Chilean Pre-service and In-service Teachers andUndergraduate Students’ Understandings ofEvolutionary Theory

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20

Download by: [Lipscomb University] Date: 11 March 2016, At: 07:57

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Chilean Pre-service and In-service Teachers and

Undergraduate Students’ Understandings of

Evolutionary Theory

Hernán Cofré, Juan Jiménez, David Santibáñez & Claudia Vergara

(2016) Chilean Pre-service and In-service Teachers and Undergraduate Students’

Understandings of Evolutionary Theory, Journal of Biological Education, 50:1, 10-23, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2014.967278

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.967278

Published online: 14 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 83

View related articles

Chilean Pre-service and In-service Teachers

and Undergraduate Students

’

Understandings of Evolutionary Theory

Hernán Cofré

*

, Juan Jiménez

, David Santibáñez

and

Claudia Vergara

a

Facultad de Ciencias, Instituto de Biología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de

Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile;bMathematics and Science Education Department, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, USA; cFacultad de Educación, Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez, Santiago, Chile;dFacultad de Filosofía y Humanidades, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago, Chile

Despite the importance of the theory of evolution to scientific knowledge, a number of misconceptions continue to be found among teachers and undergraduate students. The aim of the present study was to describe and characterise knowledge about evolution among 120 freshman undergraduate students of two natural sciences programmes (environmental biology and veterinary medicine), 80 pre-service sci-ence teachers (elementary and biology) and 45 in-service teachers (elementary and biology high school) in Santiago, Chile. The research was carried out based on an eight-question questionnaire about evolution acceptance and understanding. The instrument included seven Likert-scale questions and one open-ended question. An analysis of the data revealed that more than 70% of teachers (pre-service and in-service) and undergraduate students recognised the theory of evolution as established scientific knowl-edge. When participants discussed the mechanism of evolution in the open-ended question, the most pre-valent responses from students and teachers (33%) explained evolution as need-driven changes for survival purposes. Only 13% of the responses could be considered Darwinian, and 10% of responses included more than one view of evolution. The Darwinian responses generally included three important aspects: variation, inheritance and differential reproduction. The implications for biology teacher educa-tion are also discussed in this study.

Keywords: Understanding of evolution; Acceptance of evolution; Pre-service biology teachers; In-service biology teachers; Chile

*Corresponding author. Instituto de Biología, P. Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Av. Universidad 330, Curauma, Valparaíso, Chile. Email:[email protected]

© 2014 Society of Biology

Vol. 50, No. 1, 10–23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.967278

Introduction

Despite being considered a major tenet of scientific disciplines and necessary for scien-tific literacy (Harlen 2010), numerous studies in recent decades have revealed a high rate of conceptual errors about the basic principles of evolutionary theory in populations including students, teachers and the general public (e.g. Alter and Nelson 2002; Gregory

2009; Gregory and Ellis 2009; Gutiérrez 2009; Kampourakis and Zogza 2007; Kim and Nehm 2010; McFadden et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2006; Nehm and Schonfeld 2007). This lack of understanding of evolutionary theory (hereafter ET) is often accompanied by a rejection of it that has its highest expression in certain regions of the United States and some eastern European countries (Miller et al.2006).

Although undergraduate students and science teachers are usually considered among the more informed groups within society, compared to high school students and the general public (Gregory and Ellis 2009; McFadden et al. 2007), numerous studies have also shown a low degree of knowledge and understanding of ET among undergraduate students (e.g. Alter and Nelson 2002; Buckberry and Burke da Silva 2012; Cofré et al.

2013; Gregory and Ellis 2009; Nehm and Reilly 2007; Pazza et al. 2010; Robbins and Roy 2007; Settlage and Jensen 1996; Sinatra et al. 2003), as well as among pre-service and in-service biology and non-biology science teachers (e.g. Kim and Nehm 2010; Nehm and Schonfeld 2007; Nehm et al. 2009; Nunez et al. 2012; Taskin 2013). For example, undergraduate students who do not fully understand evolutionary mechanisms have misconceptions similar to those of younger students (Alter and Nelson 2002; Gregory and Ellis 2009; Pazza et al. 2010; Robbins and Roy 2007), even after attending courses at university (e.g., Abraham et al. 2009; Nehm and Reilly 2007). As for the mis-conceptions associated with the teaching of ET, it has been shown that students often attribute biological changes to a voluntary response by the organism to a new require-ment imposed by the environrequire-ment (Gregory 2009; Gutierrez 2009; Kampourakis and Zogza2007). This intuitive or naive explanation is overwhelmingly based on teleological thinking (Kampourakis and Zogza 2007) and has been wrongly classified by many researchers as a ‘Lamarckist’ preconception (see also Kampourakis and Zogza 2007 for review). This misclassification interferes with teaching strategies that promote correct understanding of the mechanisms associated with ET (Kampourakis and Zogza 2007). Moreover, it is clear that, despite these efforts to characterise students’ conceptual errors and alternative explanations, these errors are much more complex; indeed, they may include a combination of teleological, Lamarckian and Darwinian ideas (Cofré et al.

2013; Gutierrez2009).

In Chile, the National Science Curriculum (MINEDUC 1998, 2009) includes teaching concepts such as adaptation, species, biodiversity and related issues from the fifth grade. In eighth grade, students are exposed to material related to the origins of life and the evo-lutionary history of different groups of organisms in the fossil record (MINEDUC2009). Even more coverage and depth is offered in high school, where students review issues of genetic variation, inheritance, natural selection and human evolution (MINEDUC 2009). This coverage expanded after several decades during which instruction in ET was mini-mal (Camus2009; Medel2008; Tamayo and Gonzalez2010). Moreover, although contri-butions pertaining to the treatment and reception of ET exist either in the national

curriculum (Camus 2009; Medel 2008; Tamayo and González 2010) or textbooks (Tamayo and González 2010), and scientists involved in the discipline also want to improve the understanding of evolution in Chile (Gallardo 2011; Spotorno1991; Veloso and Spotorno 2012), currently there is no research that examines the degree of understanding of evolutionary theories among our in-service and pre-service teachers (regarding undergraduate students see Cofré et al.2013).

Purpose of Study and Research Questions

The main objective of this study was to describe and characterise the understanding of ET in a group of freshman students pursuing biological careers and a group of pre-service and in-service elementary and biology teachers. The choice of these groups was justified because undergraduate students and pre-service teachers are segments of the population who have benefited directly from the newer curriculum, which incorporated ET in 1999 (Camus 2009), while elementary and biology teachers are in charge of teaching this new curriculum in the 8th and 11th grades. Thus, the research questions that guided this study were:

 Who among the participants held the most informed view of evolutionary theory?  What are the most frequent kinds of explanations included in answers about

evolution-ary process?

 What are the most frequent key concepts included in Darwinian responses to the evolu-tionary process?

Methods Participants

This study included 120 freshman students attending undergraduate programmes in the natural sciences (70 from environmental biology and 50 from veterinary medicine) at two different universities (one private and one public); 80 pre-service teachers attending elementary and biology teaching programmes at two different universities (one private and one public); and 45 in-service teachers (15 elementary and 30 biology teachers). The questionnaire response rate was 100% since the instrument was administered to all students from one class at each university where the study was done.

Data Collection

To determine freshman students and teachers’ understanding about evolution, an eight-item questionnaire was used. Similar short instruments have been used in previous studies that assessed student and teacher understanding of evolution with Likert-scale questions (e.g. Nehm and Schonfeld2007; ECK instrument) as well as with open-ended questions (Kampourakis and Zogza 2007; Nehm and Reilly 2007 [ORI instrument]; Robbins and Roy 2007). The focus of the assessment was analysis of the response to an open-ended

question that concerned the origin of flight in bats (Gregory and Ellis 2009). As noted in the literature on such assessments, and specifically about natural selection, most of the instruments used for this aim included open-ended questions (Bishop and Anderson

1990; Jensen et al. 2007; Kampourakis and Zogza 2007; Nehm and Reilly 2007; Nehm and Ha 2011; Robbins and Roy 2007) or a combination of a short essay and Likert-scale questions (Gregory and Ellis 2009). These kinds of essay questions draw out unantici-pated misconceptions about evolution as well as a broad range of core concepts that should be included in natural selection responses (Nehm and Ha 2011). To improve the content validity of the questionnaire, we also included five Likert-scale questions in which we explored mostly two explanation categories (teleological and Darwinian) in two different types of organisms (bacteria and mammals; see Table 1). Questions about the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and the speed of the cheetah have been used frequently in previous studies as open-ended and Likert-scale questions (e.g., Bishop and Anderson 1990; Gregory and Ellis 2009; MacFadden et al. 2007; Nehm and

Table 1. Questionnaire used to assess knowledge and acceptance of the theory of evolution, mostly concerning the mechanisms of natural selection.

In this section, please indicate on the scale from 1 to 5 how strongly you agree with each statement. In all cases, 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

I. According to my view…

1)… The relatedness of species by descent from a common ancestor (i.e. that evolution has occurred) is an established scientific fact that is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence.

1 2 3 4 5

2)… The notion that species are related by descent from a common ancestor is purely speculative, and there is no convincing evidence to support it.

1 2 3 4 5

I. Cheetahs are the fastest land mammals. They evolved their remarkable speed…

3) ... because in each generation, it was necessary for cheetahs to run slightly faster in order to catch prey, and as such each generation was born with slightly improved running abilities.

1 2 3 4 5

4) ... because in each generation, individuals who happened to be faster runners due to chance mutations caught more prey and left more offspring than slower runners.

1 2 3 4 5

II. Resistance to antibiotics evolves because, when treated with antibiotics… 5) ... the most successful bacteria become resistant.

1 2 3 4 5

6) ... the most resistant bacteria become successful. 1 2 3 4 5

III. Biological evolution can be summarized succinctly and accurately as‘a process of

continuous change from a lower, simpler, or primitive condition to a higher, more complex, or more advanced state’.

1 2 3 4 5

Please answer the following question in the space provided (half page).

IV. Bats are the only mammals capable of poweredflight and are descended from non-flying ancestors that were most likely superficially similar to modern mice. In the space provided, please outline how you think an evolutionary biologist would explain the evolution offlying bats fromflightless, mouse-like ancestors.

Ha 2011; Nehm and Reilly 2007; Nehm and Schonfeld 2007; Settlage and Jensen1996). In this study, we used these statements as Likert-scale questions that included two types of explanation (Darwinian and teleological) for the change process (Table1). Finally, two Likert-scale questions were included in the questionnaire to assess the degree of acceptance in the targeted population of science teachers and freshmen students.

Data Analysis

Explanations obtained from the open-ended questions were categorised to identify the dif-ferent types of knowledge that participants could demonstrate to state the mechanisms of ET. Rubrics for each kind of knowledge were generated via the analysis of literature on student misconceptions on the subjects of ET and natural selection (e.g. Anderson et al.

2002; Gregory 2009; Gregory and Ellis 2009; Gutierrez 2009; Kampourakis and Zogza2007, 2009; MacFadden et al.2007; Nehm and Reilly 2007; Nehm and Schonfeld 2008; Rudolph and Stewart 1998). Specifically, this study followed the proposal of Kampourakis and Zogza (2007) in term of distinguishing between preconceptions about evolution through need via purposeful change and genuinely Lamarckian explanations via use and desuse. We also recognized evolution through differential survival or Darwinian and amechanistic answers (see also Table 2). Participant response was deemed complete in a category when it included all aspects described for this type of knowledge. If the participant mentioned some, but not all, aspects of the rubric for one kind of knowledge, this was considered an incomplete response. Participant responses which incorporated aspects of more than one category were classified as mixed responses. Analysis of the responses was conducted by three authors and obtained a 93% consistency rate. Discrepancies were discussed, and consensus was reached among the three researchers. Darwinian explanations did not always agree with the scoring rubric established based on prior research (for details, see for example Anderson et al. 2002; Jensen et al. 2008; Kampourakis and Zogza 2009; Nehm and Ha 2011; Nehm and Reilly 2007; Nehm and Schonfeld 2008). Because there is some diversity in the literature regarding the number of essential elements considered necessary and sufficient to explain evolutionary patterns using the natural selection model (see Nehm and Ha 2011), we created a rubric that included all the different aspects most frequently proposed: (1) the characteristics of the particular environment (or environmental change); (2) the existence of variation within the population; (3) the causes of phenotypic variation (mutation, recombination, etc.); (4) the heritability of phenotypic variation; (5) reproductive potential; (6) limited resources; (7) competition (struggle for existence); (8) differential survival and reproduction based on heritable traits; (9) the change in the distribution of individuals with certain heritable traits; and (10) the origin of new species.

The results from the Likert-scale questions were tabulated and analysed to obtain descriptive statistics and demonstrative graphs. A nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test was used to assess the difference among the mean value of scores by type of participant– SS (science students), PST (pre-service science teachers) and IST (in-service science teach-ers)– for each Likert-scale question.

Results

According to the data from the Likert-scale questions about the acceptance of evolutionary theory, most participants (irrespective of whether they were teachers or freshman students: KW = 3.14; p = 0.2) recognised the theory of evolution as established scientific knowledge (Figure 1). Nearly 80% of in-service teachers and nearly 70% of pre-service teachers and freshman students agreed or strongly agreed with propositions

Table 2. Theoretical framework, evolutionary mechanism, sample answer and complete rubric, used to evaluate the open-ended question.

Theoretical

framework Evolutionary mechanism Complete rubric Sample answer Fossil record and comparative anatomy There is no an explicit mechanism. However, indirect evidence from the evolution process is mentioned

The student: 1) compares the actual specie and the ancestor by fossil record (anatomy); or 2) compares the actual specie and the ancestor by molecular features (DNA, proteins)

Birds evolve from reptiles because some dinosaur fossils have feathers

Natural Selection

Final cause given by the differential survival and reproduction based on population variability

The student explains that 1) the variation within population through random mutations; 2) differential survival and reproduction; 3) survivors pass their features to offspring; and 4) the percentage of population with these features becomes greater (Modified from Jensen et al.2007)

Through random

mutations, a certain part of the population related to theflightless ancestor survived and could reproduce more through certain associated features related withflying (Incomplete Darwinian answer. The answer just mentions the mechanisms) Transformism

(Lamarck)

Final cause given by the use and no use of structures

The student explains that: 1) the higher frequency in the use of the use of organs or disuse of them leads to further

development or losing them; and 2) this loss or organ development is transferred to the next generation (Modified from Kampourakis & Zogza 2007)

Because the mole ancestor did not use the eyes, finally, the living species was losing them. (Incomplete Lamarckian answer, student does not mention character transmission)

Intuitive (Teleological and need)

Final cause given by the will of the organism to respond to environmental changes

The student explains: 1) the existence of will to respond to need in the environment (Modified from Kampourakis & Zogza2007, Gregory 2009)

Bacteria, currently, are hard to kill them because they change according to new antibiotics (Complete intuitive answer)

that evolution is a scientific fact, and an inverse pattern of disagreement was found for the proposition that evolution was merely a speculation (KW = 0.1; p = 0.96; see also Figure 1).

Regarding the responses to propositions about evolutionary knowledge, nearly half of the participants agreed with the misconception that evolution is always a directional pro-cess from least to most complex organisms (Figure1). This pattern occurred irrespective of the kind of participants (KW = 0.52; p = 0.77). However, in the analysis of four prop-ositions about the mechanisms of evolution, a different pattern of responses was found to exist in three of them, with in-service teachers holding more informed views than pre-ser-vice science teachers and freshman natural science students (Figure 1). For example, the group of in-service science teachers showed statistically less agreement with a teleologi-cal mechanism of speed evolution in cheetahs than did pre-service teachers and science students (KW = 13.6; p < 0.001). The same pattern was found in the responses to the sen-tence about teleological explanations for the evolution of bacterial resistance (KW = 8.53; p < 0.015). Finally, a higher proportion of in-service teachers than pre-service teachers and freshmen students also agreed with Darwinian explanations of cheetah evolution (KW = 16.89; p < 0.001). The difference in agreement pertaining to the Darwinian expla-nation of bacterial evolution was not significant between groups (KW = 3.43; p<0.18), and most participants held informed views (Figure1).

Qualitative analysis of the open-ended question that required the participants to explain the evolution of bats from non-flying ancestral mammals showed that the most prevalent view of students and teachers was evolution through need via purposeful change (Table 2). The teleological explanation was the most frequent response, ranging from 21% to 30% (in-service teachers and pre-service teachers, respectively). A large number of participants (mostly science students) either did not answer the question or indicated that they did not know. Fewer than 1% of responses included a real Lamarckian response,

Table 3. Freshman undergraduate students’, pre-service teachers’ and in-service teachers’ explanations for the evolution of bats by natural selection.

% Answers undergraduate students Pre-service Teachers In-service Teachers

Darwinian complete 1.19 0.00 2.33 Darwinian incomplete 6.55 8.00 18.60 Lamarckian complete 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lamarckian incomplete 0.00 0.00 4.65 Amechanistic complete 15.48 12.00 6.98 Amechanistic incomplete 10.71 8.00 18.60 Teleological complete 23.21 30.00 20.93 Teleological incomplete 2.38 4.00 4.65 Mixed answers: With Darwin 1.79 6.00 9.30 Without Darwin 3.57 6.00 6.98 No answer 22.02 10.00 2.33 Others 13.10 16.00 4.65 Total 100 100 100

and only 2% could be considered a complete Darwinian response. One of the most inter-esting results was the mixed response category: nearly 10% (from 6% to more than 15%; see also Table 2) of responses included more than one view about evolution. For exam-ple, some participants explained the evolution of a bat from a rodent-like ancestor using both Darwinian and teleological reasons:

Figure 1. Participants’ responses to Likert questions

Notes: IST = In-service Science Teachers; Pre-service Science Teachers = PST, SS = Science Students

The bats’ ancestors had random mutations that allowed them to evolve to get into current bats. This evolution occurs because the bats’ survival needs are satisfied by the mutations that provide them a higher percentage of success.

These responses also included explanations that consider aspects of Lamarckian and teleological knowledge:

Because the rodent did not have enough agility to hunt, he developed a mechanism that would allow it to survive by stretching its front legs to reach higher speeds, resulting in later genera-tions having wings that allow them to plan to hunt and survive in their environment.

The Darwinian answers suggest that many of the participants have only a rudimentary grasp of evolutionary mechanisms, and most of the key concepts were omitted (Figure2).

Figure 2. Key-concept frequency in participants’ responses to bat evolution by natural selection question

The most frequently mentioned Darwinian mechanisms were mutation (causes of variation), heritability of phenotypic variation and differential survival and reproduction (Figure 2). Most responses included some of these concepts, and only 5 out of 36 participants included four orfive core concepts. One example of an answer that included mutation follows.

I don’t know much about evolution, but I know about recombination and gene mutations. I think this species of rodent mutated its genes over several years, and then the‘new successful genes’ gave us the bats we know today.

More complex answers that included several central concepts included:

I would assume that some ancestor rodent with a mutation that produces limbs like wings has had an evolutionary advantage in a time of selective pressure, allowing in that environment (where the selective pressure occurred), the successful transmission of their genes and production of offspring with the same trait.

Discussion

Low levels of evolutionary knowledge and high rates of evolutionary misconceptions are known to be harboured by high school students (Kampourakis and Zogza 2007), under-graduates (Bishop and Anderson 1990; Nehm and Ha 2011; Pazza et al. 2010), biology majors (Dagher and BouJaoude 2005; Nehm and Reilly 2007), and pre-service (Deniz et al. 2008) and in-service science teachers (Kim and Nehm 2010; Nunez et al. 2012; Taskin 2013). Consistent with this literature, in this study we have shown that a large proportion of a group of freshman students and elementary and biology pre-service and in-service teachers in Chile held some degree of misconception about evolutionary pro-cesses and showed a lack of understanding of Darwinian mechanisms behind evolution. Given what is stated by Kim and Nehm (2010), ours would be the first study that assesses teachers’ knowledge of ET in South America (but see Gutierrez2009 for a study of Argentinian science teachers). Furthermore, this is also one of thefirst studies to assess undergraduate students’ knowledge of ET in this part of the world (but see Pazza et al.

2010 and Penteado et al. 2012 with regard to Brazilian undergraduate students). This study has shown that in-service science teachers have better understanding than under-graduate and pre-service science teachers, exhibiting fewer misconceptions and a higher proportion of complex responses about Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection. All participants also shared patterns of responses such as a high presence of teleological explanations, very low presence of Lamarckian explanations and the presence of mixed responses about the mechanisms of evolution.

It is well documented that college students of different hold misconceptions and pro-vide teleological or intuitive responses, with different researchers finding this either in a high proportion (e.g. Nehm and Reilly2007; Pazza et al.2010) or to a lesser extent (e.g. Buckberry and Burke da Silva 2012; Gregory and Ellis 2009). In this study, we have shown that the proportion of students who held misconceptions about ET fluctuates between 30% and 60%. This result is consistent with those found in studies of Brazilian students (Pazza et al. 2010) and students in the USA (e.g., Nehm and Reilly 2007), but slightly different from results of studies of Australian (Buckberry and Burke da Silva

2012) and Canadian (Gregory and Ellis 2009) students, whose wrong answers averaged close to 20%. Regarding the understanding of ET that pre-service and in-service teachers demonstrated, we found a level of knowledge–with nearly 60% of the group answering correctly–similar to that of biology teachers around the world (see Kim and Nehm2010

for a review). For example, in a study that included more than 500 biology teachers, Rutledge and Warden (2000) showed that on average, 60% of participants correctly answered most of the questions in a test of knowledge about microevolution and macro-evolution. However, other studies in Central America show biology teachers achieving a much lower performance, with a mean knowledge score of 48% (Penteado et al. 2012). Upon analysis, the responses to the open question about natural selection showed that undergraduate students and teachers’ performances are lower than those responding to the closed questions. Most of the literature about TE understanding has shown that upon answering questions about natural selection, college students (mostly undergraduate biol-ogy majors) give mixed responses containing both Darwinian and teleological compo-nents (e.g. Nehm and Ha 2011; Opfer et al. 2012). For example, in a study including more than 200 undergraduate students (biology majors), Nehm and Ha (2011) showed that, independent of the question about natural selection, 16–40% of mixed responses, including naive as well as scientific elements, were recorded. The same results have been described for interview participants in a study (Evans et al. 2010) showing that museum visitors used a combination of informed naturalistic reasoning (Darwinian) and novice naturalistic reasoning (teleological and/or Lamarckian). Our study is one of the first to show this kind of mixed response in pre-service and in-service science teachers (elementary and biology teachers).

Although several studies have reported a positive relationship between teachers’ knowl-edge and acceptance of evolution (e.g. Akyol et al. 2012; Deniz et al. 2008; Ha et al.

2012; Penteado et al. 2012), this study did not show any pattern of relationship between acceptance (mostly high) and understanding (poor) of ET in freshmen students or biology and elementary teachers. We found that the majority of students and teachers agreed with the proposition that ET is established scientific knowledge; however, they did not demon-strate highly nuanced knowledge about evolution and natural selection. This result is interesting because it suggests that the acceptance of evolutionary theory could be a necessary ingredient, but not enough alone, to understand the mechanisms of natural selection.

Conclusions

In conclusion, in this study we have confirmed that one of the best ways to assess knowl-edge about evolution and natural selection is through instruments including open and closed questions. This method allowed us to elicit one of the first descriptions of mixed answers (naive and scientific components) from in-service biology teachers (see also Ha et al.2012). The implications of our results are important for the training of science teach-ers, emphasising the need to improve teacher education and professional development pro-grammes in Chile on the subject of evolution and natural selection. Finally, because we did not find a positive relationship between acceptance and knowledge of evolution, future

work in this area could use quasi-experimental designs rather than correlational studies to determine the elusive relationships between complex variables, such as acceptance and understanding of evolutionary theory among teachers and students.

Funding

This work was partially supported by the Chilean National Fund for Scientific and Technologic Development (FONDECYT), under Grant 1,131,029 to thefirst author.

References

Akyol, G., C. Tekkaya, S. Sungur, and A. Traynor. 2012. “Modeling the Inter Relationships among Pre-service Science Teachers’ Understanding and Acceptance of Evolution, Their Views on Nature of Science and Self-efficacy Beliefs regarding Teaching Evolution.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 23: 937–957.

Alter, B. J., and G. E. Nelson. 2002.“Perspective: Teaching Evolution in Higher Education.” Evolution 56: 1891–1901.

Anderson, D. L., K. M. Fisher, and G. J. Norman. 2002. “Development and Evaluation of the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection.” Journal of Research Science Teaching 39: 952–978. Bishop, B. A., and C. W. Anderson. 1990.“Student Conceptions of Natural Selection and its Role in

Evolution.” Journal of Research Science Teaching 27: 415–427.

Buckberry, S., and K. Burke da Silva. 2012.“Evolution: Improving the Understanding of Undergraduate Biology Students with an Active Pedagogical Approach.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 5: 266–273.

Camus, P. 2009. “Educación científica y evolutiva en Chile. problemas funcionales y conflictos entre enseñar y aprender [Science Education and Evolution Education in Chile. Functional Problems and Conflicts between Teaching and Learning].” Gayana 73 (Suplement): 19–31.

Cofré, H., C. Vergara, D. Santibáñez, and J. P. Jiménez. 2013. “Una primera aproximación a la comprensión que tienen estudiantes universitarios en Chile de la Teoría de la Evolución.” [An initial approach to Chilean undergraduate students’ understanding of Evolution Theory.] Estudios Pedagógicos 39: 7–26.

Dagher, Z. R., and S. BouJaoude. 2005.“Students’ Perceptions of the Nature of Evolutionary Theory.” Science & Education 89: 378–391.

Deniz, H., L. A. Donnelly, and I. Yilmaz. 2008. “Exploring the Factors Related to Acceptance of Evolutionary Theory among Turkish Pre-service Biology Teachers: Toward a More Informative Conceptual Ecology for Biological Evolution.” Journal of Research Science Teaching 45: 420–443. Evans, E. M., A. N. Spiegel, W. Gram, B. N. Frazier, M. Tare, S. Thompson, and J. Diamond. 2010.

“A Conceptual Guide to Natural History Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (3): 326–353.

Gallardo, M. H. 2011. Evolución: El curso de la vida [Evolution. The Journey of Life]. Buenos Aires: Editorial Médica Panamericana, 504.

Gregory, T. R. 2009. “Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 2: 156–175.

Gregory, T. R., and C. Ellis. 2009. “Conceptions of Evolution among Science Graduate Students.” BioScience 59: 792–799.

Gutiérrez, A. 2009. Biología. La teoría de la evolución en la escuela [Biology. The Theory of Evolution in the School]. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos.

Ha, M., D. L. Haury, and R. H. Nehm. 2012. “Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution.” Journal of Research Science Teaching 49: 95–121.

Harlen, W. 2010. “Principles and Big Ideas of Science Education.” ASE. Accessed May 10, 2013. www.ase.org.uk.

Jensen, M., R. Moore, J. Hatch, and L. Hsu. 2007.“Scoring Rubric for Students’ Responses to Simple Evolution Questions: Darwinian Components.” The American Biology Teacher 69: 394–399. Kampourakis, K., and V. Zogza. 2007.“Students’ Preconceptions about Evolution: How Accurate is the

Characterization as “Lamarckian” When Considering the History of Evolutionary Thought?” Science & Education 16: 393–422.

Kim, S. Y., and R. H. Nehm. 2010. “A Cross-cultural Comparison of Korean and American Science Teachers’ views of Evolution and the Nature of Science.” International Journal of Science Education 10: 1–31.

McFadden, B. A., S. Dunckel, L. D. Ellis, L. Dierking, J. Abraham-Silver, and K. J. Kisiel. 2007. “Natural History Museum Visitors’ Understanding of Evolution.” BioScience 57: 875–882.

Medel, R. 2008. “The Evolution of Evolutionary Thinking in Chile.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 1: 318–322.

Miller, J. D., E. C. Scott, and S. Okamoto. 2006. “Public Acceptance of Evolution.” Science 321: 755–755.

MINEDUC. 1998. Marco curricular de la educación media. Objetivos fundamentals y contenidos míni-mos obligatorios de la educación media [Curriculum of Secondary Education. Main Objectives and Minimum Contents of Secondary Education]. Santiago: Ministerio de Educación, 394.

MINEDUC. 2009. Ajuste curricular en Chile. Unidad de curriculum y evaluacion [Curricular Setting. Curriculum and Assessment Department]. Chile: Ministerio de Educación.

Nehm, R. H., S. Kim, and K. Sheppard. 2009. “Academic Preparation in Biology and Advocacy for Teaching Evolution: Biology versus Non-biology Teachers.” Science & Education 93: 1122–1146. Nehm, R. H., and L. Reilly. 2007. “Biology Majors’ Knowledge and Misconceptions of Natural

Selection.” BioScience 57: 263–272.

Nehm, R. H., and I. S. Schonfeld. 2007. “Does Increasing Biology Teacher Knowledge of Evolution and the Nature of Science lead to Greater Preference for the Teaching of Evolution in Schools?” Journal of Research Science Teaching 18: 699–723.

Nunez, E. E., R. M. Pringle, and K. T. Showalter. 2012. “Evolution in the Caribbean Classroom: A Critical Analysis of the Role of Biology Teachers and Science Standards in Shaping Evolution Instruction in Belize.” International Journal of Science Education 34: 2421–2453.

Opfer, J. E., R. H. Nehm, and M. Ha. 2012. “Cognitive Foundations for Science Assessment Design: Knowing What Students Know about Evolution.” Journal of Research Science Teaching 49: 744–777.

Pazza, R., P. R. Penteado, and K. F. Kavalco. 2010. Misconceptions about Evolution in Brazilian Fresh-men Students. Evolution: Education and Outreach 3: 107–113.

Penteado, P. R., K. F. Kavalco, and R. Pazza. 2012.“Influence of Sociocultural Factors and Acceptance of Creationism in the Comprehension of Evolutionary Biology in Freshman Brazilian Students.” Evolution: Education and Outreach 5: 589–594.

Robbins, J. R., and P. Roy. 2007. “The Natural Selection: Identifying and Correcting Non-science Student Preconceptions through an Inquiry-based, Critical Approach to Evolution.” The American Biology Teacher 69: 460–466.

Rutledge, M. L., and M. A. Warden. 2000.“Evolutionary Theory, the Nature of Science & High School Biology Teachers: Critical Relationships.” The American Biology Teacher 62: 23–31.

Settlage, J., and M. Jensen. 1996. Investigating the Inconsistencies in College Student Responses to Nat-ural Selection Test Questions. Electronic Journal of Science Education. Accessed 10 May 2013. http:ejse.southwestern.edu

Sinatra, G. M., S. A. Southerland, F. McConaughy, and J. W. Demastes. 2003.“Intentions and Beliefs in Students’ Understanding and Acceptance of Biological Evolution.” Journal of Research Science Teaching 40: 510–528.

Spotorno, A. 1991. Origen y evolución de la especie humana, Serie Científica Básica [Origin and Evolution of Human Species]. No. 4. Centro de Extensión Biomédica, Fac. de Medicina, 48.

Tamayo, M., and F. González. 2010.“La enseñanza de la evolución en Chile. Historia de un conflicto documentado en los textos de estudio de enseñanza media [Teaching of Evolution in Chile. History of a Conflict Documented in Secondary Text Books].” Investigações Em Ensino De Ciencias 15: 310–336.

Taskin, Ö. 2013.“Pre-service Science Teachers’ Acceptance of Biological Evolution in Turkey.” Journal of Biological Education 47: 200–207.

Veloso, A., and A. Spotorno, eds. 2012. Darwin y la evolución: avances en la Universidad de Chile. [Darwin and evolution: advances in the Universidad de Chile] Chile: Editorial Universitaria.