is
repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and thereby unconstitu
tional and unlawful” (NCSE, 2002, p. 5). Additionally, in 2002, the Ohio Board of
Education considered a proposal to eliminate discussion of the age of the Earth and to
include intelligent design theory in its K-12 science curriculum (as cited in Lovell,
2002). Even more recently, a bill (HB 911) currently pending before the Missouri
House of Representatives, if passed, would not only mandate “equal time of science
instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design” (as cited in NSTA, 2004, p. 18)
but would also require that copies of the law be posted in every classroom in the state
and that the “willful neglect of any elementary or secondary school superintendent,
principal or teacher to observe and carry out the requirements of this section shall be
cause for termination of his or her contract” (p. 18). States such as Oklahoma, Georgia,
and Alabama have mandated that disclaimers be adhered to the front of every science
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
textbook that includes evolution as a topic (Lemer, 2000). In February 2004, Okla
homa’s House of Representatives voted 96-0 to uphold the requirement passed in 2000
that mandated that the following disclaimer be inserted into every textbook containing
content related to evolution:
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present
as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals
and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore,
any statement about life’s origins should be considered a theory not a fact, (as
cited in NSTA, 2004, p. 18)
This insert echoes the disclaimer adopted by Alabama’s legislature in 1995, which in
cluded the above statement but added the following: “Evolution also refers to the un
proven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things___
Study hard and keep an open mind” (as cited in Meikle, 2001, p. 4).
Because of the decentralized organizational structure of the American school
system, decisions about the treatment of evolution in state science curricula or standards
often lie in the hands of each state’s elected school board; however, formal recommen
dations for teaching evolution do exist at the national level. The National Science Edu
cation Standards released by the National Research Council (NRC) in 1996, along with
the National Academy of Science’s (1998) Teaching About Evolution and the Nature o f
Science and the AAAS’s 1993 publication, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, all pro
vide clear and substantial recommendations about what K-12 students should learn
about evolution in their science courses at each grade level. However, given that every
state except one, Iowa, has a set of statewide science standards and frameworks, the
national recommendations are often seen as superfluous and are discarded in favor of
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the state standards. Based on the inconsistencies in teaching of evolution at the K-12
level and the debates that go on between those advocating for equal time for alternative
theories to evolution, Edwards (2002) of the University of Washington has suggested
that evolution as a topic be taken out of the K-12 curriculum. He asserted that anti
evolutionists and intelligent designers are more easily dealt with at the university level
and that by returning the topic of evolution to colleges, the whole “evolution-creation
issue would mercifully fade away as it has in the rest of the educated world” (p. 615).
The Pedagogical and Epistemological Challenges
in Teaching Evolution
While the controversy about whether to teach or not to teach evolution continues
at the state and local school board level, controversies about how to teach evolution are
simultaneously ongoing at the practitioner level. Questions of epistemology also arise
with respect to evolution education. As a topic, evolution has proven to be a particu
larly difficult one to convey to students at every level (Bishop & Anderson, 1990;
Demastes, Good, & Peebles 1996; Ferrari & Chi, 1998; Rudolph & Stewart, 1998).
Multiple studies conducted to measure college students’ knowledge of basic evolution
ary principles have shown that even students with several years of college-level biology
coursework hold deep-seated misconceptions about evolution and the mechanics that
drive the evolutionary process (Bishop & Anderson; Brem, Ranney, & Schindel, 2003;
Ferrari & Chi; Sundberg, 2003).
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Similar studies conducted with K-12 students indicated that most did not under
stand the mechanics or the process of evolution, even if they were able to articulate the
basic tenets of Darwin’s model of evolution (Deadman & Kelley, 1978;
Samarapungavan & Reinout, 1997). Although student misconceptions are often studied
as hurdles in teaching evolution, Gregg, Janssen, and Bhattacharjee (2003) have demon
strated that the knowledge base of most science teachers presents another serious hurdle
to providing solid evolution education. Their research found that high school science
teachers are not well prepared in either the theory or the evidence for evolution and
therefore have difficulty conveying these complex ideas to their students. Further work
conducted by Moore (2002a, 2002b) supported this assertion. His review of how biol
ogy teachers use state science standards included the observation that many of these
teachers reported that they did not recall ever having taken college-level science course-
work that incorporated information about evolution. Moore (2002a) reported that most
of these teachers did not even recall hearing the word evolution in their college biology
courses. Additional work conducted by McComas (1998), which reviewed the most
commonly utilized secondary and college-level biology textbooks, indicated that virtu
ally all texts provide an incomplete and, in fact, errant version of the discovery of evo
lution by natural selection. Most of these books capitalize on and reinforce common
misconceptions about the history of Charles Darwin’s work, his voyage on the H.M.S.
Beagle, and subsequent description of “his invention of the theory of evolution by
natural selection” (McComas, 1998, p. 494). Teachers relying on their course textbooks
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are encouraged to reinforce these myths and misconceptions, resulting in greater confu
sion and less clarity about Darwin’s theory.
Attempts to Develop Effective Teaching Strategies
for Evolution Education
Multiple studies have looked at pedagogical approaches to solving the evolution
education dilemma (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Bybee 2002; Costa, 2003; Demastes et
al., 1996; Edwards, 2002; Jensen & Finley 1996; Lawson, 1999; Sundberg, 2003).
Some educators have advocated that a pedagogical approach that incorporates historical
case studies or instruction that relies on historically rich curriculum materials be used in
science classes (Bybee, 2002; Costa, 2003; Jensen & Finely, 1996). Others like Lawson
(1999) and Sundberg (2003) have suggested a “scientific approach” (Lawson, p. 226) be
used, while still others advocate for the use of a conceptual change model to assess and
then address student misconceptions directly (Bishop & Anderson; Demastes et al.). At
least one educator/scientist has suggested that evolution as a topic be removed from the
realm of K-12 education, arguing that college instructors too often deal with “recycled
goods” in terms of teaching topics and that returning evolution to the university domain
would encourage students to view evolution as “new and exciting” (Edwards, p. 614).
Others have argued that providing a better foundation in the nature of science would
prepare students for better understanding the complexities of biological evolution (e.g.,
Smith, 1994).
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Historically Rich Curricula
The connection between the naive conceptions about evolution held by students
today and the conceptions held by scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries has been duly
noted (Rudolph & Stewart, 1998). Based on these parallels, educators have suggested
that using a historically rich curriculum that allows students to follow the path that
Darwin himself took in laying out his theory and in amassing the evidence for evolution
by natural selection may be an effective strategy for teaching about evolution. The use
of historically rich curriculum materials has been shown to be moderately effective in
teaching about evolution; specifically, the approach has been shown to help in dispel
ling pre-Darwinian concepts about evolution (Jensen & Finley, 1995). Costa (2003)
suggested that requiring students to “think explicitly about consilience and historical
method may help students understand evolution not just as Darwin’s offhand notion,
but a conclusion that flows logically from considerable and careful observation” (p.
616). Bybee (2002) added that employing a historical case study approach to teaching
evolution affords science teachers an opportunity to introduce elements of the nature of
science, along with material on evolution, and specifically allows students to see sci
ence as a human endeavor dependent upon human creativity but bound by lines of
reasoning that connect evidence and explanation.
Conceptual Change M odel
Because individuals hold deep-seated misconceptions about evolution and be
cause these misconceptions have proven resistant to change, several researchers have
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
used Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog’s Conceptual Change Model published in
1982 as the basis for a pedagogical approach to teaching evolution (Bishop & Anderson
1990; Demastes et al., 1996; Jensen & Finley 1996). In these studies, student miscon
ceptions are first identified and then addressed explicitly with the learners. Student
views are challenged; correct information is provided (typically through lecture-style
direct instruction) and supported with curriculum materials designed for conceptual
change (Jensen & Finley, 1996). Bishop and Anderson’s 1990 study, which was repli
cated by Demastes, Good, Sundberg, and Dini in 1992, showed that utilizing the con
ceptual change model with a curriculum developed to support conceptual change
moderately improved college students’ understandings of evolution. Demastes et al.’s
1996 study that used the conceptual change model with high school biology students
showed successful results. In several conceptual change model studies, the strategy of
paired or group problem-solving scenarios were introduced to enhance the conceptual
change experiment (Jensen & Finley, 1996; Jimenez, 1992, as cited in Jensen & Finley,
1996). Results from these studies also reported some success most notably in the area
of changing student views from Lamarckian in nature to views more aligned with
Darwinian logic.
Combining Approaches: Historically Rich Curriculum,
Conceptual Change, and Problem Solving
Based on the previously cited studies that found the use of historically rich cur
ricula, the use of the conceptual change model, and the use of problem-solving
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instructional strategies to be helpful in teaching evolution, Jensen and Finley (1996)
created a study that combined approaches. They paired problem-solving activities and a
historically rich curriculum with a conceptual change model strategy in an attempt to
construct an effective approach for conveying evolution. Students across college-level
biology classes were grouped into four sections. The first section received lecture-style
instruction based on a traditional science curriculum. The second received lecture-style
instruction based on a historically rich curriculum. The third participated in paired
problem-solving instruction with a traditional science curriculum, and the fourth section
participated in paired problem-solving instruction with a historically rich curriculum.
All were assessed in advance in order to ascertain student beliefs about evolution, and
instructors used a conceptual change approach to identify and address misconceptions
directly during the course of the study. Results showed that students in all four sections
improved their understanding of evolution; however, as expected, the students in the
section that was provided the historically rich curriculum combined with the paired
problem-solving instructional strategy fared best. These students increased their Dar
winian responses and decreased their use of misconceptions to a degree that was statisti
cally significant from the other three groups of students (Jensen & Finley, 1996; see
Table 2).
Lawson (1999) advocated for the use of hands-on examination of the fossil
record to underscore the evidence that supports evolutionary theory while engaging
students in an activity that emphasizes the nature of science and critical thinking skills.
Lawson’s strategy incorporated the approach of paired problem solving (described
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2
Overview o f Teaching Strategies and Their Effectiveness in Evolution Education
Theory Author(s)/Date Outcomes
Conceptual Change
Model
Bishop and Anderson (1990);
Demastes et al. (1992)
Less Lamarckian/more Dar
winian explanations
Problem solving (paired
or group)
Jensen and Finley (1996);
Jimenez (1992)
Sundberg (2003)
Increased Darwinian re
sponses; gains in under
standing hereditability
related to Mendelian ge
netics
Historical case studies
or historically rich
curricula
Jensen and Finley (1995);
Jensen and Finley, 1996)
Decrease in overall miscon
ceptions
above) with a teaching approach he termed “the learning process” (p. 266) to encourage
students to confront the issue of evolution versus special creation in a manner that is
similar to the way scientists confront the issue. Lawson suggested that because this
approach raises questions, allows students to gather and analyze their own evidence,
and requires them to develop hypothetico-deductive arguments for or against alternate
explanations, in essence promoting scientific inquiry and reasoning, it provides students
with a broad understanding of evolution. Lawson’s approach is suggested for high
school and introductory biology courses at the college level and does not address issues
of misconceptions. Further, while Lawson’s approach to teaching evolution has been
published, it has not been formally studied and results are anecdotal.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Misconceptions About Evolution and the
Issue o f Language
Multiple researchers have alluded to the problem of language when teaching
evolution (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Cooper, 2001; Wilkins, 2001). Words important
in conveying main messages about evolution have definitions that differ in their vernac
ular and scientific applications. To begin with, individuals use the word theory in
everyday conversation to mean a guess or to refer to speculation or conjecture. Scien
tists use the word much more specifically. Theories, according to the National Acad
emy of Sciences (1998), “are understandings that develop from extensive observation,
experimentation, and reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws,
tested hypotheses, and logical inferences” (p. 6). When discussing the theory of evolu
tion, those who apply the common use of the word theory may assign it less importance
or dismiss evolution altogether by describing evolution as “just a theory”—meaning, in
fact, a mere guess. The textbook disclaimer cited earlier in this paper is an example of
this linguistic misinterpretation in action. Aside from the linguistic problem of the
vernacular use of the word theory, an issue exists within the epistemology of science
teaching with regard to how scientific laws and theories are explained and taught in
many high school and college-level courses. A popular misconception holds that
theories become laws once enough evidence is gathered to move an idea along a contin
uum from “theory” to “law.” As McComas (1998) pointed out, “theories do not be
come laws even with increased evidence, rather laws explain instances while theories
explain laws” (p. 494). Unfortunately, due to the common misconception that a
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
hierarchy exists whereby theories are not as strongly supported by evidence as laws,
individuals can easily discount “theories” as not holding as much scientific authority as
they interpret “laws” to hold. Further, the “theory” descriptor is emphasized when
discussing the theory of evolution in a way that it is not emphasized when teaching
other scientific theories, such as atomic theory, the theory of relativity, the theory of
continental drift, or the theory of helio centricism. One would be hard pressed to find a
student or a teacher who would doubt that the Earth orbits the sun, noting that helio
centricism is “just a theory.”
The difficulty with language and evolution becomes especially perplexing in the
case of teaching about natural selection—the mechanism that explains evolutionary
change. Specific issues arise with the terms adapt and adaptation, as well as with the
term fitness (Bishop & Anderson, 1990). The term adaptation, when used by evolu
tionary biologists, means modifications achieved by natural selection and operating on
natural variation found within populations of organisms (Whitfield, 1993). The general
public uses the term adapt to apply to an individual changing to better fit his/her envi
ronment; thus, a person moving from sunny Los Angeles to the windy city of Chicago is
expected to adapt (rather than acclimatize) to the change in weather. Bishop and
Anderson have shown that students tend to construct meaning about evolutionary adap
tation by applying the common definition of adaptation rather than the scientific defi
nition. This disconnect between the scientific definition and the everyday use of the
word adapt serves to reinforce the misconception that the environment causes the de
velopment of characteristics or traits in populations of organisms. It also serves to
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
characterize evolution as an event that happens relative to an individual rather than
portraying adaptation as an ongoing process acting on populations.
In addition to the confusion caused by the term adaptation, similar problems are
linked to the use of the word fitness (Bishop & Anderson, 1990). Often, students will
define natural selection as “survival of the fittest.” The term fit, when used by biolo
gists, is linked to an individual’s ability to procreate and produce viable progeny. When
used by students in everyday conversation, fit is linked to an individual’s overall health,
strength and, in an anthropomorphic sense, to other physically desirable traits. Thus,
the misconception that evolution means that only the stronger, faster, and smarter indi
viduals in a population are selected to carry the population forward is reinforced by the
everyday meaning of the term fit.
Finally, the word evolution itself is often used in the vernacular to refer to pro
gression. This underscores a major misconception that many people hold about biolog
ical evolution—namely, that evolution necessarily means progression from less com
plex to more complex species in a hierarchical fashion, with humans enjoying an “in
herent superiority” over “less evolved” life forms (Gould, 2001, p. xii). Scientists using
the term evolution mean change over time or descent with modification. The com
plexity of a species (perhaps defined by the number of systems that species support)
does not necessarily correlate with its long-term success on the planet. Dinosaurs, a
group of animals that could be called highly complex, are extinct, whereas less complex
strains of bacteria have existed on the planet for billions of years. Thus, a less complex,
or what one might erringly refer to as a less evolved form of life—the bacteria—
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
proliferates, while a more highly evolved form of life—the dinosaur—succumbs.
Tackling the challenge of language, then, remains one of the first hurdles in overcoming
student misconceptions about evolution.
Misconceptions and Naive Explanations
About Evolution and Natural Selection
Several research studies have been conducted with K-12 students, as well as
college students, in an attempt to ascertain the major misconceptions that individuals
hold about evolution. Work with elementary and middle-school students have shown
that these students generally hold that species have immutable essences—a naive con
ception that is shown to be very deep-seated in children even before they are introduced
to concepts such as heredity and evolution in school (Keil, 1989). The 9- to 12-year-old
children studied by Samarapungavan and Reinout (1997) were grouped into five differ
ent belief pools based on their answers to questions about how species originate and
change:
1. Those who believed that species have always existed and characteristics do
not change, but environmental factors can lead to extinction.
2. Those who believed in a micro-evolutionary framework whereby all animals
began as dinosaurs and have transformed into their modern-day exemplars (e.g., the
“tiger” comes from a “dinosaur-tiger” ancestor).
3. Those who showed a tendency to define evolution in Lamarckian terms.
These students believed that species become extinct when individuals are not able to
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
adapt quickly enough to a changing environment, that new species are always preceded
by less complex ancestors and become more complex as they evolve (i.e., Lamarck’s
tendency toward progression, and that the characteristics of a species change as a func
tion of its use/nonuse).
4. Those who believed in a full-blown, spontaneous generation event in which
all species were created at one time.
5. Those students who subscribed to a creationist belief, citing all animals as
created by God for a specific purpose.
In their work with university students, Bishop and Anderson (1990) identified
three major areas where these older students held misconceptions about evolution. Like
the misconceptions held by K-12 students, many of the misconceptions or naive alterna
tive conceptions held by the university students could be identified as teleological or
Lamarckian in nature (Sundberg, 2003). The misconceptions identified by Bishop and
Anderson are summarized in Table 3.
The misconceptions held by the college students surveyed in Bishop and Ander
son’s (1990) study parallel those identified in other studies that show student tendencies
to perceive evolution in terms of goal-oriented progression (Ferrari & Chi, 1998; Jensen
& Finley, 1996; Rudolph & Stewart, 1998). Interestingly, the misconceptions about
evolution held by today’s students mirror the hypotheses offered by 18th - and 19th -
century naturalists who were trying to explain the great diversity of life forms on Earth
during their times (Costa, 2003; Rudolph & Stewart; Sundberg, 2003). The teleological
interpretation that organisms change based on a specific goal—an idea originally
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T able 3
Misconceptions About Evolution Held by University Students
Area of misconception Description
Natural selection
Accepted theory Two processes influence trait change in populations: ran
dom changes in genetic material (either through random
mutation or sexual recombination) and then the survival or
disappearance of these traits.
Student misconception A single influence causes trait change: The environment
itself causes change. Organisms recognize the need to
develop new traits to survive, gain new traits through the
use or disuse of appendages or abilities, or individuals
adapt to the environment. If the individual animal cannot
adapt, it becomes extinct.
Example Giraffes needed long necks to reach treetop leaves for
food, so nature allowed them to develop longer necks.
Because this trait was useful for survival, parents passed
the trait onto their offspring.
The role of variation in populations
Accepted theory Variation of individuals within populations is an essential
precondition for evolution to occur.
Student misconception Populations maybe made up of individuals, but evolution
shapes the species as a whole.
Example Cheetahs had to run fast to catch prey. Eventually all chee
tahs developed specific muscle traits that allowed them to
become fast runners.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 (continued)
Area of misconception Description
The rise of new traits
Accepted theory New traits arise through discrete genetic changes involving
individual organisms.
Student misconception Evolution happens when the expressed traits themselves
are enhanced or denigrated gradually over time.
Example A cave salamander does not need eyesight, so each gener
ation has weaker sight until eventually there are only blind
cave salamanders left.
Note. Adapted from “Student Conceptions of Natural Selection and Its Role in Evolu
tion,” by B. A. Bishop and C. W. Anderson, 1990, Journal o f Research in Science
Teaching, 27, pp. 415-427.
proposed by Cuvier—is well represented in both the writings of early naturalists as well
as in the data showing people’s naive conceptions of evolution today (Costa; Demastes
et al., 1996). Lamarck’s tendency toward progression—the idea that all organisms
evolve from less complex to more complex forms—was also a popularly held miscon
ception among the college students sampled, as was Lamarck’s original assertion that
an organism’s acquired characteristics could be inherited or passed down to its progeny
(Bishop & Anderson; Rudolph & Stewart; Sundberg).
Besides being varied and widespread, misconceptions about evolution have
proven to be incredibly deep-seated and extremely resistant to change (Bishop & An
derson, 1990; Demastes et al., 1996; Jensen & Finley, 1996; Sundberg, 2003). Efforts
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to correlate misconceptions with personal/religious beliefs or with previous instruction
in science, specifically instruction in biology, have not provided much direction in
terms of improving evolution education. In addition to identifying common misconcep
tions held by university-level students, Bishop and Anderson worked to correlate the
level and number of student misconceptions to the students’ past experience with sci
ence and with their personal belief systems. Pretest results showed that over 50% of the
students studied (n = 110) possessed naive conceptions about evolution. The data also
indicated that the amount of previous coursework in biology had little to no effect on
student conception of evolution (even in cases where students had 2 or more years of
college-level biology instruction), and further indicated that students’ conceptions of
evolution were not associated with their acceptance of evolution as true or untrue. Fi
nally, Bishop and Anderson asserted, students who did accept evolutionary theory as
fact tended to do so based more on their perception of science as powerful, prestigious,
and reliable rather than on their own understanding of the evidence for evolution.
Museum Visitors and the Topic o f
Evolution
Natural history museums hold in trust the tangible evidence of evolution. Many
natural history museums have conceived and constructed large-scale evolution exhibits
(exceeding 10,000 square feet). American examples of such exhibitions can be found at
the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, the American Museum of Natural History
in New York, and the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Of these, the Field
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Museum of Natural History and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science showcase
exhibits that are organized sequentially by geologic time and are designed to immerse
the visitor in the history of life on Earth. The American Museum of Natural History
(the most recently designed of the three exhibitions) has organized its exhibit themat
ically around its vast collection of vertebrate fossils, specifically its collections of
dinosaurs and early mammals. Rather than using geologic time as an organizing mech
anism for the exhibit, the galleries are designed in a way that uses cladistics—a method
that scientists use to group organisms according to shared features—to guide visitors
through the institution’s two galleries of evolution. All three of these museums have
conducted summative evaluations of their evolution exhibitions, and findings are fairly
comparable across the studies. Most museum visitors hold high comprehension levels
of terms such as fossil and extinction, with moderate understanding of terms such as
mutation, vertebrates, and common ancestor. Most, however, show low comprehen
sion levels of terms such as natural selection, diversity, and adaptation (Marino, 1996;
People, Places & Design Research, 1992). Results of the summative evaluations were
inconclusive in showing whether one exhibition approach is more successful than the
other in terms of either correcting visitors’ misconceptions about evolution or imparting
a greater understanding of evolution (Marino; People, Places & Design Research). A
motivation for the Florida Museum of Natural History Museum’s instigation of a na
tional study to assess visitor understanding of evolution was the tenuous nature of the
data that exist for evolution exhibitions in natural history museums.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data from the Dunckel et al. (2004) study, organized by the Florida Museum of
Natural History Museum and conducted with visitors to natural history museums in the
United States, demonstrated that museum visitors rejected evolution in much smaller
numbers than the general American population. Of those sampled in the museum-based
study, only 9.4% of the adult subjects interviewed rejected evolution as the explanation
for organic change over time. Surveys conducted with the American public have gen
erally shown anywhere from a 47% rejection rate, as cited in the most recent Science
and Engineering Indicators (NSF, 2003) to a 55% rejection rate, as cited by the most
recent Gallup poll (Brooks, 2001). This finding of a significantly lower rejection level
of evolutionary theory among museum visitors when compared to the general American
public was an expected conclusion of Dunckel et al.’s study. The study’s authors ac
knowledged that as a subset of the population, museum visitors reported higher levels
of education and higher median incomes than the broader American public (Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County, 2003). Gallup polls (Brooks) have shown that
individuals who are more highly educated and who have higher levels of incomes are
more likely to accept the evidence for evolution than are members of the population
with lower levels of education and income. The research team of Dunckel et al. addi
tionally hypothesized that visitors to natural history museums might have a deeper
interest in science than members of the general public; as such, they expected museum
visitors to be more informed about evolution and more likely to accept evolution as the
explanation for biologic change over time.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The findings from Dunckel et al.’s (2004) museum-based study cited a statis
tically significant correlation between age and the rate at which individuals reject evo
lutionary theory, chi-square (2) = 8.73,p < .05 (see Table 4). Participants aged 18-34
were less likely to reject evolution. Gallup polls have also found that age tends to cor
relate consistently with rejection rates of evolution, with younger adult individuals
reporting higher rates of acceptance and older adults being more inclined to reject
evolution (Brooks, 2001).
Table 4
Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding o f Evolution: Rejection Rates by Age
Does not
reject Does reject
Age category n % n % Total
Young adults (18-34) 104 97.0 3 3.0 107
Mature adults (35-54) 98 88.0 13 12.0 111
Older adults (55 and older) 78 86.0 13 14.0 91
Totals 280 90.6 29 9.4 309
Note. Data derived from Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding o f Evolution, by
B. Dunckel, S. Ellis, L. Abraham-Silver, L. Dierking, J. Kisiel, and J. Koke, 2004,
unpublished preliminary findings, University of Florida.
The data from Dunckel et al.’s (2004) survey suggested significant regional dif
ferences in the rejection rate of evolutionary theory, with statistically higher concen
trations of rejections expressed by individuals in the Florida, Kansas, and Washington,
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
D.C. groups and lower rates of rejection in the two California sites, Pearson chi-square
(5) —11.58,p < .05 (see Table 5). The data from Dunckel et al.’s museum-based study
did not confirm a correlation between education levels and rejection rates (Pearson chi-
square (95) = 5.95,p <.31; see Table 6) and, in this way, differs from the consistent
findings of Gallup.
Unlike the Gallup poll surveys (Brooks, 2001), Dunckel et al.’s (2004) museum-
based study did not ask respondents to reveal any information about their level of
income. It is therefore not possible with this data set to correlate individuals’ income
levels with rejection rates.
One less expected outcome of the Dunckel et al. (2004) study was the finding
that while the museum visitors reported much higher acceptance levels of evolutionary
theory than the general American public, they were just as likely to harbor misconcep
tions about evolution with respect to natural selection. As noted earlier, 50% of the
students surveyed in the 1990 Bishop and Anderson study, which focused on college-
age individuals’ understanding of the process of evolution, described evolution as being
driven by a mechanism other than natural selection. The Dunckel et al. study structured
its interview questions to be relevant to natural selection on the original surveys devel
oped by Bishop and Anderson (1990). Less than a third of Dunckel et al.’s surveyed
respondents described evolution as operating via natural selection (see Table 7); 69% of
the museum visitors interviewed in Dunckel et al.’s study held naive conceptions about
the mechanism of evolution, while only 31 % offered an explanation of natural selection
as the process that drives biologic change over time. Detailed definitions, along with
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5
Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding o f Evolution: Rejection Rates by Site
Does not
reject Does reject
Site n % n % Total
Florida Natural History Museum
Gainesville
51 85.0 9 15.0 60
Natural History Museum
University of Kansas-Lawrence
45 83.3 9 16.7 54
Denver Museum of Nature & Science 51 94.4 3 5.6 54
Smithsonian Natural History Museum
Washington, DC
50 89.3 6 10.7 56
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County
Los Angeles
40 97.6 1 2.4 41
George C. Page Museum of La Brea
Discoveries
Los Angeles
43 97.7 1 2.3 44
Totals 280 90.6 29 9.4 309
Note. Data derived from Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding o f Evolution, by
B. Dunckel, S. Ellis, L. Abraham-Silver, L. Dierking, J. Kisiel, and J. Koke, 2004,
unpublished preliminary findings, University of Florida.
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T able 6
Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding o f Evolution: Rejection Rates by Educa
tion Level
Does not reject Does reject
Education n % n % Total
High school or less 21 81.0 5 19.0 26
Associate degree 13 100.0 0 0.0 13
Some college 70 89.0 9 11.0 79
Bachelor’s degree 61 92.0 5 8.0 66
Some graduate school 26 96.0 1 4.0 27
M.A./Ph.D. degree 88 91.0 9 9.0 117
Totals 279 85.0 29 9.4 308
Note. Data derived from Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding o f Evolution, by
B. Dunckel, S. Ellis, L. Abraham-Silver, L. Dierking, J. Kisiel, and J. Koke, 2004,
unpublished preliminary findings, University of Florida.
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7
Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding o f Evolution: Explanatory Frameworks
for the Mechanics o f Evolutionary Theory
Accept Reject
evolution evolution Total
Explanatory
framework n % n % n %
Natural selection 93 33 3 10 96 31
Mutation only 8 3 1 3 9 3
Hybridization 9 3 1 3 9 3
Amechanistic 22 8 3 10 25 8
Static selection 44 16 5 17 49 16
Teleological 43 15 10 35 53 17
Practice/learning 15 5 1 3 16 5
Other 45 16 5 17 50 16
Note. Data derived from Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding o f Evolution, by
B. Dunckel, S. Ellis, L. Abraham-Silver, L. Dierking, J. Kisiel, and J. Koke, 2004,
unpublished preliminary findings, University of Florida.
examples of answers that characterize each of the explanatory frameworks listed below
can be found in the coding manual in appendix A.
For purposes of analysis, explanatory frameworks were classified as one of the
following categories:
1. Natural selection. This refers to individuals with genetically based traits that
improve survival or reproduction and thus have more offspring surviving to reproduc
tive age than other individuals.
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. Mutation only. Species change through a sudden mutation in one individual
which spreads through reproduction and eventually characterizes the entire population.
3. Hybridization. Either (a) species change occurs when one species mates
with another, or (b) species change occurs when superior individuals mate with each
other and produce superior descendants.
4. Amechanistic. Species change occurs through evolution, but no mechanism
is specified.
5. Static selection. A range of variation exists at the outset; the individuals
(species) at one end of the range die off, leaving only individuals at the other end; this
concept ignores gradual development of the trait.
6. Teleological/Lamarkian. Species change because they need to.
7. Practice/learning. Change is a result of an animal’s repetitive behavior.
8. Other. Answers that noted aspects of environmentalism, cognition, inten
tional creation, DNA, growth, purely physical attributes, and diet were included in the
other category.
The study by Dunckel et al. (2004) found that there was a statistically significant
relationship between an individual’s education level and the type of explanatory frame
work offered to describe the process of evolution, chi-square (95) = 5.95, p < .31 (see
Table 8). Those individuals possessing a college degree, as well as those with a post
graduate degree, were more likely to articulate the process of evolution using the prin
ciples of natural selection.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8
Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding o f Evolution: Relationship Between
Explanatory Frameworks for the Mechanics o f Evolutionary Theory and Education
Level (by Percentage)
Explanatory
framework
High
school
A.A.
degree
Some
college
B.A.
degree
Some
graduate
school
M.A./Ph.D.
degree
Natural selection 4 15 22 40 23 45
Mutation only 0 15 0 4 3 3
Hybridization 0 15 6 3 0 1
Amechanistic 24 15 11 3 0 8
Static selection 4 8 13 19 27 16
Teleological/
Lamarkian 28 15 19 11 27 13
Practice/learning 8 0 6 10 3 3
Other 32 15 23 10 17 11
Note. Data derived from Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding o f Evolution, by
B. Dunckel, S. Ellis, L. Abraham-Silver, L. Dierking, J. Kisiel, and J. Koke, 2004,
unpublished preliminary findings, University of Florida. A.A. = Associate of Arts; B.A.
= Bachelor of Arts; M.A. = Master of Arts; Ph.D. = Doctor of Philosophy.
These data, combined with the findings of Bishop and Anderson (1990), raise
the question of how knowledge about evolution or understanding of evolutionary theory
may or may not influence acceptance of the theory overall. What studies such as those
by Bishop and Anderson, Dunckel et al. (2004), Rudolph and Stewart (1998), and Sund-
berg (2003) have pointed out is that even among highly educated Americans who
reportedly accept evolution as the explanation for change over time, significant miscon
ceptions still exist. The question as to whether or not these misconceptions are as
uniquely American as the anti-evolution sentiment held by large numbers of the U.S.
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
populace is worth study. Answers about or insights into this anomaly could help U.S.
science educators to better address the growing crisis in evolution education.
Conclusions
A comprehensive review of the literature indicates that there are multiple impli
cations for a study describing the explanatory frameworks that non-Americans hold
about evolution and, in particular, the mechanism of natural selection. First, it is appar
ent that Americans as a group are more likely than their Western counterparts to reject
evolution as the explanation for biologic change over time. Issues of fairness, history,
democracy, and religious fundamentalism weigh heavily in the debate over evolutionary
theory’s place in American public education and in the broader social and political
agenda. Among Americans who frequent natural history museums, the rejection rate
for evolutionary theory is small compared to that for the general American public.
However, this rejection rate—just under 10% of the museum-going population—is
greater than expected. Studies developed to measure American attitudes toward evolu
tionary theory have revealed rates at which Americans accept or reject evolution. These
studies do a fine job of tying these rates to social demographic information do little to
measure rates of acceptance or rejection of the people’s understanding of evolution and
science (Gallup polls of 1982,1993,1997,1999,2001, as cited in Brooks, 2001; NCSE,
1999; NSF, 2003). By revealing the explanatory frameworks held by non-Americans
with higher acceptance levels of evolutionary theory, the present study may shed light
on the underlying issues surrounding the evolution debate in America.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Another important point pulled from the literature was that a majority of Ameri
cans, whether they were university students, as in the Bishop and Anderson (1990)
study, or museum visitors, as in the Dunckel et al. (2004) study, did not understand the
mechanism of natural selection. One half to two thirds of these highly educated popula
tions harbor naive conceptions about evolution. Not understanding the process by
which evolution occurs may have implications for an ultimate rejection of the theory.
Examining whether particular explanatory frameworks can be tied to higher acceptance
or rejection levels of evolutionary theory may contribute to improved means for ex
plaining descent with modification. A broader understanding in this regard may also
help to shed light on the extent to which the understanding of the nature of science plays
a role in the acceptance or rejection of evolution.
Over the past decade, there has been increased attention focused on the issues
surrounding evolution education in the United States. While considerable interest has
been focused on the issues surrounding the formal public education debate, there
remains a lack of investigation with the broader public; moreover, there is a lack of ex
amination among countries that are successfully garnering support for evolution educa
tion and American efforts to do the same. It is surprising that more studies have not
focused attention on the disconnect between U.S. and non-U.S. efforts to teach evolu
tionary theory. The research presented in this study examines the similarities and dif
ferences between the explanatory frameworks that Americans hold with regard to
evolutionary theory and those held by their Western counterparts in Australia, Canada,
and Great Britain. By more closely examining what people understand, accept, and
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reject, this study should provide a deeper understanding of the issues surrounding evo
lution education and presents ideas for museum and classroom educators to more suc
cessfully engender understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory.
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research project sought to replicate a study that was originally conducted in
the United States and that derived its respondents from visitors to natural history muse
ums. The U.S.-based study showed that individuals who visited natural history muse
ums in the United States were less likely than the general American public to reject the
theory of evolution but also indicated that museum visitors were just as likely as the
general public to hold misconceptions about evolution and natural selection (Dunckel et
al., 2004). Given the contentious nature of the debate surrounding evolution education
in America, this replication of the U.S. study in countries where the theory of evolution
is more generally accepted was recommended. Countries selected were Australia, Great
Britain, and Canada. The overall goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of
the relationship between an individual’s understanding of evolutionary theory and his/
her acceptance or rejection of it.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study were as follows:
1. What is the relationship between the evolution rejection rates between
American visitors to natural history museums and Canadian, British and Australian
visitors to natural history museums?
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. What misconceptions regarding evolution and natural selection are held by
visitors to natural history museums in Canada, England and Australia; and how do these
misconceptions compare to those held by their American counterparts?
3. How do the misconceptions held by these groups vary in type and fre
quency?
4. Do certain types of misconceptions correlate more strongly with rejection
rates?
Nature of the Study
This was a qualitative study with some quantitative aspects to it. Qualitative
methods were employed to analyze the misconceptions, naive understandings, and
explanatory frameworks that individuals held with regard to evolutionary theory.
Quantitative treatment of the data was employed to correlate beliefs and understandings
with demographic details such as age, nationality, and level of education.
Participant Recruitment
A primary concern in recruiting respondents for the study was the need to recruit
participants in a comparable manner across all study sites, without leading people who
might classify themselves as creationists to self-select out of the study. For this reason,
a verbal recruitment script was developed to guide the initial interaction between data
collectors (DCs) and potential respondents (see appendix B). If a respondent identified
himself or herself as a “creationist” and used this characterization as a reason to select
out of the study, the DC was encouraged to explain that the study should ideally reflect
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
views of all museum visitors and invite that potential respondent to continue to partici
pate if comfortable. A rejection log was kept for each site. Participants were recruited
from the general museum visitor population at the three identified study sites. During
regular museum hours, data collectors who were stationed at large, content-neutral areas
within the selected institutions identified approximately every third individual who
passed the interview table. These individuals were approached and asked if they would
be willing to participate in a 15-minute, audiotaped interview about evolution. Individ
uals who were not at least age 18 were excluded from the interview pool. American
citizens who were visiting the study sites were also excluded from the interview pool.
Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary, but willing participants were offered
a token gift (i.e., a museum key chain, dinosaur trading cards, note cards, or a novelty
magnet) to compensate them for their time. Data were collected between the summer
and fall o f2004 at the Natural History Museum in London, England; the Australian
Museum of Natural History in Sydney; and the Royal British Columbia Museum in
Victoria, Canada. Data collection at the Royal British Columbia Museum extended
into the winter o f2004.
The parameters of the study, including purpose, characteristics of the study
subpopulation, methods and procedures, risk/benefit assessment, financial obligation
and compensation, subject identification, recruitment, and consent were submitted to
the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board and approved in the
spring o f2004.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instrumentation
Two instruments were designed to capture data for the study. The first tool,
Part I: Demographic Survey, was designed to capture the bulk of the study’s quanti
fiable data. It was used to record information about individual respondents such as their
gender, age, ethnicity, and the highest level of education attained. In order to accommo
date the cultural and societal differences inherent when working across multiple coun
tries, the demographic survey tools used at each of the three foreign institutions required
slight alterations (see appendix C). The variations made to the original tool developed
for the United States are evident in two distinct areas: educational-level categories
(question #7) and ethnicity categories (question #8). Accommodations made in the
educational-level categories reflected differences in the formal school systems across
the three study site countries. For example, Canada’s “Secondary” category equates
with “A Level (Highers)” in the United Kingdom and with “TAFE” in Australia. For
purposes of analysis, this researcher was able to collapse data between these different
categories using a categories coding chart (see appendix D) when called for. It should
be noted that terminology was also changed to reflect the local language used to de
scribe similar ethnic groups. For example, the term “Native American” was used as a
choice in the ethnicity category on the U.S. demographic form but was changed to “First
Nations/Inuit” on the Canadian demographic form and was not included on the British
or Australian forms. In order to comply with survey protocol for the Australian Mu
seum of Natural History, visitors to the Sydney museum were asked only if they were
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
bom in Australia, bom overseas in an English-speaking country, or bom overseas in a
non-English-speaking country. The Canadian and British museums were not adverse to
soliciting these ethnic indicators from visitors.
The Parti: Demographic Survey tool also allowed for the capturing of data such
as frequency of respondents’ visits to natural history museums and whether respondents
were visiting the museum alone, in adult groups, or in multigenerational groups on the
day the survey was administered. Anonymity was required of all respondents. Al
though this tool captured demographic data, it did not identify any respondent by name
or ask for information such as a phone number or address, which could be used to later
ascertain respondents’ identity.
In addition to Part I: Demographic Survey, this study relied on a second tool
that was used to collect qualitative data about the respondent’s understanding of evolu
tionary theory. The second tool was a scripted survey instrument comprised of a series
of verbal interview questions clustered around three distinct content areas: fossils and
paleontology {Part II: Rock Column/Fossil)', the sequence or timeline of events on
Earth history {Part III: Timeline)', and biological change over time or the mechanism of
natural selection {Part IV: Biologic Change', see appendix E).
Additionally, the study relied upon a number of physical artifacts that were used
by DCs to guide respondents through the oral interview portions of a study:
1. An illustrated poster depicting a cross section of Earth showing exposed
strata, images of fossils within each stratum, and illustrations of what scientists believe
the life forms that left these fossils may have looked like when extant (see appendix F).
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. Real fossil material including a trilobite, homed coral, ammonite, ancient
horse tooth, tortoise shell, and modem horse tooth (see appendix G).
3. Fossil cast material including an ancient shark’s tooth and dinosaur tooth
(Tyrannosaurus rex; see appendix G).
4. Remains of extant species, including a modem shark tooth (see appendix G).
5. Seven individually laminated cards that each listed one of seven events in
the history of the universe: origin o f the universe, humans, dinosaurs, life on earth,
land plants, fish, and origin o f the earth (see appendix H).
6. Five laminated picture cards which depicted illustrated scenes of cheetah
groups in the wild and a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) double helix (see appendix I).
7. One laminated word card listing the following words: random, populations,
generations, heredity, variation, species, selection (see appendix J).
Data Collection Protocol
Interview protocol required participants to verbally answer a series of questions
aimed at ascertaining basic demographic data. DCs completed demographic data sheets
for each participant, noting interview site location, day, date and time of the interview,
and initials of the DC administering interview, and assigned each interview participant
a number that was correlated to the audiotaped interview of the same number. An
abridged version of the full interview protocol (see appendix E) follows.
Part I: Demographic Survey. This researcher began each interview by asking
individual participants to answer a series of eight questions designed to elicit both basic
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
demographic information, as well as information about the individual’s museum visita
tion patterns. The DC recorded the respondent’s answers on a numbered demographic
instrument. Rather than asking the respondent to answer questions which might be con
sidered sensitive (e.g., age, highest level of education achieved) aloud, the DC was
encouraged to hand the demographic instrument to the respondent and ask that he/she
mark appropriate response for these questions. Before the audiotape recording began,
the DC noted the interview day, date, time, site and subject number on demographic
instrument. The DC offered the participant a copy of the informed consent statement
(see appendix K) and then began the audiotape recording with the respondent’s permis
sion.
Part II: Rock Column/Fossil. Respondents were shown a poster of a rock col
umn (sometimes referred to as strata) that depicted illustrations of fossils embedded in
different layers of rock, along with corresponding illustrations of the organism as it
might have appeared when extant (see appendix E). Participants were also shown eight
real and replica fossils that matched those on the poster (see appendix F). These in
cluded a trilobite, homed coral, ancient shark’s tooth (cast), ammonite, dinosaur tooth
(cast), ancient horse tooth, modem shark tooth, tortoise shell, and a modem horse tooth.
Respondents were asked a series of questions relative to the rock column poster, the
accompanying fossils, and fossil cast items.
DC: I’d like to ask you some questions about this poster and these objects we
have on the table. [DC points to rock column poster.] This poster is
supposed to represent the different layers of the earth. These illustra
tions and items [DC points to illustrations depicting fossils on the poster
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and to the fossils on the table] are examples of items scientists have
found in these different layers. Do you know what these are?
[If respondent answers “fossils”:]
DC: That’s right, these are fossils. Let’s say you met someone who didn’t
know what a fossil is—how would you explain it to them?
[If respondent cannot recall term or refers to them as something else (e.g., arti
facts):]
DC: Scientists call these items fossils. Let’s say you met someone who didn’t
know what a fossil is—how would you explain it to them?
[If respondent answers “no”:]
DC: These items are fossils. Fossils are the remains or evidence of animals
or plants that have been preserved naturally. We have them placed here
on the layers where scientists have found them.
DC: Now, if you look at this poster, can you tell me which layer contains the
oldest fossils and which layer contains the fossils that are the youngest?
How do you know?
DC: Look at the layers down here—E and F. What do you think the environ
ment was like at the time? How do you know?
DC: Some fossils found in the lower layers are not found in the upper ones.
How do scientists explain that? Some fossils found in the upper layers
are not found in the lower ones. How might scientists explain this find
ing?
DC: Let’s say that scientists make some later discoveries. They find a trilo-
bite in layer F [points to layer F and trilobite fossil], whereas before they
had only found trilobite fossils in layer E [points to layer E]. What does
this suggest?
DC: Now, let me ask a related, but slightly different, question. Let’s say sci
entists make some new discoveries. They begin to find some tortoise
shell fossils in layer B [points to layer B], whereas before they had only
found tortoise shell fossils in layer A [points to layer A and tortoise
fossil]. What does this suggest?
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DC: Thank you, this concludes our questions about these items and this
poster. Now let’s move on to another activity.
Part III: Timeline. Participants were presented a set of seven cards. Each
card listed one of the following words or phrases: origin o f the universe, humans, dino
saurs, life on earth, land plants, fish, or origin o f the earth. Participants were asked to
arrange the cards in the order in which they believed these events occurred (see appen
dix G).
DC: Okay, here I have a set of cards. These cards show some events in the
history of the universe [shows respondent cards in no particular order].
We have the origin of the universe, humans, dinosaurs, life on earth, land
plants, fish, and the origin of the earth. Will you arrange these cards in
the order in which you think they occurred?
DC: Can you read the order you’ve arranged the cards in and tell me why you
placed them in the order that you have?
Part IV: Biological Change. Respondents are asked to explain how a scien
tist might explain the modem cheetah’s swift running ability. To help with their expla
nation, respondents were provided with a set of cards that depicted images of changing
cat populations and a DNA double helix (see Appendix H), along with a list of words
related to key concepts of evolution: random, populations, generations, heredity, vari
ation, species, and selection (see appendix I).
DC: Okay, I have just one more activity. This involves coming up with an
explanation for how an animal changed over time. I’m going to read the
question to you, and then I’d like you to answer the question and feel free
to use these word or picture cards in front of you—they may help you to
articulate your answer, but don’t feel as though you have to use the
cards. Here is my question: According to many scientists, long ago the
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
cheetah had an ancestor that was not able to run as fast as the modem
cheetah. How would these experts explain the cheetah’s running ability
today? Please explain this development as precisely as you can using the
principles of biological evolution, regardless of whether you personally
believe this explanation.
[Allow respondent ample time to answer the question.]
DC: Do you accept [believe] this explanation? [If no] How do your beliefs
differ?
Before you go, do you have any additional comments or questions?
Thank you again.
Upon completion of the interview, the audiotape recorder was tuned off, and respon
dents were invited to select a token gift, such as a museum key chain, magnet, or note-
cards. Interview demographic forms were checked for completeness, and respondents
were free to leave.
The majority of the data collection required for the participating international
museum sites was conducted over the summer and fall o f2004. Data collection at the
Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria, Canada, extended into the winter, as the
museum enjoyed a lower visitation rate than its international counterparts. Addition
ally, Americans comprised a larger proportion of the visitation to the Royal British
Columbia Museum. Because American visitors were excluded from participating in the
international studies, it required more time to collect the necessary number of inter
views in Canada. The process of data collection for the international study overlapped
with the analysis and the presentation of the coded American data sets from the Dunckel
et al. (2004) study.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sixty-seven surveys were collected at the Natural History Museum in London.
Of these interviews, 64 were deemed useable for this study. One interview was ex
cluded from the data set because the respondent was an American citizen; another was
excluded because the quality of the audiotaped interview was too poor to allow for
transcription; and 1 was excluded because the subject was developmentally disabled
and unable to respond in a coherent manner to the questions being asked. Thirty sur
veys were collected at the Australian Natural History Museum in Sydney. Of these, 1
was excluded because the interview participant was an American tourist. Sixty-four
surveys were collected at the Royal British Columbia Museum in Victoria. Of these, 6
were excluded because the audiotaped portions of those surveys were corrupted and
unable to be transcribed for coding. The combined total number of usable surveys col
lected for the study was 151, comprised as follows: Great Britain, n = 64; Australia, n =
29; and Canada, n = 58 (see Table 9).
The number of surveys collected at each institution was in part determined by
each institution’s overall visitation levels, as reported in their respective annual reports
for the 2003-2004 fiscal year. The researcher made an effort to scale the number of
surveys collected to the institution’s annual visitation to achieve comparable data sets.
The Royal British Columbia Museum recorded just under 465,000 visitors, making the
64 surveys collected there equal to about .01% of the overall attendance; the Australian
Museum accommodated nearly 285,000 visitors, making the 30 surveys collected there
equal to about .01 % of their annual visitation; and the Natural History Museum in
London welcomed a record-breaking 3.1 million visitors, making the 67 surveys
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9
Overview o f Surveys Collected per Non-U.S. Site
Country
Administered
surveys
Valid
surveys Valid %
Australia 30 29 19.2
Canada 64 58 38.4
Great Britain 67 64 42.4
Totals 161 151 100
collected there equal to about .002% of the overall attendance. While the sample size
from the British Natural History Museum was not reflective of the .01 % of the sample
sizes from Australia and Canada, the researcher observed enough of a trend in visitor
responses to be confident that the sample size (by percentage) was indeed a representa
tional sample.
Data Analysis
Audiotaped interviews from all international sites were transcribed verbatim and
then analyzed for common themes. It was important to ensure that the themes that
emerged from the international study rendered the original U.S. scoring rubric useful.
The explanatory frameworks described by participants from the international study fit
within the rubric of the U.S. study, and the coding tool did not require editing to accom
modate understandings or explanations not present in the U.S. sample set. The scoring
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
manual developed by Ellis, Dunckel, and Chang (2004) for the initial U.S. study was
adapted from Ferrari and Chi (1998), Ohlsson (1991), and Ohlsson and Bee (1992) and
appears in appendix K.
Scoring the Part II: Rock Column/Fossil portion of the interview required the
researcher to engage in three steps. First, the reviewer determined whether or not the
respondent offered the term “fossil” when asked to identify fossilized items presented to
him/her at the interview table. The researcher then noted whether the individual made
this mention with or without prompting. Second, the reviewer coded the absence or
presence of seven ideas in the respondents’ answer:
1. Fossils are remains or remnants;
2. They often consist of hard parts of living things such as bones or shells;
3. Fossils can be imprints or impressions;
4. Fossils are formed from things that were once alive;
5. These formerly living organisms existed long ago;
6. Fossils are formed through a mineral process; and
7. Scientists use fossils to learn about the past.
Scoring the Part III: Timeline section of the interview was a more quantitative
coding endeavor. During the interview process, DCs recorded in writing directly onto
the respondent’s demographic survey sheet the order in which the subject placed the
timeline event cards. The researcher reviewed the order in which the subject arranged
the events. Patterns were identified, and divergent orders were noted and coded.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Scoring Part IV: Biological Change required the researcher to code the re
sponses to this problem in three ways. First, the use or nonuse of five critical key con
cepts was identified: (a) intraspecies variation (i.e., the species varies randomly on a set
of heritable characteristics); (b) survival advantage (i.e., an environmental pressure will
favor individuals with certain traits); (c) genetic determination (i.e., individuals with
certain traits are more likely to reproduce and pass the traits onto offspring); (d) rate or
reproduction (i.e., there will be an increase in the proportion of individuals with the
favored trait in the next generation); and (e) time scale of evolution (i.e., over many
generations, these small changes in traits accumulate and may eventually substantially
modify the species). Second, the reviewer identified the respondent’s explanatory
framework from a rubric of 16 common frameworks that emerged from the initial study:
(a) no answer or subject does know (99), (b) evolution by natural selection, (c) transmu
tation evolution A (mutation only), (d) transmutation evolution B (hybridization), (e)
amechanistic, (f) static selection, (g) teleologic/Lamarkian; (h) environmentalism, (I)
training and practice, (j) cognitive, (k) intentional creation, (1) DNA; (m) growth, (n)
physical attributes, (o) diet, and (p) miscellaneous/other. Definitions for and examples
of the common frameworks are described in detail in the coding manual (see appendix
A). Finally, respondents’ answers to the last question of Part IV, which asked them to
state their acceptance or rejection of evolution through natural selection, were calcu
lated and coded.
Once all data from the interview transcripts were coded, statistical analyses were
conducted to examine whether possible relationships existed between explanatory
60
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
frameworks, demographic information, and expressions of rejection or acceptance of
evolution. Due to the fact that the data analysis involved variables which were primar
ily categorical in nature, Pearson chi-square was generally the method used.
Validity and Reliability
Construct Validity
Several measures were taken to ensure the validity and reliability of this study.
Consistency with regard to the data collection procedures, as well as with the coding
protocol between the model U.S.-based study and the replicated and expanded interna
tional study, was critical to the study’s goal of comparing U.S. attitudes to non-U.S.
attitudes toward and understanding about evolution. To promote consistency, members
of the original U.S. data collection team initiated the surveys in Great Britain. The
primary researcher further trained one Canadian and one Australian DC in person. The
individuals selected to collect data in Canada and Australia were tenured museum pro
fessionals with expertise in visitor studies. Both specialists engaged in visitor-intercept
interviews as a regular part of their professional jobs. Coding of the interview tran
scripts was conducted by the researcher and a research assistant who was responsible
for helping to write the U.S. coding manual that was adapted for use with the interna
tional study. Further, the research associate who coded all of the data in the model U.S.
study was hired to assist in coding the international data to ensure consistency and to
eliminate most concerns about inter-rater reliability between the two study sets.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Pilot testing of the survey instrument was conducted during the initial phase of
the model U.S. study. This pilot phase helped verify construct validity by indicating
that the language often used by museums to relay information about evolution confused,
intimidated, or led respondents to answers with which they might not genuinely agree or
that might not fully reveal their level of understanding about evolution. Based on this
early pilot work, questions were modified to help guide study participants through the
various questions (see appendices F, G, H, I, and J). Final questions were rephrased to
be more open-ended in order to allow individuals who did not agree with the tenets of
evolution to fully express their position without feeling threatened.
External Validity
As mentioned in the “Delimitations” section of this research study, external
validity can be related to issues of generalizability. There are limits to the external
validity of this study. This investigation examined visitors to natural history museums
and their knowledge and rejection/acceptance levels of evolutionary theory; therefore,
results might not be applicable to the nonmuseum-going public. Individuals who
choose not to visit natural history museums might have similar or dissimilar levels of
acceptance and rejection, and they may hold similar or dissimilar explanatory frame
works for evolution and natural selection. Thus, the study’s findings may not be appli
cable to broader populations, or to populations outside of the museum-going public. In
this study, external validity relied on the assumption that the museum visitors
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
participating in the interview protocol represented the larger museum-going population
in the cities in which the surveys were conducted.
Another important question with regard to external validity is related to whether
the results and findings can be generalized to other settings. This investigation was car
ried out exclusively in natural history museums. By using only natural history museums
as data collection sites, it was possible to construct a strong analysis, as variability
between sites was naturally limited. By restricting the study to just natural history
museums, however, the researcher acknowledges that the generalizability of the study
to other sites, such as planetariums, botanical gardens, or zoos interested in creating
exhibitions about evolution, is limited.
Internal Validity
Internal validity refers to the researcher’s ability to control variables to ensure
that the data collected indeed result from the manipulation of the intended variable(s)
and is not the result of another factor. Because the purpose of this study was not to
analyze causal relationships but rather to seek to identify conceptual frameworks, con
trolling for internal validity was treated differently than in studies which are causal,
experimental, or quasi-experimental in design.
For the purpose of this investigation, the placement of data collection tables was
carefully considered as a measure of controlling for internal validity. Museum visitors
were purposefully intercepted in areas which were not adjacent to the various museums’
halls of evolution. The goal was to minimize (a) the influence that a recent experience
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in an evolution gallery might have and (b) any pressure that a visitor might feel to utilize
new terminology that he/she may have encountered in the gallery but not clearly under
stood. As the literature review clearly showed, individuals may use terms related to
evolutionary theory without truly understanding the terminology.
Reliability
Ensuring that researchers were able to consistently gather comparable informa
tion from multiple study participants across three unique settings was critical in estab
lishing reliability in this research study. In preparation for this study, the pilot survey
revealed that question terminology was at times confusing to subjects; as a result, some
questions were changed to include less technical descriptors. Further, instrumentation
design and protocol were tested to determine whether participants would respond in a
similar way if the survey was repeated by another researcher. Given that multiple as
sistants collected data for this investigation, ensuring the reliability of the survey instru
ments and protocols was highly prioritized. The author of the study personally trained
three assistant DCs and conducted interviews alongside the assistant DCs in Canada and
Great Britain. The author trained the Australian research assistant in person but did not
collect any of the Australian surveys. This attention to training and the side-by-side
data collection approach aided in establishing confidence in the reliability of the study
results.
Another measure of reliability refers to the likelihood that an independent re
searcher would reach similar results if presented with the same data and coding manual.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ensuring a detailed and robust coding methodology is one method of improving reli
ability. Further, reliability can be improved by providing a clear chain that describes
how the data were collected and how they were connected to the individual survey
participants. For this research protocol, a chain of evidence was developed in part by
documenting respondents’ statements and identifying these with labels that corre
sponded to the individual participants in each of the data sets. Finally, this research
study used three separate interview protocols to gather essentially similar data about
individuals’ understanding of evolutionary theory. The purpose of engaging three
protocols was to capitalize on the opportunity to triangulate data—a strategy that helps
to improve the reliability of a research study. Responses documented in the three sepa
rate protocols provided corroborating evidence and helped to increase the likelihood
that an independent researcher would reach similar results.
Interrater reliability was established through the use of two individual coders: a
research assistant from the University of Florida and the study’s author. Both coders
were trained for and participated in the development of the coding manual developed
for the U.S.-based study. All non-U.S. protocols were scored independently by each of
the two coders. Overall reliability for Part II was 86.2% (high 94%, low 78%); overall
reliability for Part III was 100%; overall reliability for Part IV was 100%. Final analysis
of all protocols relied on the primary coder’s assessment.
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Overview
Treatment of the data collected for this study is organized into distinct sections
that mirror the survey protocols. First, the data regarding rejection levels of evolution
ary theory are presented independently for each of the three non-U.S. research sites
(Australia, Canada and Great Britain). Then data for these sites are combined and
compared as a unit with the data presented in the earlier U.S.-based, multicity study.
Quantitative analysis (Pearson’s chi-square) was used to analyze relationships between
selected demographic variables and rejection rates in each of the study sites, as well as
for the combined non-U.S. sample. Again, quantitative analysis was used to determine
whether significant differences existed between results exposed by the U.S. data and
those observed in the non-U.S. data.
Open coding was used to analyze the open-ended interview questions and to
establish descriptive categories for the study’s three distinct interview topics: (a) fossils
and the fossil record, (b) sequences in geologic time, and (c) natural selection as the
mechanism for evolution. Frequencies for each of the derived categories were de
scribed, and the relationships between variables were examined using chi-square where
possible. Data from the non-U.S. sites were compared independently to determine
whether significant differences existed between the three sites. Then, where possible,
data from the non-U.S. sites were combined and compared to the data derived from the
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
overall U.S. study to determine whether significant differences existed in the three
categorical areas between the two consolidated sample sets.
As discussed in chapter 3, interviews completed at each site were reviewed for
completeness before being classified as valid. Of the 64 interviews deemed valid in the
British sample, the researcher neglected to ask the final interview question, “Is this
[evolution through natural selection] an explanation you personally accept?” of 1 par
ticipant; thus, for the purpose of evaluating rejection rates in the British sample, an n of
63 was used. Of the 30 Australian interviews, 29 were judged valid and 28 were inclu
sive of the rejection/acceptance question; thus, in the Australian sample, an n of 28 was
used. Finally, of the 58 valid Canadian interviews, the researcher failed to ask the final
interview question, “Is this [evolution through natural selection] an explanation you
personally accept?” of 26 subjects, and 1 subject refused to answer the question. Thus,
for the purpose of evaluating rejection rates in the Canadian sample, an n of 31 was
used. Therefore, for all rejection related data and cross-tabulations, an n of 122 was
used.
Survey Analysis
Rejection o f Evolutionary Theory by Study
Site
The valid percentage data revealed that slight differences existed between the
rejection rates of the evolutionary theory by museum visitors when analyzed by individ
ual site (see Table 10). Canadian and British museum visitors seemed less likely to
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reject evolution than their Australian counterparts when straight percentages were
compared; however, this difference was not statistically significant, Pearson chi-square
(122) = 5.965,p < .05). When analyzed using valid percentages, the data indicated that
museum visitors in Great Britain, Canada, and Australia were all less likely to actively
reject evolutionary theory than the combined U.S. sample.
Table 10
Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding o f Evolution: Non-U.S. Rejection Rates
by Site
Site
Does not
reject
Does
reject
Unde
cided
Total n % n % n %
Australia 24 86.2 2 6.1 2 6.1 28
Canada 30 96.8 0 0.0 1 3.2 31
Great Britain 61 96.8 1 1.6 1 1.6 63
United States combined 280 90.6 29 9.4 0 0.0 309
Acceptance and Rejection o f Evolutionary
Theory in Great Britain
Respondents participating in the British sample by and large did not reject the
theory of evolution. Of the individuals interviewed at the Natural History Museum in
London, a single subject (representing 1.6% of the sample) rejected the theory of evolu
tion and characterized his belief system as being “creationist,” as the excerpt from his
interview illustrates:
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
GB52: Well I don’t necessarily feel that I evolved.. .. I can’t see how an
cient [life] theoretically evolved from a single life form which
supposedly] developed from somewhere. If you look at the big bang
theory, when the planets collided, theoretically the heat from the col
lision would have killed any living organisms that there are. Assum
ing there was nothing else in space, as no other life forms have been
found, it seems difficult to assume that we came from a life form
which may have come from outer space and landed on the Earth or
something. So we have to go along with the theory of creation.
DC: Okay, and do you subscribe to one theory or the other?
GB52: Well creation as opposed to evolution, yes.
In reviewing the demographic data provided by respondent GB52, it was noted that this
older adult subject, although a 30-year citizen of Great Britain, had been bom, raised,
and completed his formal education, including graduate-level studies, in Allentown,
Pennsylvania in the United States. While this survey was not eliminated from the pool,
given the respondent’s status as a British citizen and his tenure of 30 years’ living in
Great Britain, it should be noted that further research efforts that might seek to explore
causal relationships between conceptual frameworks and the acceptance or rejection of
evolutionary theory incorporate a mechanism to screen participants to ascertain where
they received their formal education.
One participant in the British study (again, representing 1.6% of the sample) in
dicated ambivalence about whether he accepts the theory of evolution:
GB12: I don’t know, I don’t know nothing about it but yes, I, I have to just
say I have a, I would have a—decision about evolution and survival
of the fittest and, well, I’d like to know where all these in-betweens
are now. You don’t see ‘em.
DC: So then the explanation that you’ve given me is something you’re not
necessarily really accepting of?
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
GB12: That’s right, I know what the information is, ‘cause I know what the
theory of evolution is, but I don’t know if I would go along with it—I
don’t know. Don’t know enough about it to say whether I believe it’s
true or not.
Most of the British respondents reported an acceptance of evolutionary theory as
illustrated in the responses that GB01 and GB26 provided:
DC: Is this [evolution by natural selection] an explanation that you per
sonally accept?
GBO1: I believe in evolution, yes.
GB26: I believe and accept because it’s common logic to me.
Several of the British participants elaborated on their acceptance of evolution by
specifically calling out a rejection of creation theory:
GB27: Yes. I’m a believer in evolution, I’m not a religious fanatic, and I
don’t have any great faith, a healthy view, [chuckles]
GB 14: Oh absolutely. It’s not God, ‘cause that’s crap—I don’t believe in the
whole God thing.
GB 06: Yeah. Yeah. I don’t have any religious [issues], no.
While these individuals reported an acceptance of evolutionary theory, their responses
suggested an explanatory framework that requires a rejection of religion as a precursor
to the acceptance of evolution.
When compared to the other non-US sites, the valid percentage data in the
British sample illustrated the lowest level of rejection of evolutionary theory among
respondents. The sample also expressed the lowest level of individuals who cited un
certainty with regard to their thoughts on evolution. Finally, it is important to note that
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the single report rejecting evolutionary theory among the British sample was traced to
an individual educated in the United States.
Acceptance and Rejection o f Evolutionary Theory
in Canada
Unlike the other two non-U.S. sites, there were no participants in the Canadian
study who rejected evolutionary theory outright. One Canadian participant did refuse to
answer the question, “Do you personally accept the theory of evolution?” noting simply
that “I have no feeling about evolution. I don’t think about the past. I prefer to live in
the moment” (C55). One issue arose with regard to measuring the rejection of evolu
tionary theory in the Canadian sample. The primary DC for the site neglected to ask the
final survey question that probed respondents for their personal acceptance or rejection
of evolutionary theory of 45% of the sample. Thus, the n for the Canadian sample for
this part of the protocol was less than desired. The author, however, felt confident that
trends observed by reviewing the percentages of reported rejection, acceptance, and
undecided sentiments in the Canadian sample were strong enough to warrant maintain
ing the sample set for this study.
The Canadian data revealed 1 participant (3.2 % of the sample) who did not
reject evolution theory outright but showed some indecision about whether he accepted
or rejected evolution theory:
DC: And do you accept the theory of evolution?
C62: Half and half.
DC: Half and half?
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C62: Yeah, it means something had to be created first.
Additionally 1 participant who reported an acceptance of evolution theory volunteered a
clarification that in his opinion, the process of evolution is theistically designed:
DC: Do you accept the theory of evolution?
C49: I believe in evolution and creationism too. Evolution is working, but
was designed to be that way by God.
Because this individual reported to “believe in evolution,” his response was coded
among those who did not reject evolution. The study was not designed to probe individ
uals to clarify whether their belief structures included an understanding of theistic in
tervention or origin in the process of evolution. Future studies may consider probing
this issue further.
Most of the Canadian sample, however, indicated a strong acceptance of evolu
tionary theory:
DC: Do you accept the theory of evolution?
C39: I absolutely do.
C32: Yeah, yeah.
C01: Yes.
Acceptance and Rejection o f Evolutionary
Theory in Australia
While the Australian data indicated the highest rejection levels o f evolution
among the three non-U.S. sites studies analyzed by valid percentage, this difference was
not statistically significant when compared to the British and Canadian data sets. The
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
majority of Australian respondents (over 86%) did not purport to reject evolutionary
theory, as evidenced in the following responses:
DC: Do you personally believe in the theory of evolution?”
A24: Nuts not to.
All: Yes. Yes. I believe it is a fact There’s evidence everywhere.
A27: Well, yes. It makes sense and there’s an insurmountable amount of
evidence in terms of fossils and that geological evidence . .. and modem
species, I guess by diversity.
Several Australian respondents who reported to accept evolution noted a fear
that creation education efforts might influence national science education outcomes, as
evidenced by respondent A 13:
A13: Well I must say, I’m concerned—I mean I don’t know. Near where I live
we’ve got what’s called the Creation in Schools coming in, and I find
that quite sort of disturbing. And I’m a forester by profession, you
know—we sort of have links. I work for the Forestry Commission, and
these schools now refuse to allow us to speak to their children.
Others noted an acceptance of evolution while calling out the low levels of evolution
acceptance among Americans as a broader concern:
A21: [I am] amazed at the number of people who don’t believe in evolution,
particularly in the U.S.
A06: Mr. Bush doesn’t seem interested. .. hope Kerry gets in, shall we?
[Note: Interview conducted before November 2004.)
It should be noted that when compared to the combined U.S. sample, Austra
lians were slightly less likely to accept evolution outright than Americans, but this dif
ference was not statistically significant at the .05 level. When compared to individual
American study sites, Australian data were closely aligned to responses observed in the
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
two U.S. sites that showed the lowest levels of acceptance of evolutionary theory—
those sites being Florida with an 85% acceptance rate and Kansas with an 83% accep
tance rate.
The Australian study revealed 2 individuals (6.1% of the sample) who rejected
evolution in favor of creation theory and 2 individuals (6.1% of the sample) who indi
cated an uncertainty as to whether or not they accepted evolution theory. An excerpt
from the interview with participant A05 illustrates his rejection of evolution based on a
religious viewpoint:
DC: Do you believe these explanations? Do you believe in evolution?
A05: No, I don’t. I just study it, but I don’t necessarily believe it. Basically, it
is un-Christian, and ah, science is difficult in really understanding, any
way. It’s just a way [of] explaining things in my viewpoint. I believe in
the Christian religion and I believe in God I still believe there’s
some other physical force out there [that] science cannot explain.
DC: How do you reckon your beliefs differ from the scientific beliefs?
A05: Ah, there’s a lot of things that have to be debated on___ I just, I don’t
really know how to [explain it], but all I know is that there’s some other
force—it’s bigger than evolution.
The interview with participant A30 compounded this:
DC: Do you believe in theory of evolution?
A30: No.
DC: How do your beliefs differ?
A30: Well, scientists, scientists like to teach us that the world evolved from
atoms. Where did the atoms come from? And I have to say that, you
know, there’s gotta be a greater power than man, so I have to say I
believe that God created Earth by the picture . .. the only historical
record we have of how the world began is the Bible, so therefore, the
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bible’s needed for that one, and it’s been written progressively over a
period of time. And then you get Darwinism which really, you know,
well, I hate to think about my great-great-great, my grandfather was
an ape. You know. Certain people have looked like them, but you
know, they’re still not monkeys.
Australian demographic data indicated a population characterized by multiple
ethnicities and more recent immigration patterns than the Canadian and British sites,
where reported ethnicities were much more homogenous in nature, according to the
demographic data collected with this study. This immigration pattern may have some
impact on the Australian attitudes revealed through this study. As a nation, Australia
may be more like America in this regard than the other two study sites. Exactly 50% of
the participants in the Australian sample were bom overseas, with 37% reporting birth
in English-speaking foreign countries and 13% reporting birth in non-English speaking
countries. Additionally, a large percentage of those Australian participants who re
ported an overseas birthplace had lived in Australia less than 5 years. While there was
no observable relationship between rejection responses and foreign or national birth
reports in this study sample, the immigrant characteristic deserves attention in future
studies.
Demographic Data and the Rejection o f
Evolutionary Theory
Data from the U.S. study showed a significant relationship between age and the
rejection of evolutionary theory. As previously noted, this finding was consistent with
Gallup Poll findings which indicated that older Americans were more likely than their
younger counterparts to reject evolution by natural selection (Brooks, 2001). The non-
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U.S. data, unlike the American-based study and Gallup Poll findings, showed no evi
dence that the rejection of evolutionary theory was related to respondents’ age in any of
the three study sites, Pearson chi-square (118) = 4.966,p > .05 (see Table 11).
Table 11
Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding o f Evolution: Non-U.S. Rejection Rates
by Age and Percentage (N= 118)
Age category Does not reject Does reject/undecided
Young adult (18-34) 88.0% 12.0%
Mature adult (35-54) 94.6% 5.4%
Older adult (55 and older) 95.0% 5.0%
As noted in chapter 3, Gallup research has shown a consistent correlation be
tween American’s acceptance levels of evolutionary theory and the respondent’s level
of education (Brooks, 2001). The U.S.-based museum study, also noted in chapter 3,
did not show a statistically significant relationship between rejection of evolution and
level of education among American respondents. Among the non-U.S. sample, the data
showed similar statistical results, Pearson chi-square (122) = 10.41,/? > .05). In other
words, an individual’s level of education was not relatable to his or her rejection of
evolutionary theory in the sample sets from outside of the United States (see Table 12).
Overall, this study indicated that the majority of subjects interviewed in Austra
lian, Canada, and Great Britain did not reject evolutionary theory and that participants
in all non-U.S. sites were less likely to reject evolutionary theory that their American
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T able 12
Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding o f Evolution: Non-U.S. Rejection Rates
by Education Level and Percentage (N - 122)
Education Does not reject Does reject Undecided Total
High school or less 91.9% 5.4% 2.7% 37
Associate degree 81.8% 0.0% 18.2% 11
Bachelor’s degree 95.6% 0.0% 4.4% 45
M.A., Ph.D. degree 92.0% 8.0% 0.0% 27
Note. M.A. = Master of Arts; Ph.D. = Doctor of Philosophy.
counterparts, Pearson chi-square (431) = 23.791 ,P< .05. Although the valid percentage
data showed Australian rejection levels as close to the level of American rejection, the
sample did not show a statistically significance difference at the .05 level.
Understanding the Fossil Record: Part II
Part II of the interview protocol required participants to answer a series of
questions aimed at ascertaining their level of understanding regarding the fossil record.
Participants were asked to discuss fossils, the process of fossilization, and then to
suggest a series of answers to questions aimed at determining individuals’ level of
knowledge with regard to the nature of science. Overall, subjects demonstrated a clear
familiarity with fossils and regularly described them as the hardened remains or im
prints of once-living organisms that formed over long periods of time and are now used
by scientists to examine the past. The two most commonly noted features of fossils
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
included the observation that they represent organisms that were once living and that
petrified over long periods of time. Of the non-U.S. study sites, only 0.7% of the indi
viduals were unable to correctly identify and define a fossil; 93.4% described them
without the use of any prompts, 2% were able to define once a prompt was provided,
and 3.3% described fossils accurately but without actually using the term “fossil.” An
analysis of the responses using chi-square indicated that there was no statistically
significant difference between the three non-U.S. survey sites, Pearson chi-square (151)
= 23.461,/? > .05), nor was there a significant difference between the combined non-
U.S. sample set when compared to the American data, Pearson chi-square (431) =
208.511 ,p> .05). Overall, it is clear that individuals in all study sites shared a strong
familiarity with fossils.
Part II of the interview protocol relied on the use of a number of visual aides (see
appendices F, G, H, I and J) to probe the level of understanding that respondents had
with regard to scientific evidence and the nature of science. Most respondents (92.1 %)
showed a knowledge of superposition and were able to identify that scientists find the
oldest fossils in the deepest levels of the strata and the younger fossils nearer the top of
the strata and why this is generally the case. The following two interview excerpts
reveal typical answers:
DC: So let me ask you a few questions about the layers and the fossils we
have here. From this [points to poster], can you tell which of the
fossils are the oldest and which are the youngest?
GB02: Yeah. I think the oldest ones would be toward the bottom and the
younger ones nearer to the top.
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DC: Okay so oldest down in F, youngest in A?
GB02: Yeah.
DC: Now how do you know that?
GB02: Just from knowing that as time goes on, the layers build up and so
you get things like plants and debris that sort of forms different layers
at the time.
Excerpt #2:
DC: Now, when you look at all these different layers and the fossils that
are there, can you tell me which fossils are oldest and which fossils
are youngest?
C62: The stuff down here is the oldest and the stuff up at the top is the
youngest.
DC: Okay, so the bottom down by F is the oldest and the top is the youn
gest at A?
C62: I think so.
DC: How did you know that?
C62: Well, because we have more primitive things down here and more
modem evolved things up there.
DC: Okay, so you just look at the critters themselves?
C62: Yeah.
DC: Do the layers tell you anything?
C62: Well, yeah, they’re piled on top of one another. Obviously the new
est can’t be below the oldest.
While most individuals were able to articulate basic information about fossils,
as questions began to probe deeper into the nature of science, respondents’ answers
became markedly weaker. Questions in Part II of the interview protocol set up several
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
scenarios where the researcher introduced “new evidence” into the fossil record and
asked subjects to explain what this new information might suggest to scientists. Less
than half of the respondents (41.1 %) in the combined sample set articulated an infer
ence that would be considered acceptable in explaining the new evidence, and only
9.3% suggested that the new evidence might mean that scientists would revise their
previously held understanding of the fossil record when faced with new evidence
(examples of acceptable responses are provided in appendix A). Rather, there was a
tendency for individuals to identify external forces acting upon the fossil record than to
consider or suggest that the new evidence might lead scientists to change their thoughts
or ideas about their previously held understandings. An excerpt from the data collected
in London illustrates how individuals responded to these instances of new information:
DC: Now, let’s say scientists made some later discoveries, so they found
this [researcher points to fossil in lowest strata layer] say a year or so
ago. They came back, and then they found some trilobites up in this
layer when they hadn’t found any before. What would that suggest to
the scientists?
GB02: I don’t know, really. Were there fewer in this layer than there were
down here?
DC: Doesn’t really say. Let’s just say they found some in a layer that they
had not been observed in before.
GB02: Right. Okay. Not sure really. I don’t know really.
DC: That’s okay. What about up here? Let’s say they [the scientists]
went back and they also started finding some tortoise shell fossils
here [researcher points to a layer above the layer where tortoise fos
sils are illustrated on the poster] in this layer here, when before they
hadn’t found any in this layer. Any ideas as to what that might sug
gest to them?
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
GB02: Um, could it suggest maybe, I don’t know, that there is a possibility
that they may have originally been in that layer and some sort of, I
don’t know—some sort of disturbance has caused them to go down a
layer.
DC: Okay, like an earthquake or something?
GB02: Yeah. Something like that.
DC: Okay. Great. So in other words, they may have originally been here,
but they might have fallen into that layer when they were?
GB02: Yeah.
The view that an external force interfered with the fossil record was expressed in the
Canadian sample as well, as illustrated by C30:
DC: Now, when I was going to school, we were taught that trilobites were
found in this particular layer, but today, 25 years later, we know that
trilobites are also found in this layer above. What do you think that
suggests?
C30: That would suggest shifting of the land. So these in the way you find
trilobites on cliff sites, for instance, or even in the mountains. The shift
ing of the land, upwards and outwards. This was millions of years be
fore the making of rock over millions of years, so these things have
actually shifted. So you will find them actually in this layer. But I would
have thought it would be unlikely you’d find them any higher. That’s
again a shifting of land, but I really wouldn’t be able to elucidate on that
any further because I don’t know.
The idea that scientific understanding changes with the introduction of new evidence is
just one way to test individuals’ knowledge of the nature of science. The participants in
this study clearly did not show an understanding of science as dynamic, nor did they
seem to understand that scientists use new evidence to revise their thoughts or theories.
This finding mirrored the findings observed in the American study, which also indicated
a lack of understanding regarding these aspects of the nature of science.
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Understanding the Sequence o f Geologic Time:
Part III
Sequence o f events. Participants were asked to organize a series of word cards
into a sequence showing the order in which events took place or species debuted. Indi
viduals with a robust understanding of evolution would be expected to organize the
event cards in the following order:
1. Order of events—origin of the universe, origin of Earth, life on Earth.
2. Order in which species arose—fish, land plants, dinosaurs, humans.
Coding for Part III was completed by identifying those individuals who identi
fied the geologic time sequencing in the correct order, those who transposed only the
emergence of fish and land plants (this misconception was noted far more frequently
than any other), and those respondents who made multiple errors in their sequencing.
Of the three non-U.S. study sites, respondents in the British sample were less likely than
either the Australian or Canadian respondents to sequence the events correctly, and they
were more likely to make multiple mistakes in the sequencing patterns, Pearson chi-
square (151) = 14.605,p < .05). When analyzing by valid percentage, the data from
Australia and Great Britain showed that more individuals transposed the emergence of
fish and land plants than correctly identified the accepted scientific sequence (see Table
13). In the Canadian sample, the valid percentage data showed an equal number of re
spondents who correctly identified the sequence of evolutionary history and those who
transposed the emergence of fish with land plants. There was not a statistically signifi
cant difference between the U.S. and non-U.S. samples at the .05 level.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13
Evaluating Museum Visitors ’ Understanding o f the Sequence o f Geologic Time, by
Percentage
Site % correct
% confusing emergence of
fish and land plants only
% incorrect on multiple
events
Australia 36.7 43.3 20.0
Canada 44.8 44.8 10.3
Great Britain 28.6 31.7 39.7
United States 26.8 40.4 32.8
The most common area where respondents reported uncertainty in this section
of the survey was the sequence order concerning the appearance of fish and land plants,
as evidenced in C03’s response: “origin of the universe probably first, origin of Earth,
life on Earth, oooooo, fish or land plants, mmmmm—I’m not sure about fish and land
plants, which one came before the other.”
The most frequently noted misconception was the understanding that land plants
evolved prior to fish. The rationale for selecting this sequence was typically explained
in one of two ways: Either the respondent explained that land plants evolved earlier
because later animals would depend on the plants as a food source, as articulated by
respondent C l9: “I think plants came earliest, there had to be something for the other
things to eat.” Alternatively, respondents reported that land plants were less complex
than animals and thus must have evolved later in time, as explained by C20: “I pictured
that there would be plants as a sort of less complicated life form, and so I thought they
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
would probably form on land before fish, being a more evolved life form, would even
start in the water.”
Subjects who reversed the order of land plants and fish in the sequencing section
of the interview were more likely to offer non-Darwinian explanations in other portions
of their interview, Pearson chi-square (151) = 16.60,/? > .05. For example, those re
spondents who used a rationale that described land plants as a less evolved form of life
were more likely to use teleological/Lamarkian, static selection, or cognitive rationales
as explanations when asked to describe the mechanism by which evolution operates.
Respondent Cl 9 suggested that land plants evolved prior to the emergence of fish:
DC: Can you arrange these cards in the order you think they occurred?
Cl 9: Origin of the universe, origin of Earth, life on Earth, land plants, fish,
dinosaurs, humans.
DC: Now, here you have land plants first and then followed by fish second.
What were you thinking about when you put them in that order?
C 19: Because I think plants came earliest, there had to be something for the
other things to eat.
When asked about the mechanism driving evolution through Part IV, the same respon
dent used a teleological explanation for change over time:
DC: Please explain the development as precisely as you can using the princi
ples of biological evolution.
C19: They were able to adapt to whatever, whether their food was available
. . . maybe there were fewer of those animals so that they had to get
faster.
Other respondents, who understood land plants to have evolved before fish, commented
similarly:
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A2: It’s so commonly accepted that animals evolved certain characteristics to
cope with the environment that they lived in at the time. And the chee
tahs would become faster because they were having to chase the prey
because they needed the speed to catch it.
The foregoing examples help shed light on the conceptual frameworks that
individuals held with regard to the process of evolution. The data showed that a high
percentage of individuals believed that evolution is a goal-oriented process—one that is
driven by an animal’s need to survive—and that species evolved in a hierarchical
fashion, with later species expressing greater degrees of complexity than earlier species.
Understanding Natural Selection as the
Mechanism on Which Evolutionary Theory
Operates: Part IV
The final section of the survey called for subjects to listen to a brief description
of scientists’ findings that the modem cheetah is a swifter runner than ancestral chee
tahs. Participants were asked to explain this change over time as precisely as they
could, using the principles of biological evolution. This portion of the survey was
designed to elicit subjects’ understanding of natural selection—the mechanism by
which evolution operates.
Table 14 illustrates the frequencies of participant explanations and includes the
top seven explanatory frameworks offered by respondents. Explanations that fell out
side of the seven categories but which not expressed by enough individuals to warrant a
separate category were coded as “other.” Additionally, in the non-U.S. study, seven
interviews ended early or he audio transcripts were damaged; thus, the interviews were
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
coded as “no answer” for Part IV. When the “other” category was eliminated from
consideration, the top three explanatory frameworks that emerged included explana
tions using natural selection, teleology, and static selection. The frequency and order of
the top three explanations in the non-U.S. study mirrored those in the American study.
In both sample sets, natural selection emerged as the explanation cited most frequently;
but in both cases, less than a third of respondents explained change over time using the
explanation of natural selection. In both the U.S. and non-U.S. sites, the use of teleo-
logical/Lamarkian explanations was the second most noted explanatory framework,
followed by static selection.
Explanatory Frameworks and the
Rejection o f Evolution
Among those who either rejected evolution outright or report to be undecided on
the issue, the most frequently sited explanatory frameworks were those that were con
structed on teleological and Lamarkian explanations. The categories of “teleology” and
“Lamarkian” were combined into one category, because in the vast majority of inter
views, respondents constructed explanations that combined features of both rationales
to the point that they were not easily weighted as clearly one ideology or the other.
These teleological/Lamarkian explanations were observed in more than two thirds of
the explanations offered by individuals who rejected evolution and in half of the indi
viduals who report indecision on the acceptance or rejection of evolutionary theory in
the non-U.S. data set. These data are illustrated in Table 14.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T able 14
Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding o f Evolution: Explanatory Frameworks
for the Mechanics o f Evolutionary Theory in Non-U.S. Museums, by Percentage
Explanatory framework Does not reject Does reject Undecided Total
Natural selection 27.8% 0.0% 25.0% 27.0%
Mutation only 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%
Hybridization 2.6% 33.5% 0.0% 3.4%
Amechanistic 6.0% 0.0% 25.0% 6.5%
Static selection 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7.3%
T eleological/Lamarkian 17.4% 66.5% 50.0% 19.7%
Practice/learning 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4%
Other 26.6% 0.0% 0.0% 24.5%
No answer 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7%
Totals 115 3 4 122
When reviewing the data regarding respondents’ explanatory frameworks pre
sented in Table 14 and comparing them to the full interview transcripts, a pattern
emerged which suggested that individuals who relied on an event ontology to explain
the change in the cheetah’s running ability tended to express non-Darwinian explana
tions for evolutionary theory. For example, respondent A11 explained the evolution of
the cheetah as being directly caused by the environment. The respondent noted specific
events which put pressure on an individual cheetah to change:
It could be that there’s been a change in the environment so that they [the chee
tahs] need to travel further to get their food. .. the animals they hunt as prey
have become faster to get away from them, so in response to that they’ve had to
over time become faster—they had to evolve.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The explanation above illustrates a conceptual framework that identifies events happen
ing within an environment (i.e., the increased speed of prey and the implied scarcity of
prey in a given environment) as causing evolutionary change. The explanation also
illustrates a teleological explanation of evolution, as the respondent noted the animal’s
need to change as a secondary factor to the particular environmental events. This type
of conceptual framework is evident in the following response:
My assumption would actually be that it’s all to do with the environment, that
each animal has that they have to live in. Originally, it would sound as if [it]
was not running as fast as it needed to; that’s because its prey was much slower
moving or it had a different type of food that it actually fed on, and then of
course as other animals actually grew, maybe they became faster, because there
were other animals that they had to run away from. And so then the cheetah
itself evolved into a fast running animal. They have to move from A to B much
faster in order to follow their food. So and generally a lot of it would have been
to do with an environmental impact. (C l9)
Another example of this common naive conception was expressed by respondent A24:
Because I think, biological evolution. I mean, survival of the fittest, and obvi
ously the cheetah needed to change. Well, I’m assuming that it’s developed fast
because it required it to survive, whereas before it didn’t. So, would it be be
cause its food source had become faster or has changed to a faster speed, so it
had to evolve to catch its food source, obviously, so they didn’t die out.
Other misconceptions that were expressed rather widely in the data included the
idea that practice, training, and growth on behalf of individuals influenced the evolu
tionary progress of a species:
In order to eat, they needed to kind of get their act together really and speed up.
And I reckon over the generations of the cheetah, they, after one generation they
improved a bit, like when we, we practice, practice, and we get better. And then
I would say a lot of things developed really. The way we move, the way we, our
technology’s moving. We teach our children. Our mothers can teach us com
puters, and I’d say that the way, the same the animal teach and practice and
become better. (GB21)
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This idea reflected a teleological explanation supplemented by a Lamarkian ideology in
that the framework was based on the assumption that acquired physical traits are passed
onto subsequent generations of a species. This Lamarkian construct was evident in
further responses, such as the following:
And I suppose it’ll have to occur about building up its muscle and the change of
its muscle structure so it has complex muscle fibers that allow it to run fast.
These more muscular cheetahs had stronger offspring then I suppose. (GB40)
In comparison, those respondents who oriented their explanations to an equilib
rium or process ontology were more likely to respond to the cheetah problem in stronger
Darwinian terms, as the examples below illustrate:
Well, in the original cheetahs—the prototype—there would have been a range,
there’s quite a lot of genetic variations in the cheetah population. Some chee
tahs would have been faster than others, and the cheetahs who ran fast would
have had a better survival rate than the cheetahs who ran slowly. Therefore, the
cheetahs who ran faster tend to survive because they would pass on their speed,
and to me it was genetically, it was inherited by DNA. So over time there would
have been natural selection for faster cheetahs, and the slower cheetahs would
have slowly died out because they wouldn’t have survived as well. (A27)
I would say that the cheetahs got faster because any cheetah who was by chance
faster, whether, and that would be, somewhere in their DNA or something like
that was something that made them faster, and those would be more likely to
survive to the point where they reproduced. Natural selection being, if you
weren’t fast enough to catch food, you died off before you mated and had new
cheetahs, so the genes that were faster survived and continued to get passed on
into future generations of cheetahs. (C41)
Both respondents A27 and C41 provided explanations that were more aligned with
Darwin’s model of natural selection, as they relied less on explaining individual events
and focused more on a process that noted natural variation in the ancestral cheetah pop
ulation, reproductive advantage in groups where the advantageous trait was expressed,
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and also noted the trait as fitting the environment more than the environment shaping
the trait. As such, this portion of the study confirms an earlier finding by Ferrari and
Chi (1998) which positively correlates equilibrium ontology with Darwinian explana
tions for evolution and further shows a more robust understanding of evolution theory
specifically with regard to natural selection in individuals who view evolution as an
ongoing process rather than as a series of discrete events.
Explanatory Frameworks and Levels o f
Education
Cross-tabulations were performed to determine whether a respondent’s explana
tory framework could be correlated to the individual’s level of formal education (see
Table 15). While this study did not confirm a statistically significant relationship
between level of education and the rejection of evolution, it did indicate that the naive
conceptions observed in the American study paralleled those observed in the three non-
U.S. study sites.
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 15
Evaluating Museum Visitors’ Understanding o f Evolution: Relationship Between Ex
planatory Frameworks for the Mechanics o f Evolutionary Theory and Education Level
in Non-U.S. Museums, by Percentage
Explanatory
framework
High school
or less A.A. degree B.A. degree
M.A./Ph.D.
degree Total
Natural selection 21.3 16.7 29.8 46.4 28.7
Mutation only 2.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 2.0
Hybridization 4.3 0.0 7.0 7.1 5.3
Amechanistic 6.4 16.7 10.5 3.6 8.7
Static selection 2.1 16.7 5.3 7.1 6.0
Teleological 25.5 27.8 10.5 21.4 19.3
Practice/learning 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.7
Other 34.0 16.7 26.3 7.1 24.0
No answer 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.6 1.3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Overview
This research project followed several others which sought to shed light on the
issues surrounding evolution education and the difficulty that many individuals have in
understanding the mechanism of natural selection. Earlier studies have shown consis
tently high rejection levels of evolutionary theory among Americans, while the citizens
of other Western countries seem to find little impediment to accepting evolution as
scientific fact. This study shows that even among those individuals who frequent
natural history museums, the outright rejection of evolutionary theory still ranks highest
among Americans. However, when examined independently, Australian data indicated
a worrisome level of rejection of evolutionary theory, and this rejection seemed firmly
rooted in fundamental interpretations of the Bible. The Australian data also showed a
higher level of uncertainty among study participants as to their acceptance or rejection
of evolution, especially when compared to British and Canadian samples. Additionally,
the study results indicated that while Australians, Canadians, and the British were less
likely to reject evolution than Americans, they were just as likely to harbor misconcep
tions about natural selection. Two thirds of the study participants from outside of the
United States were not able to explain natural selection, even if they were able to dis
cuss the tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution. The American study showed that even
among individuals with advanced degrees (master’s level or doctorate level), less than
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
half (45%) used natural selection as an explanation for evolution. Non- U.S. respon
dents with advanced degrees used natural selection to construct explanations for the
process of evolution at a similar frequency (46.4%). In the American study, large
numbers of respondents most often explained the process of evolution using teleologi
cal, amechanistic, or static selection rationales. This was also true in the non-U.S.
samples, where teleological/Lamarkian explanations were observed at the second
highest frequency, followed by static selection and amechanistic as the next the most
frequently observed misconceptions regarding the mechanics of evolutionary theory.
Further, of both the American and the non-American samples, a surprising number of
respondents showed a lack of understanding about the nature of science, as evidenced in
the results of Part II.
Of particular concern in the data that emerged from the non-U.S. sites was the
observation that while many respondents were able to list or reference Darwin’s princi
ples of evolution, most could not articulate how those principles operate—a finding that
paralleled the American-based study. In fact, many individuals in the non-U.S. study
used the term “natural selection” in their responses to Part IV but went on to describe a
process that is in fact not natural selection, but rather reflected an alternative under
standing of the mechanics of evolution such as teleology, hybridization, or mutation.
What seemed to emerge from the non-U.S. study sample was a tendency for individuals
to explain evolution as a series of discrete events rather than an ongoing process.
Ferrari and Chi (1998) suggested that this type of misconception arises from mistaken
categorization on behalf of the learner. They purported that individuals fail to recognize
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the ontological features of natural selection as an equilibrium process and instead at
tempt to assign event-like properties to evolution. This tendency was observed through
out the present study and was well represented in the samples from all study sites.
Further, the idea that a dichotomy exists between one’s acceptance of evolution
ary theory and one’s religious convictions was observed in multiple interviews across
all sites except Canada, where there were several instances where individuals volun
tarily reported acceptance of both evolutionary theory and a contextual interpretation of
biblical explanations for the origins of life. Gould (1999) once described religion and
science as two nonoverlapping magistera: that science and faith occupy different
realms, with the net of science covering the empirical universe while the net of religion
extends over questions of moral meaning and value. Future studies into the acceptance
of evolutionary theory might be well served to probe this interplay more deeply.
Recommendations for Addressing the Issue of
Evolution Education in the United States
The issue of evolution education in America is complex. The general public
neither understands nor accepts biological evolution and consequently asserts pressure
on school boards to curtail the treatment of evolution in public school science classes
(Brooks, 2001; Costa, 2003; Scott, 2000). Science teachers, even those who support the
teaching of evolution, often feel unprepared or unsupported in their efforts to provide
meaningful lessons on evolution; and textbook publishers are lobbied to minimize or
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
censor their coverage of evolution as a topic in order to remain competitive in a market
that does not demand excellence in science education (Gregg et al., 2003; Scott).
The Case fo r National Science Standards
On a political level, one could argue that the influence of local and state school
boards has contributed to the denigration of evolution education in at least 19 states
across the nation. Given that entities such as the AAAS (1990) and the National Re
search Council (1996) have developed clear and substantial materials for teaching evo
lution science at the K-12 level, it would be reasonable to suggest that state school
boards should adopt the existing national science standards as their own. The result
would be a consistent national approach to evolution education in American schools
and would likely result in the more coherent results seen in the Canadian, British, and,
to a lesser degree, the Australian data sets. A more cogent national approach would
benefit American students, who would be taught the tenets of evolution in a manner
compatible with other developed nations, as well as benefit science teachers who would
have a clearly delineated set of guiding standards supported by materials such as Project
2061 ’s Atlas fo r Science Literacy (2001) for help with pedagogical strategies. Adoption
of national standards would ensure that the biological sciences are taught with evolution
as a central unifying theme rather than as an independent unit tacked onto biology
classes. Further, the adoption of a national set of science standards would free up a
considerable amount of resources currently dedicated to individual states’ independent
pursuits to create their own unique science standards. Unfortunately, for reasons
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
pointed out in the introduction of this paper, the settlement history of the United States,
with its emphasis on local over federal governance, is unlikely to allow for the adoption
of a national science curriculum in the short term. However, if progressive states would
be willing to adopt the national standards in lieu of separate state standards, it might
encourage others to follow suit.
Implications fo r Teaching the Nature o f
Science
Are the naive views that students hold about evolution actually a product of their
naive views about the very nature of science? Scientists and science educators have
long worried about students’ understanding of the nature of science. The fact that stu
dents harbor misconceptions about the nature of science is well documented
(McComas, 1998; Sundberg, 2003). Studies have shown that students do not tend to
view science as a dynamic, human endeavor that requires creativity, but rather as an
enterprise where a single scientific method is employed in an effort to discover un
changing laws of nature (Abraham, 2002; Cooper, 2001; McComas, 1998). Further,
Americans have shown an increasing propensity for blurring the lines between science
and nonscience; thus, they are less able to distinguish between what science is capable
of demonstrating and what constitutes those magistera outside of science (Leshner,
2005). Understanding evolution and the evidence for evolution requires an individual
to have some fundamental grounding in the nature of science.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ferrari and Chi’s (1998) work further connected the development of misconcep
tions regarding evolutionary theory with learners’ misunderstandings about the nature
of science. They contended that individuals whose explanatory frameworks for natural
selection rely on an event-based ontology are unable to truly understand the mechanism
for evolution, which they describe as an equilibrium-based ontology. An inability to
recognize the fundamental difference between the nature of events and equilibrium is a
nature of science issue that Ferrari and Chi contended also inhibits the understanding of
concepts in the physical sciences. They reported that students often conceive of con
cepts like diffusion as event-based rather than as equilibrium-based; they further noted
the nature of science problems with respect teaching the concepts of light, heat, and
electrical current.
Evolutionary biology lies at the intersection of the historical and nonhistorical
sciences. It draws on the disciplines of paleontology, geology, molecular cell biology,
and comparative anatomy, among others. Cooper (2001) asserted that because most
individuals believe in a single scientific method that calls for the formulation of a hy
pothesis, the making of predictions, and the testing of said hypothesis in a laboratory
setting, they dismiss evolution as unobservable and therefore as unscientific and/or
untruthful. While some might argue that microevolution (i.e., changes within a single
species) is observable, macroevolution (i.e., the evolution of new species) is not. It is
macroevolution that is at the center of the evolution education debate.
Understanding scientific inquiry and the diverse ways in which scientists study
the natural world is one step toward understanding the larger issues of the nature of
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A Role for Museums and Science Centers
The debate about evolution education and the studies to investigate misconcep
tions about evolution have, for the most part, taken place in the formal education arena.
While some museums have sought to evaluate the effectiveness of specific evolution
exhibitions to determine whether messages about evolution are clearly conveyed to their
visitors, museums for the most part have remained in the background when it comes to
the debates about evolution education in America. Recently, however, several groups
have encouraged museums to join in the discussion. The CSTA’s (2001) position
statement on teaching evolution expanded the responsibility of teaching evolution from
the classroom to informal learning environments:
Evolution is good science. Understanding evolution and the nature of science is
important to society. CSTA supports teaching of evolution and the nature of
science in our nation’s classrooms, museums and informal science centers.
Adopted by the CSTA Board o f Directors, October 29, 2000. (p. 1)
A conference on the teaching of evolution held by the University of California, Berke
ley in October o f2000 further advocated for the inclusion of museums and other infor
mal science centers in efforts to increase public understanding of evolution (Lindberg,
Scotchmoor, & Springer, 2000).
Such calls to action make sense. Most U.S.-based natural history museums
were established during the second half of the 19th century, paralleling the time that
Darwin’s theory of evolution was being formulated and introduced to scientific and lay
communities. As Darwin’s theory was refined and further supported by findings made
in the “new sciences” of genetics and paleontology, the physical evidence of
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evolutionary theory began to be amassed within the collections of natural history muse
ums. These collections, combined with the research being generated by museum scien
tists, served as the basis for these museums’ public exhibition programs and became the
principal means by which the general public could access information about evolution
ary theory.
Today, natural history museums continue to employ scientists whose research
initiatives are clearly focused on evolution. These scientists, along with the museum
educators who work with them, value the theory of evolution as one of, if not the, most
important organizing principles for their work. More and more, these professionals are
asking what they can do to help in the battle to promote science literacy about the funda
mental theory that binds all of the biological sciences together (Lindberg et al., 2000).
The American Association of Museum reported in 1999 that as of that time, in the
United States alone, natural history museums were attracting more than 10 million visi
tors each year. With such a vast visitor base, natural history museums have the potential
to profoundly impact science literacy as it relates to evolution if they choose to focus
their education efforts on this important topic. Because they hold in trust the tangible
objects that are the evidence of evolution, it can be argued that these museums are in
fact able to teach about evolutionary theory in a way that is both unique and profound.
Natural history museums, using the vehicles of exhibitions, the Internet, publi
cations, and public programs could provide the formal education system (i.e., schools,
school districts, and teachers) with access to their collections, researchers, and edu
cators. Enhanced school field trip programs, teacher education programs, and
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
collection loan programs offered both at museum sites and online would provide valu
able resources to the formal school community while simultaneously allowing muse
ums to fulfill their mission of supporting science literacy among the general public.
Authentic investigations about evolution are ongoing each and every day at natural
history museums around the country. Providing schools, teachers, and students access
to these investigations could be an excellent means for introducing inquiry into science
classrooms while fostering the shared museum/school goal of increasing the public
understanding of science, especially evolution science.
Recommendations for Further Study and Final
Thoughts
Understanding evolution is fundamental to understanding biological science
(National Academy of Sciences, 1998), yet the American public has little understanding
of what evolution is and how it functions (Brooks, 2001; NCSE, 1999; Scott, 2000).
Many of those who accept evolutionary theory do so based on their confidence in sci
ence as a discipline rather than on a genuine understanding of the evidence for evolution
(Bishop & Anderson, 1990). Science teachers, school districts, and textbook publishers
have been known to regularly censor the teaching of evolution in order to placate those
who claim creation science should be given equal time in the classroom (Scott). The
problem is large and complex and has been viewed as uniquely American. By studying
individuals who frequent natural history museums, it has been found that this subset of
the population rejects evolutionary theory on a much less regular basis than the public at
large. Yet although the American museum-going public is much less likely to reject
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evolutionary theory than the general American public, this study shows that they are no
more likely to understand evolution. The same holds true for individuals who visit
natural history museums in Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, where low rejection
levels are expressed but where confusion and deep-seated misconceptions persist about
evolution, natural selection, and the nature of science.
Evolution as a theory has stood the test of 150 years of scientific inquiry and 3.6
billion years in the laboratory of planet Earth. It is “our best documented biological
generality,” yet remains misunderstood by the majority of individuals interviewed for
this study (Gould, 2001, p. xiv).
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES CITED
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES CITED
Abraham, L. M. (2002). What do high school science students gain from research ap
prenticeship programs? The Clearing House, 75,229-232.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for sci
ence literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association of Museums. (1999). America’ s museums: Building community
(AAM Communications Kit). Washington, DC: Author.
Bybee, R. W. (2002). We should teach about biological evolution. BioScience, 52,
616-618.
Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and
its role in evolution. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427.
Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived consequences of evolution:
College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary
theory. Science Education 87, 181-206.
Brooks, D. J. (2001, March). Substantial numbers of Americans continue to doubt
evolution as explanation for origin of humans. The Gallup Poll Monthly, n.v., 9-
11.
California Science Teachers Association. (2001). Controversy in the Classroom II:
Evolution. California Journal o f Science Education, 7(2), 3-156.
Cooper, R. A. (2001). The goal of evolution instruction: Should we aim for belief or
literacy? Reports o f the National Center for Science Education, 27(1-2), 14-18.
Costa, J. T. (2003). Teaching Darwin with Darwin. BioScience, 5 3 ,1030-1031.
Cummins, C. L., Demastes, S. S., & Hafner, M. S. (1994). Evolution: Biological edu
cation’s under-researched unifying theme. Journal o f Research in Science
Teaching, 31,445-448.
Deadman, J. A., & Kelley, P. J. (1978). What do secondary school boys understand
about evolution and heredity before they are taught the subjects? Biological
Education, 12, 7-15.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1996). Patterns of conceptual change in
evolution. Journal o f Research in Science Teaching, 33, 407-431.
Demastes, S. S., Good, R. G., &, Sundberg, M., & Dini, M. (1992, March). Students ’
conceptions o f natural selection: A replication study and more. Paper pre
sented at the meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teach
ing, Boston, MA.
Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolu
tion. The American Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.
Dunckel, B., Ellis, S., Abraham-Silver, L., Dierking, L., Kisiel J., & Koke, J. (2004,
October). Evaluating museum visitors ’ understanding o f evolution. Unpub
lished preliminary findings presented at the University of Florida.
Dunckel, B., & McFadden, B. (2001). Unpublished request to the National Science
Foundation to study museum visitors’ understanding of evolution, University of
Florida at Gainesville.
Edwards, J. S. (2002). Dobzhansky’s dangerous epigram. BioScience, 52, 614-615.
Ellis, S., Dunckel, B., & Chang, J. (2004). Coding manual: NSF study o f museum
visitors ’ understanding o f evolution. Gainesville: Florida Museum of Natural
History.
Ellis, W. E. (1983). Biology teachers and border state beliefs. Society 9(6), 26-30.
Eve, R. A., & Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology and creationism in the
classroom? The American Biology Teacher, 52, 10-21.
Ferrari, M., & Chi, M. (1998). The nature of naive explanations of natural selection.
International Journal o f Science Education, 20, 1231-1256.
Gould, S. J. (1999). Rocks o f ages: Science and religion in the fullness o f life. New
York: Ballantine.
Gould, S. J. (2001). Introduction. InC. Zimmer (Ed.), Evolution: The triumph o f an
idea (pp. 47-68). New York: Harper Collins.
Gregg, T. G., Janssen, G. R., & Bhattacharjee, J. K. (2003, August). A teaching guide
to evolution. The Science Teacher, 70, 24-31.
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments
in a conceptual chance strategy. Science Education, 79,147-166.
Jensen, M.S ., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in students' understanding of evolution
resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal o f Re
search in Science Teaching, 33, 879-900.
Jimenez, A. M. P. (1992). Thinking about theories or thinking with theories? A class
room study with natural selection. International Journal o f Science Education,
14, 15-21.
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Lawson, A. (1999). A scientific approach to teaching about evolution and special cre
ation. The American Biology Teacher, 67,266-274.
Lindberg, D., Scotchmoor, J., & Springer, D. (2000, October). Initial report on the
conference on the teaching o f evolution. Unpublished report from the Confer
ence on Teaching Evolution, Berkeley, CA, submitted to the National Science
Foundation.
Lemer, L. S. (2000). Good science, bad science: Teaching evolution in the states.
Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Leshner, A. (2005, April). Evolving relationships between science and society. Paper
presented at the Fourth Science Center World Congress, Rio di Janeiro, Brazil
Lovell, F. (2002). Ohio forum: Why ID is not science. Reports o f the National Center
fo r Science Education, 22(1-2), 5.
Marino, M. (1996). Prehistoric journey: Summative evaluation report. Denver:
Denver Museum of Natural History.
McComas, W. F. (1996). Myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know
about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10-16.
McComas, W. F. (1997). The discovery and nature of evolution by natural selection:
Misconceptions and lessons from the history of science. The American Biology
Teacher, 59, 492.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
McComas, W. F. (1998). The principle elements of the nature of science: Dispelling
the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature o f Science in Science Educa
tion: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 53-70). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic.
Meikle, E. (2001). Alabama upgrades disclaimer. Reports o f the National Center for
Science Education, 21(3-4), 4-5.
Miller, J. (1987, June). The scientifically illiterate. American Demographics, n.v., 26-
31.
Moore, R. (2002a). Teaching evolution: Do state standards matter? BioScience, 52,
378-381.
Moore, R. (2002b). Undergraduates’ understanding of evolution: Ascriptions of
agency as a problem for student learning. Journal o f Biological Education,
36(2), 65-71.
National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature o f
science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Association of Biology Teachers. (2004). NABT’ s statement on teaching
evolution. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved May 31,2004, from http://www
.nabt .org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp
National Center for Science Education. (1999). Science and religion in America (poll
and survey data). Berkeley, CA: Author.
National Center for Science Education (2002). Evolution education in America (up
dates). Berkeley, CA: Author.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washing
ton, DC: Author.
National Science Foundation. (1997). Survey o f public attitudes toward and under
standing o f science and technology, 1997. Arlington, VA: Author.
National Science Foundation. (2003). Science and engineering indicators. Arlington,
VA: Author.
National Science Teachers Association. (2003). NSTA position statement: Teaching
evolution. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved November 20,2003, from http://
www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/PositionStatement_Evolution.pdf
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
National Science Teachers Association. (2004). Evolution controversy continues in
several states. NSTA Reports, 15(6), 1,18.
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. (2003). Visitor survey and demo
graphic study. Unpublished data, Los Angeles, CA.
Ohlsson, S. (1991). Young adults’ understanding of evolutionary explanations: Pre
liminary observations [Technical report]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh,
Learning Research and Development Center.
Ohlsson, S., & Bee, N. V. (1992). The effect o f expository text on children’ s explana
tions o f biological evolution [Office of Educational Research and Improvement
Report]. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Develop
ment Center.
People, Places & Design Research. (1992). Life over time, formative evaluation study.
Northampton, MA: Field Museum of Natural History.
Posner, G., Strike, K. A, Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of
a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Educa
tion, 66,211-227.
Project 2061. (2001). Atlas for science literacy. New York: American Association for
the Advancement of Science and Oxford University Press.
Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the his
torical discord and its implications for education. Journal o f Research in Sci
ence Teaching, 35, 1069-1089.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Ox
ford University Press.
Samarapungavan, A., & Reinout, W. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of
species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science 21(2), 147-177.
Scott, E. (2000). Not (just) in Kansas anymore. Science, 288, 813-815.
Smith, M. U. (1994). Belief, understanding and the teaching of evolution. Journal o f
Research in Science Teaching, 31, 591-597.
Sundberg, M. D. (2003). Strategies to help students change naive alternative concep
tions about evolution and the natural selection. Reports o f the National Center
for Science Education. 23(2), 23-26.
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Weld, J., & McNew, J. C. (1999, September). Attitudes toward evolution. The Science
Teacher, 66, 27-31.
Whitfield, P. (1993). From So Simple a Beginning: An Illustrated Exploration o f the
4-Billion-Year Development o f Life on Earth. New York: Macmillan.
Wilkins, J. (2001). Defining evolution. Reports o f the National Center fo r Science
Education. 21(1-2), 29-36.
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
CODING MANUAL
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12/04
Coding Manual
NSF Study of Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution
Shari Ellis, Betty Dunckel, & Janice Chang
Florida Museum of Natural History
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table o f Contents
Page
O verview ......................................................................................................................... 113
Fossil Definition...............................................................................................................114
Evidence and the Nature of Science............................................................................ 119
T im e..................................................................................................................................128
Explanation of Biological C hange.............................................................................. 129
Key Concepts.............................................................................................................128
Explanatory Frameworks..........................................................................................133
Coding K eys...............................................................................................................134
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Overview
Researchers interviewed individuals ranging from 7 to over 80 years of age. The inter
views generally lasted between 10 and 15 minutes. There were five components of the
interviews:
• For the Fossil Definition, the interviewer presented a collection of fossils and draw
ings of fossils embedded in a rock strata and asked the participants if they knew the
general term for the objects. If they did, the participants were asked how they would
describe or explain what a fossil is to someone unfamiliar with the term.
• The drawing of the rock strata was also used to assess visitors’ Understanding of
Evidence and the Nature of Science. The interviewer asked (1) if the participant
could tell which of the fossils shown on the strata were the oldest and which were
the youngest; (2) if, by looking at the poster and the fossils, they could tell what the
environment was like at a specific layer; (3) how scientists explain the presence of
some fossils in lower layers but their absence in upper layers; (4) how scientists
explain the converse, that is, the presence of some fossils in upper layers that are not
found down below; and (5) two questions about what it means when scientists
return to a site after a period of years and make new discoveries.
• To assess understanding of Time of key events in evolution, visitors were first asked
to place a set of events in order. The events included the origin of the universe, the
origin of Earth, life on earth, fish, land plants, dinosaurs, and humans. The partici
pants then placed the events on a timeline.
• Visitors’ understanding of Biological Change was assessed by asking them to
explain the running ability of modem cheetahs using the principles of biological
evolution.
• The interview concluded by asking the visitors’ Personal Views, that is, if they
agreed with the evolutionary account of the cheetah or if they had an alternative
view.
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fossil Definition
The Question. I have some objects here. These objects are also shown on this poster. This poster is
supposed to represent the layers of the Earth. Do you know, in general, what these objects are called?
>[if the individual says “fossils”] Let’s say you met someone who didn’t know what a fossil is—how
would you explain it to them?
>[If the individual cannot recall the term fossil or refers to them as something else (e.g., artifacts).
“Scientists also call them fossils.”] Let’s say you met someone who didn’t know what a fossil
is—how would you explain it to them?
>[If “no”] They are fossils. Fossils are the remains or evidence of animals or plants that have been
preserved naturally. We have them placed here on the layers where scientists have found them.
Coding. There are three steps in coding the fossil definitions. First, determine whether the individual
offered the term “fossil” or not, and whether they did so with or without prompting. Code 99 if missing.
Term
0 I don’t know; can’t answer
1 Fossil(s)
2 Fossil after prompt (e.g., interviewer says “f-f-f...”)
3 Other term (e.g., artifact, bone)
Then code the presence of absence of seven ideas: (1) Fossils are remains or remnants; (2) they often
consist of hard parts of living things such as bones or shells; (3) fossils can be imprints or impressions; (4)
fossils are formed from things that were once alive; (5) these formerly living organisms existed long ago;
(6) fossils are formed through a mineral process; and (7) scientists use fossils to learn about the past.
Remains
0 Does not use remains, remnants, or synonym (e.g., only refers to a fossil as a thing or object)
1 Uses the term remains, remnants
Hard Parts
0 Provides no examples
1 Bone(s), skeleton, skull, teeth
2 Shells
3 Multiple examples including bones and shells
Imprint
0 No reference
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 Impression, imprint, “engravement”
Living things
0 No reference to living things
1 Animal, creature, being
2 Plants or any type of plant (e.g., wood)
3 Refers to both plants and animals
4 Living thing, organism, anything live, once living, dead (does not use terms “animal” or “plant”
Time
0 No reference
1 Any reference to time (e.g., long ago, many many years, past, “ancient”)
2 Millions of years
3 Billions of years
4 Thousands of years
5 Hundreds of years
Process
0 No reference to process by which fossils are created
1 Uses terms such as fossilization, petrification, mineralization, calcification, etc. (but doesn’t
hint at what that means)
2 Provides 1-2 details of steps in the process (gets buried and turns into rock)
3 Talks about the process in depth, provides 3 or more steps (gets buried, minerals replace bone,
turned into rock)
Science
0 No reference
1 Mentions scientific techniques (e.g., dating), use as evidence
We asked visitors to explain fossils to put them at ease—since nearly all visitors to natural history muse
ums do know what fossils are—and to set the stage for the strata activity that followed. Interviewers did
not probe for more information if the visitor offered only a cursory explanation of fossils. Although some
visitors included all seven ideas in their explanations, most did not. We do not know how many ideas
visitors would express if pressed for more information. Thus it is perhaps best to think of the explanations
that we elicited in terms of “what first comes to mind when you think of a fossil” or visitors’ prototypes of
a fossil. For some visitors, this might be a textbook definition of a fossil (e.g., the remains of a living
organism from long ago), while others might mention a bone or imprint or focus on the process by which
fossils are formed.
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The third coding step is to capture this aspect of the explanations by classifying the explanation according
to its main idea or general thrust as follows:
Explanation
0 Cannot give explanation
1 Something from long ago (does not recognize that it came from a living thing (i.e.,tool from
long ago)
2 Bone (only, not other hard parts)
3 Hard parts of animals
4 Imprint, impression only
5 Focus on process (turned into rock)
6 Remnant (or impression, bones, etc.) of living thing, unclear if both plant and animal
7 Remnant (impression, bones, etc.) of living thing, both plant and animal
8 Other
Examples
1. “Uh... fossils? Uh... something really old? That well it xxx something maybe from a thou
sand years ago or something? Something that’s dead it’s just..
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 6
2. “Fossil. A fossil is like a bone from long time ago.”
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
3. “Fossils. It’s some things that used to live a long time ago that pressed into the ground and turned
into rock.”
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 5
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. “Fossils? Uh, like a rock or a tooth or like a shell or somethin’ that was from like a long time ago.”
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 3
5. “Fossils. OK, well, what I tell my boys [laughs], simplest terms I can think. It’s when a creature is
covered over with debris, mud, soil, whatever—usually when they die, the bones, the bones are there but
over time minerals seep in where the bones are and take the place of the bone, so it’s really rock, I think,
technically, but it takes the shape of that creature, its skeleton.”
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 5
6. “Fossils or... I would say that its remnants of um, of living creature that’s been in sedimentary rock
for years that’s been excavated by archeologists that you can see where they’ve come from where they’ve
evolved from... since this about evolution [laughs].”
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 7
7. “Fossils. Oh, I would say that when certain kinds of animals lived, uh, on the Earth many millions of
years ago that eventually the um, XXX usually XXX, well, I don’t know XXX whatever factors—I don’t
know much about petrification, but I assume it’s because the oceans took over and eventually the various
chemicals that were in the, in soil and in die water infiltrated the bodies as they died and they became very
hard—sort of solid, calcified. Or alternatively, they left their imprint on the place where they were.”
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 5
8. “Fossils. I would say that animals that roamed the Earth years and years ago died, and when they
died, their skeletal remains got... buried and then maybe, um, certain Earth events happened such as
oceans, you know, volcanic eruptions, and those eruptions or Earth movement kinda contained itself
around the fo—the remains of the animals, leaving behind casts or actual bones or skeletal structures.
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 3
9. “Yeah fossils. A fossil is an animal that passed on... and got, was... covered in the mud. After a
period of time, the mud dried and the soft parts of the fossil—of the animal rotted away... and then only
the bones are left and then the bones make, make an impression on the piece of ground, make a fossil.
Pretty much it’s an impression.”
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 1 1 1 1 3 0 5
10. “Um... yes... fossils. I’d say it’s a petrified or very old bone or tooth of anything that’s been
imprinted that’s from a long time ago... that’s still around.
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 6
II. “Fossils. A remnant of a once-living organism.”
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 7
12. “Fossils. Hmmm... well... I would say that’s ... it’s a something that used to be part of a living
thing that died a very long time ago, and it’s obviously been either turned into something else or imprinted
into something, or the material still exists, so it’s usually bones, but sometimes it can be the imprint of
something in a rock... but over time like the bones and imprints, the bones themselves turn into rock, I
think, over a long period of time, so they’re essentially rocks but they’re traces of living things.
Term Remains
Hard
Parts Imprint
Living
Thing Time Process Science
Exp.
Type
1 0 1 1 4 1 2 0 7
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Evidence and the Nature of Science
This activity involves a series of six questions about the strata depicted above. There may be multiple
answers for questions IB, 2B, 3,4,5, and 6. Code all.
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Evolution and Nature of Science
Question
&
Code Definition/Criteria Examples
1A ‘"Now, if you look at this poster, can you tell me which of the fossils in general are the oldest and
which are the youngest?"
0 I don’t know, cannot
answer
1 Ones on the bottom are
the oldest; those on the
top are the youngest.
2 other answer
99 99 = missing
IB “How do you know?”
1 superposition, based on
layers of the earth
Oh, because of the layers of rock.
Um, well, because as you’re going down further and further
in, in/through sedimentary rock, whatever the further deep
you go you go back further in time so you’d be going back
through millions of years to the most primitive forms of life.
‘Cuz long ago the Earth wasn’t as tall as it is now... wasn’t
as built up, and it was more... down further [p: Right], so
when the animals died, the earth came on top of them—it got
bigger and bigger and bigger, so the older the animal, the
deeper it was.
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 Based on the types of
fossils or organisms
pictured
Well, the deepest ones would probably be the oldest, [p:
You know that because?] Because I see the trilobites... the
dinosaurs... up to the modem day horse turtle-tortoise.
Well... um... I’m thinking that you’re digging from the
top to the bottom, but I’m looking at the horse and the horse,
I know, you know, I’m going down, I’m thinking that...
these sea urchins or whatever evolved into these things.
The oldest would be at the bottom and the youngest would
be at the top. [p: How do you know?] Because the animals
in the top are existing now, and the ones at the bottom are
from a long time ago.
Trilobites. They were some of first organisms on Earth.
3 Layers + animals
4 Rejects the representa
tion
5 Appearance of fossil
specimens
(t-rex tooth) It looks the dirtiest,
(homed coral) It looks the cleanest.
6 Other
99 Missing
2 A “Look at the layers down here E and F. What do you think the environment was like at that time?
0 I don’t know, cannot
answer
2 water, aquatic, sea,
ocean, etc.
2 other type of environ
ment
Back then probably warm. I’d say it would be cold some
times. Warm most of the time.
99 99 = missing
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2B “How do you know?”
0 don’t know, cannot
answer
Must could have been ocean ‘cuz these are fish basically or
marine life, sea... ‘cuz they have fins... and gills...
Water. Aquaxxx [probe] structure of the fish xxx
Uh... it looks like it’s a marine environment. Is that what
you mean? [probe] Uh... the shell. It looks like they would
be swimming kinds of things.
1 based on type of ani
mals
2 based on prior knowl
edge of first life
3 based on biblical ac
count
4 based on other prior
knowledge
5 other
99 missing
3 “Sonic fossils found in the lower layers arc not found in the upper ones. How do scientists explain
that?
0 don’t know, cannot
answer
1 It lived long ago It’s really old, and it means xxx many many years ago
[probe] because it didn’t live recently enough to be at the top
of this layer.
2 It died out, went ex
tinct, extincted,
extinction
It died out.
Because the older animals became extinct. They died out
‘cuz there were no more of their kind to breed.
They say they’re extinct, [probe] They died out—no longer
living—don’t exist.
3 evolved into something
else
Animal evolved into something else entirely.
They evolved. Like they just started to come about during
that time period.
They say... that it’s, um, something that evolved from an
other, a lower, a lower level of species.
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4 Weather/climate; envi
ronment changes;
moved out
That at the conditions changed, so either that moved on to
somewhere else because it couldn’t live there any more
That at one time covered with water and another time cov
ered in dry land
5 Fossil couldn’t be
formed
Maybe the environment was such that they couldn’t be pre
served. That’s the only answer I can think of. [p: repeats
question] Other than they didn’t exist? I thought that was
sort of a given...
6 biblical account
7 other Different animals live in different places
99 missing
4 "Some fossils found in the upper layers arc not found in the lower ones. How might scientists explain
this finding?”
0 don’t know, cannot
answer
1 Didn’t exist (does not
use term “evolve”) or
conversely, it is a
newer animal
‘Cuz these were land walking animals... at that time there
weren’t [probe with horse]—horses weren’t around at that
time.
I’m not really sure. Maybe they weren’t there at that time
wherever they’re digging at—at that time maybe the tortoise
wasn’t around.
Because tortoises weren’t in existence when the bottom layer
was created.
2 Leave blank
3 They evolved Again, through the evolutionary process the tortoise devel
oped later than the trilobite. So, um, basically 1-1-1-land ani
mals or animals like a tortoise that sort of crossed between a
land and water animal came much later than these more
primitive, uh, animals.
Tortoises must not have evolved at that time. They’re youn
ger... species, so they got found more towards the top.
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4 Weather/climate; envi
ronment changes;
moved in later
The other possibility is that the later layer represents is one
that is friendly to tortoises, and when the environment
changed in this location to be friendly to tortoises, the
tortoise moved with it from the environment that was friend
ly before.
Migration, different climate, weather patterns that made
certain areas habitable for animals that weren’t able to live
there earlier
5 fossil couldn’t be
formed
6 biblical account
7 other
99 missing
5 “Scientists made some later discoveries. They found the trilobite in layer F [point], whereas before
they had only found it in layer E [point]. What does this suggest?”
6 “And they found some tortoise fossils in layer B [point], whereas before they had only found tortoise
fossils in layer A [point]. What does this suggest?
0 I don’t know, cannot
answer
1 appropriate inference Now they would believe that the tortoise developed at an
earlier point in time.
I don’t know. Obviously it did exist in both time periods.
That they lived around that time period.
That they lived during both Layer A and Layer B.
2 scientists made a mis
take, missed it
Like if they... if they were in a different time period?
[Trilobites?] Different layers? [Yeah—repeats question] I
don’t know. I guess they screwed up their dig [laughs].
I guess they just shifted things around when they were doing
this dig. I don’t know.
They didn’t find them when—? [The first time—they went
back 10 years later.] They were better at searching [laughs].
Well, they... I just guess they mis—they didn’t dig enough,
they didn’t look that well xxx look on this side.
3 scientific methods Unless it had to do with the types of techniques—they used
digging techniques, different types of soil or whatever. It
could be the methods they used.
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4 theory revision Their evolutionary, their idea where it fit in the evolutionary
chain had to be revised as a result of finding it at an earlier
period.
Um... well, that they’d have to kind of have to re-rethink
their, their evolutionary chain. In other words, perhaps tri
lobites didn’t simply evolve into another creature here, but
there were, uh, trilobites continuing into a later period, and
perhaps there was another family, um, of animals that de
veloped simultaneously and split into sort of two wings or
two arms, and, uh, their evolutionary, their idea where it fit
in the evolutionary chain had to be revised as a result of find
ing it at an earlier period.
5 Geological event such
as an earthquake or a
weather event moved
the fossil
Same dig, you mean? Through the years, waters going back
and forth and probably could have moved it, disturbed the
soil.
... unless there had been some sort of upheaval in the
ground, and then different substrata would be pitched up
ward.
Or something happened between the two times to mix the
dirt in the two levels up, and the fossils in the mixed up dirt
moved to this level.
6 Unrealistic geological
event (unrealistic with
in the 1 0-year time
frame)
That they were starting XXX, bottom layers were starting to
like disappear... [something else], I don’t know.
Because newer layers are being formed.
Perhaps the tortoise was living up there, and tortoise died for
some reason and stayed there, and the layers built up on top
of it over the years.
7 Human or animal in
tervention
An animal dug it up.
Someone moved it.
8 biblical account
9 other
99 missing
1. That would be the oldest, and that would be the youngest. Oh, because of the layers of rock.
2. Uh... it looks like it’s a marine environment. Is that what you mean? [probe] Uh... the shell. It
looks like they would be swimming kinds of things.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. They say they're extinct, [probe] They died out—no longer living—don’t exist.
4. They say... that it’s, um, something that evolved from another, a lower, a lower level of species.
5. They didn't fmd them when—? [The first time—they went back 10 years later.] They were better at
searching [laughs].
6. I think they—they just didn’t, they just didn't find it the first time but, uh, so they had made maybe
some incorrect assumptions about when the animal first appeared based on when they found it.
0.04167 IB 0.08333 2B 3 4 5 6
1 3 1 1 3 4 45 4
1. The ones that would be the oldest would be the ones farthest down in the earth because the rock and
earth is piled up on it so the ones on top... Also, by looking at the pictures on the side, you can sorta tell.
2. Aquatic, [probe] Because there’s something that sort of looks like a sea sponge and... oh, man, what
are the little things called? Fish-looking thing.
3. Well... they explain that through... the fact that if it was an aquatic area and the trilobites were
probably ground creatures in the bottom of the sea... as the tides moved and covered them up as they
died, and then the tides changed and more rock is buried up this prob-might have evolved into something
else, such as what we find layer up here and layer up here. They’re not the same, but they’re enough the
same genetically that they can kind of trace this back.
4. Well, they explain that through the fact that the environment and the species that were around at this
time weren’t suitable for what you would call a tortoise... that being a tortoise shell xxxnot exist in the
form we know them today
5. Well, it could suggest that—one, some kind of natural movement such as an earthquake or the ...
plates, tectonic plates have moved, have stirred something up and these down there, but if there’s a large
quantity of them, then they’d have to take back the idea that this had actually, well, and they could say that
in some places the environment was such that this species created continued to live, so you do find it at
that time, whereas in different regions you might not find it.
6. Well, I guess in the same manner they could—there’s two things they could do. They could presume
that somehow it had gotten buried there or that they’d have to take back their original statement and say
that something similar to or an actual tortoise lived during that time.
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
0.04167 IB 0.08333 2B 3 4 5 6
1 1 1 1 2 3 5 5
1. I would think the ones in the bottom would be oldest, [probe] Uh, just from what I’ve heard or
remember, over time... they get buried farther deeper and deeper as of later... um, stages happen later,
eons, or what you call ages of the Earth.
2. I would guess it was its some sort of water type environment, [probe] I don’t know... that looks
like, uh, a sea anemone or something old.
3. I’d say they went extinct or... were no longer around.
4. Uh, .must be a later stage of development. I’m drawing blanks I’m sorry. Um... it’s ... evolution
has occurred. Farther down the...
5. Run that by again? Maybe there’s been some sort of geological activity that shifted it up higher—I
don’t know. It wouldn’t seem that it would move but... at least it wouldn’t seem to me that it would
move.
6. Earthquakes [laughs]—I don’t know—I don’t—I guess maybe they’re heavy and they sink over time
or something... I don’t know, wouldn’t [p: That wouldn’t make sense?] No, that would not make sense
to me if they found these higher up or those deeper unless there’d been earthquakes or something to
jumble things up.
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Timeline
Event Order Code
Code Event Order
0 Could not/would not do
1 Life first, then plant, fish, dino in any order
2 Dinos first
3 Life not first, in with plant, fish, dino group
4 Dinos last
5 All events at same time; also, all events separate from universe/earth
6 misc
Accuracy
For all events:
0 = unable to do, gave up
1 = wildly off
2 = not accurate
3 = ballpark
4 = accurate
99 = missing
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Explanations of Biological Change
Participants were asked the following:
According to many scientists, long ago the cheetah had an ancestor that was not able to run as
fast as the modem cheetah. How would these experts explain the cheetah’s running ability?
Please explain this development as precisely as you can using the principles of biological evo
lution, regardless of whether you personally believe this explanation. You may use these cards
to help with your explanation if you would like, but you do not need to use them if you do not
want to. Do you believe this explanation? [If no] How do your beliefs differ? Before you go,
do you have any additional comments or questions?
Responses to this activity are coded in three ways: key concepts, explanatory framework, and
personal beliefs. The coding system is adapted from Ferrari and Chi (1998), Ohlsson (1991),
and Ohlsson and Bee (1992).
Kev Concents
There are five concepts of special interest:
1. Intraspecies variation. The species varies randomly on a set of heritable characteristics.
2. Survival advantage. An environmental pressure will favor individuals with certain traits.
3. Genetic determination. Individuals with certain traits are more likely to reproduce and pass
the traits onto offspring.
4. Rate of reproduction. There will be an increase in the proportion of individuals with the
favored trait in the next generation.
5. Time scale of evolution. Over many generations, these small changes in traits accumulate
and may eventually substantially modify the species.
First, note whether the idea is expressed in the explanation. If not, code “0.” If the explanation
includes the concept, code “1” if the idea was expressed indirectly and “2” if the idea was ex
pressed directly. See the table below for examples.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CONCEPT
Variation
Survival
Advantage
Genetic De
termination
Rate of Re
production
Accumulated
Change
1
Indirect
Mentions slow or fast
vs. mentions slow and
fast (or variation).
Better able to survive
vs. what makes them
better able to survive.
Offspring are like par
ents vs. offspring are
like parents because of
genetic inheritance.
They passed the trait on
vs. they passed the trait
on a lot.
General time term
(eventually) vs. specific
time term (thousands of
years, generations and
generations)
• The bigger dinosaurs
ate the smaller ones.
• Tigers with stripes
could... but tigers
without could not...
• Some dinosaurs had
traits that helped
them to survive.
• Tigers with stripes
had an advantage
over tigers without.
• Some dinosaurs were
larger so their off
spring became larger
as well.
• The tigers with
stripes reproduced
and produced more
striped tigers.
• Large dinosaurs got to
pass on their genes.
• The tigers without
stripes did not survive
long enough to repro
duce.
• Eventually the dino
saurs became gigan
tic.
• The next generation
o f tigers had more
stripes until the tigers
became like they are
today.
o
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Variation
Survival
Advantage
Genetic De
termination
Rate of Re
production
Accumulated
Change
• The cheetahs that
could run the fastest
• So the animals that
are slower...
• More strong of the
species
• Those better adapted
survive more than
those who aren’t.
• The faster ones were
more successful.
• They survived to pass
their genes on to fu
ture generations.
• They produced faster
ones and faster ones.
• The bloodlines that
were the strongest—
those that were the
weakest would have
died out.
• They produced faster
ones.
• The slower cheetah
tends to get eaten, and
they don’t mate, you
know, produce chil
dren, so their genes are
less likely to be passed
on to the next genera
tion.
• After a while . ..
• Eventually...
• Perpetuate down the
line...
• Gradually they would
all become faster.
2
Direct
• Some dinosaurs were
small; others were
large.
* Some tigers had
stripes, and others
did not.
• Bigger size enabled
dinosaurs to over
come their prey.
• Stripes let the tiger
blend into the dark
ness o f night.
• The size o f an animal
is determined by its
genes.
• A tiger inherits its fur
coloring from its par
ents.
• Because they survived
more often, the large
dinosaurs reproduced
more often.
• Tigers without stripes
passed on their genes
less often.
• Over many thousands
o f years, the dino
saurs continued to
grow and grow.
• Their offspring had
more stripes and
their offspring had
even more o f them,
until finally all tigers
had stripes.
t— *
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Variation
Survival
Advantage
Genetic De
termination
Rate of Re
production
Accumulated
Change
• Within any group,
some will be faster
and some will be
slower.
• There’s variation in
all animal species.
• There are variations
among individuals
• When cubs are bom,
some run faster than
others.
• The ones that were
faster obviously sur
vived longer—ate
better.
• Those who were bet
ter able to run faster
would catch more
prey.
• The faster ones are
going to outrun their
enemies.
• Because the slower
cheetahs could not
catch the food and
the faster ones were
more able to feed,
they were able to sur
vive.
• And that’s [ability to
outrun enemies] go
ing to be passed on in
the gene pool.
• Have children with
the same quickness
gene that they passed
down.
• Generate more prog
eny
• Reproduce more suc
cessfully
• So they lived to adult
hood and were able to
have more offspring.
• Those organisms that
had that particular ge
netic benefit [capacity
to run fast] would out
produce the others and
others would die out.
• Uncommon DNA is
eventually going to be
come common.
• More successful and
reproduced, their off
spring were more
successful and repro
duced.
• Their children and
their children’s chil
dren
• They passed down
from generation to
generation.
u >
is?
Explanatory Framework
We also score the explanations in more general terms, by classifying them according to one of
15 explanatory frameworks, including “I don't know” and “other” explanations. Participants
sometimes express ideas from more than one explanatory framework. The generation of
multiple explanations derives from several sources.
First, people often have many ways of thinking about an issue and express both. Sometimes the
ideas are fairly independent. For example, a visitor might posit that there was some type of
mutation involved, or that cross-breeding between species occurred. Other times, the different
ideas might be related. For instance, a visitor might propose that the increase in cheetah speed
was due to a change in diet as well as a broader change in the environment (e.g., shift from
jungle to grassland).
Second, explaining evolution “on the fly” is not easy for most people and so many visitors
seemed to talk themselves into an account they were happy with. For example, a visitor might
begin the explanation by talking about the physical features of the cheetah that allow it to run
fast and then gradually work themselves to the mechanisms of evolution that select for those
features.
Third, visitors generated multiple explanations upon prompting by the interviewer. Inter
viewer probes were especially helpful when visitors interpreted the question to be Why did
cheetahs come to run so fast—as opposed to explaining how biological evolution can explain
the development of running ability.
Guidelines for classifying visitors’ responses into the explanatory frameworks are: (1) if an
explanation reflects multiple frameworks, code all; (2) indicate which is the main framework,
regardless of where it occurs in the explanation; (3) if none of the frameworks appears to be
dominant, list codes in the order they appear in the explanation; and (4) stop coding the
explanation if the probing appears to go on too long (e.g., the visitor seems to be coming up
with more possibilities just to make the interviewer happy) or the interviewer asks a specific
question, such as “What happened to all the slow cheetahs,” that might lead visitors down a
path they would not take on their own.
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORKS
Code Framework Definition/Criteria Example
0 I don’t know Unable, unwilling to explain using
principles of biological evolution
The ancestor just didn’t have to get in such a hustle to get things...food
was more plentiful. I don’t know.
1 Evolution by natural se
lection
Well it happened gradually...the faster cheetahs were able to catch
food more readily than the slower cheetahs and as a result the faster
cheetahs were able to reproduce...and their characteristics were passed
down and...uh...to their uh progeny...and by a process of natural se
lection the faster cheetahs were able to outreproduce the slower chee
tahs. [probe—initial difference between fast and slow] Well, it would
be a genetic.
Evolution through time...there would have been natural variation in the
ancestral population of cheetahs and those who were better able to run
faster would catch more prey and survived to reproduce and the others
eventually became extinct. So the best adaptation for this environment
for the cheetah was XXX fast runner. They survived to pass their
genes on to future generations, which led to the development of the
modem cheetah.
u>
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Code Framework Definition/ Criteria Example
2 Transmutation Species change through a sud
den mutation in one individual,
which spreads through repro
duction and eventually charac
terizes the entire population.
So you have a group of cheetahs that are that are, um, all roughly the
same speed except that you have a random mutation of genes that
produces one little baby cheetah that is a little faster than the others—
and that one tends to do better get game better and ends up having
better success at breeding and its offspring carry that same propensity
for speed, and over multiple generations you end up, uh, with faster
cheetahs basically because, uh, the ones that are fast, uh, tend to sur
vive and to be better breeders and tend to produce more offspring, so
its survival of the fittest basically.
Alright, um...so...I would guess that, um...the population of the early
ancestor may have experienced a random mutation that would
have ...increased the, um...ability of the animal to run faster, and over
time those individuals would have lived longer and, um, that mutation
would produce some variation in the population, and those populations
that inherited the genetic capacity to run fast, you know, maybe they
[have] different musculature or something small, that conferred a def
inite advantage, would have created selective pressure and gradu
ally... those organisms that had that particular genetic benefit would
out-produce or out-reproduce the others and others would die out....I
guess it depends on the degree of the mutation . . . if it was quite ex
treme. No, I imagine the two populations would be able to interbreed
for a while, but then they would slowly separate with the fast running
ones reproducing fast running ones; then the slow ones wouldn’t be
able to eat very well and maybe not be able to reproduce at all...so
that’s kind of how I think it works.
u>
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Code Framework Definition/ Criteria Example
3 Transmutation evolu
tion B (hybridization)
(a) Species change occurs
when one species mates
with another;
(b) Species change occurs
when superior individuals
mate with each other and
produce superior descen
dants.
I believe that these cats were—they were breeded with another kind of
cat...and somehow the DNA got mixed up.
I think the relatives of the cheetah back then were slow, died off,
except...one. And then mixed with another maybe another animal, a
faster animal...to make the cheetah—I never really thought about that
[looking at words]. I guess you can say heredity 'cuz...I have no idea.
XXX different species that the cheetah bred with...make a new kind of
animal species of cheetah. That cheetah had babies and more babies.
4 Amechanistic Species change occurs through
evolution, but no mechanism is
specified.
They had to evolve to catch their prey that were faster XXX and the
environment they were surrounded by [probe—so how did they
evolve?] Like their structure actually? [Yeah...and when you say
structure, what do you mean?] I mean like how their body actually
evolved from...they had to have extended legs to run faster...bigger
lungs [probe—Do you know how the bigger lungs would have hap
pened? Or like the extended legs happened?] Over evolution. I can’t
really explain.
5 Static selection A range of variation exists at
the outset; the individuals (spe
cies) at one end of the range
die off, leaving only individu
als at the other end— ignores
gradual development of the
trait.
They explain that change by...I think selection. That the faster animals
survived the slower animals died off. [probe] Only those who could
move fast enough to catch their prey were able survive, and the others
starved to death.
u>
O n
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
u>
Code Framework Definition/Criteria Example
6 Teleologic Species change because they
need to.
OK. Well, well, probably then a long time ago it started to need to,
like its prey was starting to get faster, so then it had to adapt to that.
And so then it started getting faster so it could eat. And...and then like
after a lot of years and generations, they started to become faster so
they could find food and eat it ‘cuz the antelope was getting to be
faster and they needed to eat it. [How did it get fast?] The DNA
changed.. .Heredity and...
7 Environmentalism Species change is caused by
the environment.
Land was not good, so that’s why they couldn’t run fast. Land
was messy. This time now land is clear.
8 Training and practice Change is a result o f an ani
mal’s repetitive behavior.
They’re trying to run faster and faster like they... like the time you
know if they don’t eat then they will be die—you know, if they can’t
catch, they can’t catch the animals, and so they can’t eat and so they
will be die and like their childs learn their childs—like see, if they
don’t run a lot, then they will be die and they try to run a lot and their
muscles will be very very change, and by the time they change and
they’re trying to be faster and their leg muscles will be very good and
so they’re trying to uh...it’s like a natural selection—they need to run
fast and xxx they run real fast by the time they are trying to run. It’s
what I think.
9 Cognitive Change is a result of discovery
or learning.
Well, maybe it just had to learn and evolved to be faster because the
things it caught were really hard to catch. You needed to be fast quick,
and you needed to be sneaky, and I guess they had to be really fast to
catch buffalo, deer and all that, and if they weren’t fast, they’d starve
so they had to evolve. That’s how I’d say it happened, (also needs and
advantages) ??
10 Intentional creation The origin o f species and/or
species change is under the
control of a supreme being.
This should be coded only when it is offered as an explanation
for what scientists think. Participants’ personal beliefs are
coded separately.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Code Framework Definition/Criteria Example
11 DNA DNA caused the change in
speed.
Went through evolution to get faster, [probe—How?] Mutated
or something? Their running genes? Their running genes
developed, and they became more faster?
12 Growth They grew faster or stronger
(explanation focuses on change
over one individual’s lifetime).
The older they got, faster they got.
13 Physical attributes A physical attribute changed. Probably back then they weighed more because when they
weigh more, they run slower, but if they weigh less, they run
faster.
14 Diet Diet caused the change in
speed.
Long ago there wasn’t much food. Now there is, so they have a
lot of food.
15 Miscellaneous/other Includes explanations too con
fusing to understand and ex
planations in which there was
not sufficient probing to clas
sify the explanation with confi
dence.
00
APPENDIX B
VERBAL RECRUITMENT SCRIPT
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
VERBAL RECRUITMENT SCRIPT1
Hello, my name i s _______________________ and I am a graduate student at
the University of Southern California. We want to find out what museum visitors
understand about the theory of evolution, and we would appreciate your help. To do
this activity, it doesn’t matter if you believe in evolution or not. We would just like to
hear your best understanding of how scientists describe how evolution works. This in
formation will be helpful to the museum when we design exhibits and programs.
The interview is entirely voluntary, and your comments are strictly anonymous.
There is no, or minimal, perceived risk for participation in this study. The potential
benefit is the opportunity to learn about some research topics that are of interest to sci
entists. The interview will take no more than 15 minutes. May I ask you a few ques
tions? And would you permit me to record the interview? We will erase the tape after
I have double-checked my notes. You are welcome to end this interview any time you
wish. Please confirm that you are at least 18 years of age. Thank you very much for
your assistance.
•Prepared by Linda M. Abraham-Silver.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: PART I (THREE VERSIONS)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STUDY ON VISITOR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION
BASE DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY (U.S. VERSION)1
1. Is today your first visit to the mu
seum?
Yes
No
2. In the past 2 years, how many times
have you been here before today?
3. Have you been to other museums
similar to this one?
Yes
No
4. [If yes] How many times have been
to other museums like this one in the
past 2 years?_______________
5. Who are you here with today? [code
whole group]
Alone
2 adults
3 adults
Adult(s) with child(ren)/teens
2+ teens
Tour/school groups
6. What is your age category?
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and older
7. What is the highest level of educa
tion you have completed?
Elementary Level
Secondary Level
Community or Technical College
Undergraduate Degree
Post-graduate/Master’s Degree
PhD, MD, professional
8. What is your racial/ethnic identity?
Asian
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Native American
Multiple
White
O ther______________________
9. Country you reside in?__________
10. Mark gender
Male
Female
Researcher:
Date:______________Day:
Tim e:_________________
S ite:__________________
Notes:
Prepared by Linda M. Abraham-Silver.
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STUDY ON VISITOR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION
(AUSTRALIAN VERSION)1
1. Is today your first visit to the museum?
Yes
No
2. In the past 2 years, how many times
have you been here before today?
3. Have you been to other museums similar
to this one?
Yes
No
4. [If yes] How many times have been to
other museums like this one in the past 2
years?________________
5. Who are you here with today? [code
whole group]
Alone
2 adults
3 adults
Adult(s) with child(ren)/teens
2+ teens
Tour/school groups
6. What year were you bom?
7. What is the highest level of education
you have completed?
High school grad or less
TAFE/technical college
Some college
Bachelor’s degree
Some graduate study
M.A./Ph.D./Professional
8. Where do you normally live?
Sydney (ask for postcode________ )
Newcastle/Canberra/W oolongong
Other NSW
Interstate
Overseas (which country_________ )
9. Were you bom in?
Australia
Overseas, English-speaking country
Overseas, non-English-speaking
country
9b. If bom overseas, how many years have
you lived in Australia?
Less than 5
5-10
11-20
More than 20
10. Mark gender
Male
Female
Researcher:___________
Date:____________ Day:
Time:________________
Site:_________________
Notes:
Prepared by Linda M. Abraham-Silver.
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STUDY ON VISITOR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION
( U .K . V E R S I O N ) 1
1. Is today your first visit to the mu
seum?
Yes
No
2. In the past 2 years, how many times
have you been here before today?
7. What is the highest level of educa
tion you have completed?
Up to GCSE Level
Up to A Level (Highers)
HND/GNVQ Level
Degree Level
Post-graduate Level
PhD
3. Have you been to other museums
similar to this one?
Yes
No
4. [If yes] How many times have been
to other museums like this one in the
past 2 years?_______________
5. Who are you here with today? [code
whole group]
Alone
2 adults
3 adults
Adult(s) with child(ren)/teens
2+ teens
Tour/school groups
6. What is your age category?
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and older
8. What is your racial/ethnic identity?
Asian
Black
Chinese
Multiple
White
O ther_____________________
9. Country you reside in?__________
10. Mark gender
Male
Female
Researcher:____________
Date:______________Day:
Tim e:_________________
S ite:__________________
Notes:
’Prepared by Linda M. Abraham-Silver.
1 4 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
STUDY ON VISITOR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION
( C A N A D I A N V E R S I O N ) 1
1. Is today your first visit to the mu
seum?
Yes
No
2. In the past 2 years, how many times
have you been here before today?
3. Have you been to other museums
similar to this one?
Yes
No
4. [If yes] How many times have been
to other museums like this one in the
past 2 years?_______________
5. Who are you here with today? [code
whole group]
Alone
2 adults
3 adults
Adult(s) with child(ren)/teens
2+ teens
Tour/school groups
6. What is your age category?
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and older
7. What is the highest level of educa
tion you have completed?
Up to Elementary Level
Up to Secondary Level
Community or Technical College
Undergraduate Degree Level
Post-graduate Level
PhD Level
8. What is your racial/ethnic identity?
Asian
Black
First Nation/Inuit
Hispanic/Latino
Multiple
White
O ther______________________
9. Country you reside in?
10. Mark gender
Male
Female
Researcher:____________
Date:______________Day:
Tim e:_________________
S ite:__________________
Notes:
•Prepared by Linda M. Abraham-Silver.
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX D
CODING CHART
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table D1
Demographic Data Forms and Comparative Categories: Ethnicity and Level o f Education
Demographic
factor United States Australia Canada United Kingdom
Ethnicity African American N/I Black Black (Black British/Caribbean/
African)
Native American Aboriginal First Nation/Intuit N/I
N/I N/I Asian Asian (Asian British/Indian/
Pakistani), Chinese
Hispanic/Latino N/I Hispanic/Latino N/I
Multiple N/I Multiple Mixed
White N/I White White (British/Irish/other White)
Other N/I Other Other
Education Up to high school Up to high school Elementary Level Up to GCSE Level
High school graduate High school graduate Secondary Level Up to A levels (Highers)
Associate Degree/junior college TAFE/technical, some college Community college, tech
nical college
HND/GNVQ Level
Bachelor’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree Undergraduate degree level Degree level
Graduate study Graduate study Postgraduate degree level Postgraduate level
Ph.D./M.D. level Ph.D./Professional Ph.D. level Ph.D. level
Note. TAFE = Technical and Further Education; GCSE = General Certificate of Secondary Education; FEND = Higher National Diploma; GNVQ =
General National Vocational Qualifications; N/I = not included.
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL1
Parti: Demographic Survey
Researcher to ask and record answers in writing on demographic form:
1. Is today your first visit to the museum?
2. How many times have you been here in the past 2 years?
3. Have you been to other museums similar to this one in the past?
4. [If yes] How many times have you been to other museums like this one in
the past 2 years?
5. Who are you here with today? [subject to select from established catego
ries]
6. What is your age category? [subject to select from established categories]
7. What is the highest level of education you have completed? [subject to
select from established categories]
8. What is your racial/ethnic identity? [subject to select from established
categories]
9. In which country do you reside?
10. What is your gender? [researcher may check if obvious or ask subj ect to
select]
Researcher to note day, date, time, site and subject number on demographic sheet.
Researcher to offer subject copy of the informed consent statement. Researcher to
begin audiotape recording with subject’s permission.
Prepared by Linda M. Abraham-Silver.
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Part II: Rock Column/Fossil
Participants are shown a poster of a rock column (sometimes referred to as
strata) that depict illustrations of fossils embedded in different layers of rock, along
with corresponding illustrations of the organism as it might have appeared when
extant. Participants are also shown eight real and replica fossils that match those on the
poster. These include a trilobite, homed coral, ancient shark’s tooth (cast), ammonite,
dinosaur tooth (cast), ancient horse tooth, modem shark tooth, tortoise shell, and
modem horse tooth. Participants are asked a series of questions relative to the rock
column poster, the accompanying fossils, and fossil cast items.
Researcher: I’d like to ask you some questions about this poster and these ob
jects we have on the table. [Researcher points to rock column
poster]. This poster is supposed to represent the different layers of
the earth. These illustrations and items [researcher points to illus
trations depicting fossils on the poster and to the fossils on the
table] are examples of items scientists have found in these different
layers. Do you know what these are?
[If subject answers “fossils”] researcher responds:
Researcher: That’s right, these are fossils. Let’s say you met someone who
didn’t know what a fossil is—how would you explain it to them?
[If subject can’t recall term or refers to them as something else (e.g., artifacts)],
researcher responds:
Researcher: Scientists call these items fossils. Let’s say you met someone who
didn’t know what a fossil is—how would you explain it to them?
[If subject answers “no”], researcher states:
Researcher: These items are fossils. Fossils are the remains or evidence of
animals or plants that have been preserved naturally. We have
them placed here on the layers where scientists have found them.
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Researcher: Now, if you look at this poster, can you tell me which layer con
tains the oldest fossils and which layer contains the fossils that are
the youngest? How do you know?
Researcher: Look at the layers down here—E and F. What do you think the
environment was like at the time? How do you know?
Researcher: Some fossils found in the lower layers are not found in the upper
ones. How do scientists explain that? Some fossils found in the
upper layers are not found in the lower ones. How might scientists
explain this finding?
Researcher: Let’s say that scientists make some later discoveries. They find a
trilobite in layer F [point to layer F and trilobite fossil], whereas
before they had only found trilobite fossils in layer E [point to layer
E]. What does this suggest?
Researcher: Now, let me ask a related, but slightly different, question. Let’s
say scientists make some new discoveries. They begin to find
some tortoise shell fossils in layer B [point to layer B], whereas
before they had only found tortoise shell fossils in layer A [point to
layer A and tortoise fossil]. What does this suggest?
Researcher: Thank you, this concludes our questions about these items and this
poster. Now let’s move on to another activity.
Part III: Timeline
Participants are presented a set of seven cards that list seven events—the origin
of the universe, humans, dinosaurs, life on earth, land plants, fish, and the origin of the
earth—and are asked to put them in the order in which they believe these events to
have occurred.
Researcher: Okay, here I have a set of cards. These cards show some events in
the history of the universe [show subject cards in no particular
order]. We have the origin of the universe, humans, dinosaurs, life
on earth, land plants, fish, and the origin of the earth. Will you put
these cards in the order in which you think they occurred?
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Researcher: Can you read the order you’ve arranged the cards in and tell me
why you placed them in the order that you have?
Part IV: Biological Change
Participants are asked to explain how a scientist might explain the modem
cheetah’s swift running ability. To help with their explanation, participants are pro
vided a set of cards that depict images of changing cat populations and a DNA double
helix, along with a list of words related to key concepts of evolution: random, popula
tions, generations, heredity, variation, species, and selection.
Researcher: Okay, I have just one more activity. This involves coming up with
an explanation for how an animal changed over time. I’m going to
read the question to you and then I’d like you to answer the ques
tion, and feel free to use these word or picture cards in front of
you—they may help you to articulate your answer, but don’t feel as
though you have to use the cards.
[Question:] According to many scientists, long ago the cheetah
had an ancestor that was not able to run as fast as the modem chee
tah. How would these experts explain the cheetah’s running ability
today? Please explain this development as precisely as you can
using the principles of biological evolution, regardless of whether
you personally believe this explanation.
[Allow subject ample time to answer the question.]
Researcher: Before you go, do you have any additional comments or questions?
Thank you again.
Upon completion of the interview, the audiotape recorder was turned off and
subjects were invited to select a token gift. Interview demographic forms were
checked for completeness, and subjects were free to leave.
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX F
POSTER USED IN PART II OF INTERVIEW SURVEY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 1. Poster used in Part II of interview survey.
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX G
FOSSIL/FOSSIL CASTS USED IN PART II OF INTERVIEW
SURVEY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 2. Fossil/fossil casts used in Part II of interview survey.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX H
FOSSIL WORD CARDS USED IN PART III OF INTERVIEW
SURVEY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 3. Fossil word cards used in Part III of interview survey.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX I
PICTURE CARDS USED IN PART IV OF INTERVIEW
SURVEY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with P erm ission
APPENDIX J
WORD CARD USED FOR PART IV OF INTERVIEW
SURVEY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
heredity
- - 4
■ I
variation
species
s action
Figure 5. W ord card used for Part IV o f interview survey.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX K
INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I N F O R M E D C O N S E N T S T A T E M E N T
Enhancing Natural History Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution
Project Description and Verbal Informed Consent Statement
This study examines visitor understanding of the key concepts of evolution.
The purpose is to inform the content development and design of museum exhibits and
programs at museums in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.
What you will be asked to do:
Answer questions that will provide information about your understanding of
the topic of evolution. Sample questions include: “Let’s say you meet someone who
didn’t know what a fossil is—how would you explain it to them?”; “Looking at this
poster, can you tell me which of the fossils is the oldest and which are younger?” “How
do you know?”; “Some fossils found in the lower layers are not found in the upper
layers. How do scientists explain that?”
The study will take no more than 15 minutes to complete. There is no, or
minimal perceived risk for participation in this study. The potential benefit is the op
portunity to learn about some topics of interest to scientists. There is no monetary
compensation for participants; however, you will be offered a token gift (such as a
museum key chain) for participating in this study. There is no penalty for not partici
pating, and you do not have to answer any questions you do not wish to answer.
May I have your permission to audio tape this interview? All audio tapes will
be destroyed upon completing of my data collection/note checking. Your audiotaped
responses will remain anonymous.
Whom to contact if you have questions about this study: Linda Abraham,
900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA (0007,213/763-3533, labraham@nhm.org, or
William McComas, Associate Professor, the University of Southern California,
Rossier School of Education, 1001 Waite Phillips Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90089,
mccomas@usc.ed.
Whom to contact about your rights in this study: University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5271 or upirb@usc.ed.
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college

PDF

Holding traditional and charter schools accountable for student achievement in one California school district

PDF

A qualitative examination of the nature and impact of three California minority engineering programs

PDF

Environmental education in community -based coastal resource management: A case study of Olango Island, Philippines

PDF

A history of the development of the California Science Content Standards: 1990--2005

PDF

Early career teachers' views of their elementary science teaching methods courses: The relationship between preservice preparation and the realities of the first years of teaching

PDF

A study of the relationship between student achievement and mathematics program congruence in select secondary schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

PDF

An analysis of program planning in schools with emerging excellence in science instructional design

PDF

Fulfilling the mission to serve the underserved: A case study of a private, Catholic, urban college's two -year program

PDF

Factors contributing to the academic achievements of Hispanic gifted children

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' and administrators' identification of diverse students for gifted programs in Title I schools

PDF

A comparative case study: Tutoring in reading in two settings

PDF

American Sign Language as a high school language elective: Factors influencing its adoption

PDF

Does problem -based learning in medical education lead to more self -directed learning by physicians? A review of comparative studies, theory and analysis

PDF

A comparison of the perceptions of senior and junior enlisted Air Force personnel concerning deterrents to enrollment in and completion of adult education courses by junior personnel

PDF

A study of doctoral student -advisor satisfaction: Considering gender and ethnic grouping at a private research university

PDF

An investigation of the impact of selected prereading activities on student content learning through laboratory activities

PDF

An evaluation of the use of microcomputer-based laboratory instruction on middle school students' concept attainment and attitudes towards computer -based instruction

PDF

A qualitative exploratory study of a proceduralized system to learning key sport knowledge: Will a proceduralized approach enhance cognitive aspects of sport team performance?

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

Asset Metadata

Creator Abraham-Silver, Linda M. (author)

Core Title A comparative study of American, Australian, British, and Canadian museum visitors' understanding of the nature of evolutionary theory

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, sciences,museology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Clark, Richard (committee member), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member), Iyengar, Shrinidhi (committee member), McComas, William (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-400460

Unique identifier UC11336044

Identifier 3196769.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-400460 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3196769.pdf

Dmrecord 400460

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Abraham-Silver, Linda M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA