a resource for eliciting student alternative conceptions: examining the adaptability of a concept...

8/18/2019 A Resource for Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions: Examining the Adaptability of a Concept Inventory for Na…

1/29

Metadata of the article that will be visualized in OnlineFirst

1 Article Title A Resource for Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions: Examining

the Adaptability of a Concept Inventory for Natural Selection at the

Secondary School Level

2 Article Sub- Title

3 Article Copyright -

Year

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

(This will be the copyright line in the final PDF)

4 Journal Name Research in Science Education

5

Corresponding

Author

Family Name Lucero

6 Particle

7 Given Name Margaret M.

8 Suffix

9 Organization Santa Clara University

10 Division Department of Education

11 Address 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara 95053, CA, USA

12 e-mail [email protected]

13

Author

Family Name Petrosino

14 Particle

15 Given Name Anthony J.

16 Suffix

17 Organization The University of Texas at Austin

18 Division

19 Address Austin, TX, USA

20 e-mail

21

Schedule

Received

22 Revised

23 Accepted

24 Abstract The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) is an example of a

research-based instrument that assesses conceptual understanding in an area

that contains well-documented alternative conceptions. Much of the CINS’s

use and original validation has been relegated to undergraduate settings, but

the information learned from student responses on the CINS can also

potentially be a useful resource for teachers at the secondary level. Because of

its structure, the CINS can have a role in eliciting alternative conceptions and

induce deeper conceptual understanding by having student ideas leveraged

during instruction. In a first step toward this goal, the present study further

investigated the CINS’s internal properties by having it administered to a


2/29

group (n = 339) of students among four different biology teachers at a

predominantly Latino, economically disadvantaged high school. In addition,

incidences of the concept inventory’s use among the teachers’ practices were

collected for support of its adaptability at the secondary level. Despite the

teachers’ initial enthusiasm for the CINS’s use as an assessment tool in the

present study, results from a principal components analysis demonstrate

inconsistencies between the original and present validations. Results alsoreveal how the teachers think CINS items may be revised for future use among

secondary student populations.

25 Keywords separated

by ' - '

Concept inventory - Alternative conceptions - Evolution education

26 Foot note

information


3/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

1

23

4A Resource for Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions:

5Examining the Adaptability of a Concept Inventory6for Natural Selection at the Secondary School Level

7Margaret M. Lucero1

& Anthony J. Petrosino2

8

9# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

10

11Abstract The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) is an example of a research-

12 based instrument that assesses conceptual understanding in an area that contains well-

13documented alternative conceptions. Much of the CINS’s use and original validation has been

14relegated to undergraduate settings, but the information learned from student responses on the

15CINS can also potentially be a useful resource for teachers at the secondary level. Because of

16its structure, the CINS can have a role in eliciting alternative conceptions and induce deeper

17conceptual understanding by having student ideas leveraged during instruction. In a first step

18toward this goal, the present study further investigated the CINS’s internal properties by19having it administered to a group (n = 339) of students among four different biology teachers

20at a predominantly Latino, economically disadvantaged high school. In addition, incidences of

21the concept inventory’s use among the teachers’ practices were collected for support of its

22adaptability at the secondary level. Despite the teachers’ initial enthusiasm for the CINS’s use

23as an assessment tool in the present study, results from a principal components analysis

24demonstrate inconsistencies between the original and present validations. Results also reveal

25how the teachers think CINS items may be revised for future use among secondary student

26 populations.

27Keywords Concept inventory. Alternative conceptions . Evolution education

28

29Among different science domains, concept inventories (CIs) (e.g., see Hestenes et al. 1992;

30Klymkowsky et al. 2003; Q1Smith et al. 2008) are “research-based instruments designed to

31measure student conceptual understanding in areas where students are known (through

32rigorous research) to hold common misconceptions” (Garvin-Doxas et al. 2007, p. 277). CIs

Res Sci Educ

DOI 10.1007/s11165-016-9524-z

* Margaret M. Lucero

[email protected]

1 Department of Education, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA

2 The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016


4/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

33are traditionally relegated to undergraduate settings, but they can be a valuable resource for

34teachers and other educators in secondary school settings. Within a secondary school context,

35the value of CIs can be realized by probing what students know about a topic, as opposed to

36other forms of large-scale assessment, like traditional high-stake state tests that do not

37necessarily probe for deep conceptual understanding (National Research Council [NRC]382001). The distracter answer choices found on CIs are composed with students’ thoughts

39and ideas in mind, especially since the item development is guided by students’ rationale for

40specific responses and analyses of written, open-ended answers to related questions

41(Richardson 2005). Because each potential answer reveals where student understanding of

42the phenomena differs from accepted knowledge (Garvin-Doxas et al. 2007), secondary

43educators can potentially use the information they gain about their students to better plan

44lessons (e.g., instructional activities and assessments) for conceptual understanding.

45One such CI that could potentially be used as an additional resource for formative

46assessment that elicits student ideas is the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS)47(Anderson et al. 2002). Like other CIs, the CINS was initially developed within an under-

48graduate setting in order to aid instructors in identifying alternative conceptions with a concept

49that often presents challenges for students to learn. Even though the CINS has been used

50mostly in undergraduate settings with published findings from over 75 articles and conference

51 proceedings, we believe that its adaptability and usefulness in secondary biology classrooms is

52an underutilized formative assessment opportunity. In this manuscript, we explore this forma-

53tive assessment possibility with findings from an empirical study in which we attempted to

54adapt the CINS for use in a secondary school setting, specifically with a group of teachers and

55students from a large high-minority, low-socioeconomic high school. The secondary setting is

56all the more important because improving student understanding of natural selection is a

57central portion of any general life science/biology course from middle school through college.

58Having effective research-based and classroom-tested assessment tools to monitor student

59understanding in this area is essential since most, if not all, students find natural selection a

60challenging topic to master. We present a case where four teachers administered the CINS to

61their respective students and reported how the CINS was used in their classrooms. The

62findings build on previous research regarding the CINS’s development (Anderson et al.

632002) and validity and reliability (Anderson et al. 2002; Nehm and Schonfeld 2008), with

64the additional voices and concerns about such an instrument ’s use from in-service science

65teachers.

66Background on CIs

67CIs were first developed as an instructional tool in the field of undergraduate physics and had a

68significant impact in advancing the field of physics education research. The force concept

69inventory (FCI) was the first CI to be developed (Hestenes et al. 1992). The FCI is a 29-

70question assessment that focuses on probing students’ understanding of Newtonian and non-

71 Newtonian concepts about force. It was designed to measure six conceptual dimensions of the

72concept of force that were considered essential for a college level understanding of physics

73(i.e., kinematics; kinds of forces; the superposition principle; and Newton’s first, second, and

74third laws). The FCI was credited with being the vehicle for implementing important reforms

75in undergraduate physics education, such as the development of a model of peer instruction

76(Mazur 1997). It was also fairly revolutionary in demonstrating that student learning gains

Res Sci Educ



5/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

77were greater with interactive pedagogy as compared to more traditional lecture-style methods

78(Hake 1998; Freeman et al. 2014). The FCI aided in promoting discussions about pedagogy in

79many academic circles. Other CIs, such as the force and motion conceptual evaluation

80(Thornton and Sokoloff 1998), were created, but few have had as much widespread influence

81and use as the FCI (Smith and Tanner 2010).82For all their potential in offering an additional form of assessment to teachers, CIs still have

83issues that warrant consideration. Researchers in physics education, for example, have con-

84tinually discussed whether or not CIs actually measure the conceptual understanding they are

85designed to assess (Smith and Tanner 2010). Among the papers that have discussed this issue

86(i.e., Heller and Huffman 1995; Hestenes and Halloun 1995; Huffman and Heller 1995), there

87were claims that the FCI was perhaps measuring student intuitions in physics rather than a

88deep conceptual understanding of the different conceptual dimensions of the force concept. In

89fact, after undergoing a factor analysis, the FCI did not yield a robust mapping of test items

90onto each predicted conceptual force dimension (Huffman and Heller 1995). From these91results, Huffman and Heller proposed that the FCI may be measuring student understanding

92within contextualized scenarios and not more global conceptual understanding. For example,

93students may have more familiarity with questions on the physics of hockey pucks, and this

94may explain why these questions group together on a particular component during a factor

95analysis as opposed to being grouped according to a deep conceptual understanding of what

96these questions were intending to assess.

97Other aspects of CIs may potentially limit their usefulness in assessment, including the

98vocabulary CI use and the format they employ (Smith and Tanner 2010). Some CIs’ use of

99content-specific jargon may obscure the conceptual understanding that the CIs are sup-

100 posed to reveal. Smith and Tanner describe one CI’s use of the terms positive control and

101negative control in a question that probes students’ understanding of the scientific method.

102They argue that without a working knowledge of what these terms mean, students would be

103unable to demonstrate their conceptual understanding of the scientific process and exper-

104imental design. Hence, a student ’s understanding of experimental design would actually go

105unnoticed because of a jargon-filled question, thus potentially resulting in a threat to a CI’s

106validity and reliability.

107The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection

108The CINS consists of three reading passages and 20 closed-response (multiple-choice)

109questions with a series of distracters derived from alternative conceptions that have been

110researched extensively. For example, many students will equate biological fitness with

111strength, speed, intelligence, or longevity, when, in fact, biological fitness incorporates

112organisms’ ability to survive and reproduce. In another example, as opposed to under-

113standing that most populations are normally stable in size except for seasonal fluctuations,

114many students will tend to think that all populations grow in size over time or fluctuate

115widely and randomly (Anderson et al. 2002). Additional examples have been documented,

116including alternative conceptions dealing with how members of a population exhibit

117variation (students thinking that all members of a population are nearly identical or

118variations do not influence survival) or how traits are inherited (students having the idea

119that traits acquired during an organism’s lifetime will be inherited by offspring). Other

120related alternative conceptions are comprehensively discussed elsewhere (e.g., see Gregory

1212009). Each reading passage on the CINS describes a brief background of a particular

Res Sci Educ



6/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

122 population of organisms (e.g., the Galapagos finches) and establishes the context for the

123series of questions that follow it. Ten concepts or components (biotic potential , population

124 stability, limited (natural ) resources, limited survival , variation within a population, origin

125of variation, variation is inherited , differential survival , change in population, and origin

126of species) related to natural selection are represented on the CINS (two questions per 127concept).

128Similar to the FCI, there have been discussions surrounding the CINS’s validity and

129reliability (see Nehm and Schonfeld 2008, 2010; Anderson et al. 2010). A main concern with

130the CINS surrounds findings from Nehm and Schonfeld’s (2008) principal component analysis

131(PCA), which was conducted on a population of biology majors and examined the internal

132structure of the CINS by seeing how different questions mapped on different components (or

133natural selection concepts in the CINS’s case). In contrast to Anderson et al.’s (2002) original

134PCA sample of community college non-majors, Nehm and Schonfeld did not find strong

135support “for the different (PCA) components representing distinct evolutionary concepts”136(p. 1145). In fact, Nehm and Schonfeld found only one component that “included a highly

137correlated suite of key concepts” (p. 1145). Anderson et al. (2010) acknowledge that more

138“PCA should be conducted with additional populations to clarify this situation so that

139items can be refined as needed” (p. 356).

140 Nehm and Schonfeld (2008, 2010) argue that for all the value the CINS’s authors claim

141the instrument possesses, it was originally validated on just one population of students and

142strongly suggest the CINS needs to be continually explored for its efficacy and

143generalizability among students from different racial and ethnic groups, geographic

144regions, socioeconomic and language backgrounds, and content preparations. In a

145response to Nehm and Schonfeld on this point, Anderson et al. (2010) claimed the CINS

146has been “appropriate for assessing the knowledge of high school students, biology non-

147majors, and biology majors at ethnically diverse institutions” (p.356). However, Nehm and

148Schonfeld (2010) countered this claim by asserting that none of the findings from such

149administrations of the CINS have yet been published or peer reviewed. The current study

150aims to fulfill this research gap. In addition, considering no study currently exists that

151explores how teachers make use of the instrument, we argue that supplementing the

152CINS’s validity and reliability with findings that reveal its classroom utility among

153secondary science teachers will add another dimension to the practical value of concept

154inventories as pedagogical and assessment tools.

155Theoretical Basis of CIs

156The premise of CI development and use is based on student ideas. According to Piaget ( 1983),

157student ideas and alternative conceptions are the raw material of classroom learning and they

158may be refined, shaped, revised, connected, and built upon by both teachers and students alike.

159As opposed to being viewed as obstacles to learning that must be overcome, pre-conceived

160student ideas can be viewed as assets. It is worth noting that the framework document for the161 Next Generation Science Standards (NRC 2012) has placed emphasis on students’ ideas to be

162used in this manner:

163164Some of children’s early intuitions about the world can be used as a foundation to build

165remarkable understanding, even in the earliest grades. Indeed, both building on and

166refining prior conceptions is important in teaching science at any grade level. (p. 30)

Res Sci Educ



7/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

167168Student Ideas of Biological Phenomena Secondary students’ explanations for biological

169 phenomena originate from the body of knowledge they possess as young children. In their

170article reviewing young children’s naïve theory on biology, Hatano and Inagaki (1994) state

171that there are three components that constitute a naïve biology: (1) knowledge about the living/

172non-living and mind/body distinctions, (2) inference for predicting biological behavior by173making use of personification, and (3) “a non-intentional causal explanatory framework for

174 behaviors needed for individual survival and bodily processes” (p. 173). This third component

175refers to children possessing an intermediate form of causality (i.e., vitalistic causality) to

176explain biological phenomena because they cannot yet offer mechanical explanations with

177 physiological mechanisms. When children reason with a vitalistic causality, they explain that a

178 biological phenomenon is caused by an organism’s internal organ(s) activating its “agency” in

179the form of an unidentified substance, energy, or information. Hatano and Inagaki hypothesize

180that vitalistic causality is quite similar to a teleological-functional explanation for biological

181 processes and most likely originates from children’s use of personification; in that, children try182to understand biological phenomena by attributing human-like characteristics to target objects.

183As is the case with naïve ideas, children’s naïve theory on biology allows them to problem

184solve and make sense of the biological phenomena they encounter on a daily basis. In fact,

185children immediately access personification and vitalistic causality when they are introduced

186to a biological concept and the easy accessibility of the second and third components of this

187naïve theory continues to hinder the development of evolutionary ideas as children get older.

188If students are to learn about evolution and other biological concepts in a meaningful way, a

189restructuring of the naïve theory is required. As students get older, their use of personification

190and vitalistic causality should change toward more scientific explanations as they learn about

191inferences based on a complex biological hierarchy and physiological mechanisms (Hatano

192and Inagaki 1994). Indeed, various researchers (e.g., Danish et al. 2011; Dickes and Sengupta

1932013) have investigated students’ reasoning through complex biological phenomena and

194found conceptual growth along this dimension with elementary students while they were

195engaged and participating in ecosystem simulations (i.e., ecosystems with honeybees and

196 birds-butterflies, respectively). Furthermore, prior research indicates that high school and

197college students can also obtain deeper conceptual growth with complex biological phenom-

198ena (i.e., population dynamics) when participating in such models and simulations (Wilensky

199and Reisman 2006).

200Rationale for CIs Rather than viewing alternative conceptions as problematic and un-

201 productive, the research presented here adopts the view that these ideas are useful in

202different contexts, especially when other novice ideas are involved (Elby 2000; Q2Smith

203et al. 1993). These novice ideas may also be flawed, but they may be refined and

204developed for mature understanding (diSessa 1994). Given appropriate instruction, these

205novice ideas may be productive in the learning process. Science teacher learning about the

206role and value of student ideas may be described as a learning progression which has upper

207and lower anchors with multiple pathways between them that are possible (Duncan and

208Hmelo-Silver 2009; Q3 NRC 2007). The lower anchor could represent an acceptance that

209students’ ideas play a role in learning, and the upper anchor may be considered a more

210sophisticated view of student ideas as the raw material of learning, with successful

211elicitation and incorporation being integral parts of a teacher ’s practice. When considered

212as a whole, this progression approach to viewing student ideas could represent a poten-

213tially important shift in how teachers think, especially when one enters the teaching

Res Sci Educ



8/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

214 profession with a conception that science knowledge is transferable from one individual to

215another (Duncan and Hmelo-Silver 2009).

216If used as resources during instruction, alternative conceptions can foster further growth and

217development of ideas and ultimately lead to meaningful understanding of scientific concepts

218(Elby 2000; diSessa 1994; Scott et al. 2007; Larkin 2012). Alternative conceptions that are219elicited and used for learning are closely tied to different formative assessment efforts of

220scientific concepts (Black and Wiliam 1998a , b), but these efforts may also access personal,

221environmental, and social resources as well (Cohen et al. 2003), which then may bring about a

222metacognitive awareness in students about their alternative ideas (Larkin 2012). In this sense,

223students receive opportunities to compare their alternative frameworks with other ideas when

224they offer explanations, make arguments, and provide justifications (Beeth and Hewson 1999;

225Hennessey 2003; Duckworth 2006).

226The importance of being aware of students’ worldviews, beliefs, and alternative concep-

227tions cannot be underestimated, and many methods, such as journal writing, concept maps,228student questioning, small-group work, word associations, and CIs, have been proposed as

229instructional strategies for teachers to use in order to elicit student ideas (Mintzes et al. 2000;

230van Zee et al. 2001; Hovardas and Korfiatis 2006; Anderson et al. 2002). Once elicited, the

231resources present in students’ alternative conceptions can then be leveraged for conceptual

232understanding (e.g., Rivet and Krajcik 2008) with different instructional strategies.

233 Nevertheless, it should be noted that CIs’ utility as a resource is only valuable as instruction

234that allows students to construct new representations of complex scientific phenomena (Duschl

235et al. 2007; Lehrer et al. 2000; Lehrer and Schauble 2006).

236As opposed to other formal varieties of assessment (i.e., high-stake state tests), which often

237do not relay valuable information about student alternative conceptions to teachers, CIs have

238the potential to stimulate discussions among teachers about student learning because of their

239goals in probing conceptual understanding. In using the recently developed Host Pathogen

240Interaction Concept Inventory (HPI-CI) among undergraduates, Marbach-Ad et al. (2010)

241discovered that the instrument became “the best catalyst ” (p. 415) to get instructors to begin

242discussions about student learning. The HPI-CI results brought about internal professional

243development opportunities with the various instructors, and Marbach-Ad et al. went on to say

244that “As a teaching community, we found that the HPI-CI anchored and deepened discussions

245of student learning…Confronting our expectations of student learning with student responses

246challenged us to think and converse in a reflective manner ” (p. 415). Nevertheless, it is the goal

247of the education community that CIs are actually measuring what they intend to measure so

248that reliable and accurate information can be effectively discussed and used by teachers.

249Therefore, it is incumbent upon education researchers to investigate the various properties of

250CIs among different populations.

251The present study aligns itself within this vein of research inquiry; in that, it explores the

252adaptability of a CI, namely, the CINS, for use at the high school level by answering the

253following research questions:

254RQ1: From when it was originally validated on a group of undergraduate students, what

255comparisons can be made about the CINS’s internal validity when it is now administered

256to a group of high school students?

257RQ2: As observed through alignment with CINS concepts, to what extent did a group of

258 biology teachers use the concept inventory’s pre-assessment results to guide and inform

259instruction on evolution by natural selection?

Res Sci Educ



9/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

260

261

262Materials and Methods

263Data collection took place with 339 students enrolled in every biology class (n =22)

264offered in a science department at a large (approximately 1700 students) urban high school

265in the southwest USA. Four teachers (100 % of biology teachers in department) partici-266 pated in the study. The study site serves grades 9 – 12 and is located within a predominantly

267(81 %) Latino community. At the time of data collection, about 90 % of the study site ’s

268student population was of Latino origin (compared with state average of 50 %), 69 % were

269classified as at-risk (state average = 45 %), 14 % demonstrated limited English proficiency

270(state average = 17 %), and 87 % were economically disadvantaged (state average = 60 %).

271According to the state in which the study site is located, “at-risk ” is defined as someone

272who meets any one of 13 different criteria that may place a student at risk of dropping out of

273school. These criteria include non-advancement from one grade to the next, previous

274expulsion, demonstrating limited English proficiency, being pregnant or a parent, home-275lessness, failure to maintain a passing average in two or more subject areas, and under the

276custody/care of child protective services. In addition, a student is considered economically

277disadvantaged if he/she is eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under federal guidelines

278(State Education Agency 2015).

279According to the study site’s state guidelines, a student who demonstrates limited English

280 proficiency (or is an English language learner) possesses a primary language other than

281English and has difficulty performing ordinary class work in English. The students in the

282 present study who received the “English language learner ” classification may have been

283receiving official sheltered or bilingual support in other content areas from the study site but

284not in their biology instruction (other than the instructional strategies with which the teacher

285 participants were familiar).

286Investigating CINS’s Validity in a High School Context

287In order to investigate the CINS’s adaptability for high school use, the original instrument

288underwent slight modifications using feedback that was generated when the original version

289was administered to a group of approximately 15 – 20 volunteer 11th grade students enrolled in

290a general chemistry class at the study site 1 year prior to formal data collection taking place291(Authors 2012). Specifically, the modified version of the original CINS had various vocabu-

292lary terms explained (e.g., iridescent = reflective) that may have posed difficulty to high school

293students, included illustrations of the animals from each CINS reading passage, and removed

294citations. See separate attached appendix for a full copy of the modified version given to

295students. A reading passage that provides some background on the Galapagos finches and a

296sample question with answer choices from the original CINS are shown below.

297298Scientists have long believed that the 14 species of finches on the Galapagos Islands

299evolved from a single species of finch that migrated to the islands one to five million

300years ago (Lack 1940). Recent DNA analyses support the conclusion that all of the

301Galapagos finches evolved from the warbler finch (Grant, Grant, and Petren 2001;

302Petren, Grant, and Grant 1999). Different species live on different islands. For example,

303the medium-ground finch and the cactus finch live on one island. The large cactus finch

304occupies another island. One of the major changes in the finches is in their beak sizes

305and shapes, as shown in this figure.

Res Sci Educ



10/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

306307

308309What would happen if a breeding pair of finches was placed on an island under ideal

310conditions with no predators and unlimited food so that all individuals survived? Given

311enough time

312

313(a) The finch population would stay small because birds only have enough babies to replace314themselves.

315(b) The finch population would double and then stay relatively stable.

316(c) The finch population would increase dramatically.

317(d) The finch population would grow slowly and then level off.

318Here is the same reading passage and sample question with answer choices from the

319modified version in the present study.

320321Scientists have long believed that the 14 species of finches on the Galapagos Islands

322evolved from a single species of bird that came to the islands one to five million years323ago. Recent DNA studies support the conclusion that all of the Galapagos finches

324evolved from the warbler finch. Different species live on different islands. For example,

325the medium-ground finch and the cactus finch live on one island. The large cactus finch

326lives on another island. One of the major differences between the finches is in their beak

327sizes and shapes, as shown in the picture below.

328

329330

331332What would happen if a breeding pair of finches was placed on an island under ideal

333conditions with no predators and unlimited food so that all individuals survived? Given

334enough time

335

336(a) The finch population would stay small because birds only have enough babies to replace

337themselves.

338(b) The finch population would double and then stay relatively the same.

339(c) The finch population would increase dramatically.

340(d) The finch population would grow slowly and then level off.

Res Sci Educ



11/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

341Adjusting the CINS’s reading passages and answer choices with the suggested changes

342improved its overall readability for the current study’s student population of ninth-grade

343 biology students. The original and modified CINS versions were analyzed for readability

344using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level and Flesch Reading Ease tests (Kincaid et al. 1975).

345With the Flesch-Kincaid, a score closest to zero indicates easier readability. The exact opposite346is true with the Flesch Reading Ease score (FRES), where a score closest to 100 indicates

347easier readability. The original version of the CINS had a Flesch-Kincaid grade level score of

3489.7 (indicating that an average ninth-tenth grader could understand its text) and a FRES of 53,

349which was slightly beyond the upper limit of what an average 13- to 15-year-old student could

350easily understand. The modified CINS had a slightly lower Flesch-Kincaid grade level score

351(9.4), and a higher FRES of 56, indicating the text was somewhat more “on par ” with what an

352average ninth grader (in his/her second semester) could understand.

353The CINS was administered to the biology students as a pre-test approximately three to four

354class meetings before the students’ respective teacher ’s instructional unit on evolution began355(which occurred at the mid-point of the academic year ’s second semester). In order to promote

356thoughtful and carefully chosen answers among the students, every teacher used the pre-test as

357a form of extra credit on various assignments of the teachers’ choosing. The teachers made

358their students aware of this incentive through an in-class announcement before the pre-test was

359administered. Although the students were administered a post-test as well, pre-test information

360is reported here because of the precedent established by Anderson et al., in which the original

361CINS was administered as an in-class pre-test before any instruction on natural selection

362concepts had begun. After each teacher ’s students were initially assessed with the CINS, the

363students

’ results were compiled and distributed to each teacher. Each teacher received an

364overall breakdown of his/her students’ results according to each question on the CINS (see

365example shown in Fig. 1).

366In order to answer RQ no. 1, the modified CINS underwent a PCA with the student

367 participants (n = 339), who were mostly (>95 %) enrolled as ninth graders. A PCA is a data

368reduction procedure that helps to interpret data in a more meaningful form by reducing a

369number of variables to a few linear combinations of the data. Each linear combination then

370corresponds to a principal component, and taken together, principal components can highlight

371similarities and differences in data (Jackson 1991). This technique is particularly useful when

372using data with a number of dimensions (as is the case with the CINS’s 10 different conceptual

373categories). The original CINS, which was validated on a population of undergraduate

374community college students (n = 206) not majoring in biology, had also undergone a PCA,

375and its results demonstrated “strong support for the internal validity of [its] underlying

376measurement structure” (Anderson et al. 2002, p. 968). The present PCA was conducted using

377SPSS statistical software.

378Investigating Teachers’ Use of the CINS

379The teachers who participated in investigating the CINS’s adaptability for their classes all

380taught biology to >95 % of the study site’s freshmen (ninth graders). All four teachers had

381varying amounts of experience. Participants are referred to by the pseudonyms teachers A, B,

382C, and D. Personal participant data is found in Table 1.

383RQ no. 2 used a variety of data sources which mainly included (a) observations of the four

384 biology teachers in their classrooms during their evolutionary instructional units with their

385students and common planning meetings and (b) individual interviews (both before, during,

Res Sci Educ



12/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

386and after their instructional units) with these teachers regarding their personal perspectives on

387the CINS, evolution, science teaching, student knowledge, and their classroom strategies for

388teaching evolution. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and member checked for

389accuracy. While the teachers’ views on the CINS’s classroom utility emerged as themes from

390the different interviews, it was still necessary to track each teacher ’s participation during

391common planning meetings and instruction during classroom events to gauge how (or if) the

392students’ pre-test performance on each of the CINS concepts influenced the teachers’ practices.

393The teachers officially met once a week for common planning sessions (with the exception

394of teacher C who cited personal reasons for not attending any of the meetings). This 45-min395 period was built within their schedules and designated as a time for the teachers to share lesson

396 plans and resources. How this time was used may have had an influence on the instructional

397strategies and activities that were used for the evolutionary instructional unit. Therefore, it was

398important to take note of any conversations among these teachers that centered on the students’

Answer problems are grouped according to the natural selection concept they are designed to

address. Answer choices with (*) are correct. All other answer choices are alternative

conceptions students may possess.

PER. 1N=8

PER. 2N=21

PER. 4N=14

PER. 5N=20

PER. 7N=18

TOTALN=81

AVG. #

CORRECT

ANSWERS

5.63 6.38 7.36 6.85 7.39 6.81

AVG. SCORE 28.13% 31.9% 36.79% 34.25% 36.94% 34.07%

#1

Biotic Potential

PER. 1

N=8

PER. 2

N=21

PER. 4

N=14

PER.5

N=20

PER. 7

N=18

TOTAL

N=81

A

Organisms only replace themselves.13% 10% 7% 20% 6% 11%

B

Populations level off. 0% 14% 14% 30% 6% 15%

C*

All species have such great potential

fertility that their population size would

increase exponentially if all individuals

that are born would again reproduce

successfully.

63% 5% 57% 35% 89% 42%

D

Populations level off. 25% 71% 21% 15% 0% 28%

Fig. 1 Example of student pre-test summary results presented to teacher B

t1:1 Table 1 Teacher participant personal data for current study

t1:2 Teacher Years of biology

teaching

experience

Highest

degree

earned

Undergraduate major No. of biology

classes

teaching

No. of

biology

students

t1:3 A 7 BS Zoology 6 94

t1:4 B 3 BS Biology and land surveying 5 81

t1:5 C 2 BA/BS Chemistry, biology, and biochemistry 5 82

t1:6 D 1 semester BS Biology 6 82

Res Sci Educ



13/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

399CINS results and how they may have informed the teachers’ lesson planning. The first author

400attended and observed all of these meetings recording events and topics of conversation in the

401form of field notes. Each of these meetings was audio recorded, transcribed, and member

402checked for accuracy.

403A schedule was used to consistently observe an afternoon class from each teacher during404his/her instructional unit. As a result, the following teachers’ classes were formally observed

405and video recorded by the first author: teacher D’s fifth period, teacher C’s sixth period, teacher

406B’s seventh period, and teacher A’s eighth period. With the exception of teacher C’s pre-AP

407 biology sixth period class, all observed classes were regular biology classes. All observations

408lasted the entire length of each class. Classes were observed and video recorded only when the

409teachers were present. Each teacher ’s instructional unit spanned 9 – 10 days. All classes were

410approximately 45 – 50 min in length and scheduled to meet every day.

411RQ no. 2 was analyzed largely by a review of the extent with which each teacher

412incorporated CINS concepts into his/her practice and how any information from the CINS413(the instrument itself or student results) was used to plan and/or revise lessons and reflect upon

414the instructional unit on evolution. The overall presence of the CINS’s concepts in the

415teachers’ classes was measured by reviewing their instructional activities and video transcripts

416for these classes. Statistical significance of the concepts’ presence was determined through a

417chi-squared test. Further examination of the concepts’ presence was made by determining the

418number of teacher-student interactions that occurred during random portions (up to 30 %) of

419each teacher ’s observed classroom instruction. That is, each time a teacher initiated a formal

420question or made a statement that incorporated the use of a CINS concept during these

421 portions, that particular interaction was counted as a distinct instance in which a CINS concept

422was used. In general, teacher or student follow-up questions were not included in the “CINS

423interactions” count because they were still considered to be in the main line of conceptual

424thought during the entire interaction. These portions were independently coded by the first

425author and a recent doctoral graduate in science education with a coding scheme (see Table 2)

426that used the operationalized definitions of the previously mentioned CINS concepts from

427Anderson et al. (2002).

428Both coders achieved an inter-rater agreement of >95 %, and any differences were resolved

429 by discussion. For an example of how one such interaction was coded with the coding scheme,

430see Fig. 2. Some interactions may have had as many as 10 teacher-student exchanges or as few

431as one based on how often the line of thought between concepts changed. Student-student

432interactions were not included so as to maintain focus on the teachers’ use of the CINS as a

433classroom tool.

434Results

435The primary goal of this study was to explore the CINS’s adaptability to a typical high school

436setting, which included using a student population that was distinctly different from the

437undergraduate community college student population with which the CINS was originally

438validated. Whereas the original student population was described as being “diverse” and

439enrolled in a semester-long biology course with a curriculum that was open to instructor

440design and flexibility, the current study’s students were mostly members of a traditionally

441underserved minority group whose mandatory biology education was guided and overseen by

442many structured state standards.

Res Sci Educ



14/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

443Given the current study’s overall goal, student results and teacher actions had vital roles in

444relaying information. Accordingly, the results section is divided into two major parts. Part one

445addresses our first research question and presents the results of the current study’s PCA. This

446PCA is then compared to Anderson et al.’s original PCA and examined for similarities and

447differences among the two different study populations. In part two, we focus on our second

448research question and present if and how closely teacher instruction was aligned to CINS

449concepts as a result of the teachers interpreting their respective students’ pre-test CINS results.

450RQ No. 1

451Theoretically, the CINS’s final PCA would have 10 components that explain the variation

452among the 20 test items, with each component representing a separate natural selection

453concept. Furthermore, each set of two items that are designed to measure a single concept

Teacher A: So over time...say 10...15 generations later...you come back and you look at this population

of birds [Change in a Population (CP)] living on the island, what do their beaks look like?SS: Big.Teacher A: Big...why? [Variation in a Population (VP)]

S1: Because of [Student L]...

Teacher A: ...So everybody else that had larger beaks is surviving. [Differential Survival (DS)] So their

genes are going forward and the ones that had genes [Inheritable Variation (IV)] for smaller beaks

[VP]...not going anywhere [IV].

Fig. 2 Example of how coding scheme for occurrences of CINS concepts was used within one of teacher A’s

interactions on day 1 of her instructional unit

t2:1 Table 2 Coding scheme for occurrences of CINS concepts during instructional activities and teacher-student

interactions

t2:2 Codes for occurrences

of CINS concepts

Criteria for CINS concepts’ presence among instructional activities and

teacher-student interactions (from Anderson et al. 2002)

t2:3 Differential survival Activity/interaction involves students learning about

t2:4 Biological fitness in that those individuals whose surviving characteristics

fit them best to their environment are likely to leave more offspring

than less fit individuals

t2:5 Variation within a population How individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics

t2:6 Inheritable variation Traits being inherited from parent to offspring

t2:7 Limited survival How production of more individuals than the environment can support

leads to a struggle for existence among individuals of a population

t2:8 Natural resources Natural resources necessary for organisms to live are in limited supply

at any given time

t2:9 Change in a population How (1) the unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce will

lead to gradual change in a population, as opposed to individual members,

and (2) learned behaviors are not inherited

t2:10 Origin of variation How random mutations and sexual reproduction produce variations,

and while many are harmful or of no consequence, a few are beneficial

in some environments

t2:11 Origin of species How an isolated population may change so much over time that it becomes

a new species

t2:12 Biotic potential Species having great potential fertility in that their population size would

increase exponentially if all individuals that are born would again

reproduce successfullyt2:13 Population stability Populations being mostly stable in size except for seasonal fluctuations

Res Sci Educ



15/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

454should both load on the same component. The present study maintained the same criteria for

455determining the final PCA solution as Anderson et al.’s original study (2002). The criteria

456included “(a) having a large proportion of the total matrix variation explained, (b) having a

457high number of items with a strong (>.40) loading on at least one component, (c) having a

458minimum number of complex items (items with strong loadings on more than one compo-459nent), and (d) having a component pattern that was theoretically interpretable” (p. 966).

460In contrast to Anderson et al.’s optimal seven-component extraction, the present study

461retained the eight-component extraction (due to the number of eigenvalues >1 rule), which

462accounted for 55 % of the total variance (Anderson et al.’s seven components accounted for

46353 % of the total variance). The comparative results from both varimax-rotated component

464matrices are found in Table 3.

465In Anderson et al.’s PCA, all 20 items (questions) loaded >.40 on at least one component.

466The present study had 16 items which loaded >.40 on at least one component. No items loaded

467>.40 on multiple components in the present study (versus Anderson et al.’s question 12 which468loaded on components 3 and 5). Striking differences can be seen when examining the specific

469 pairs of items. In Anderson et al.’s original study, “9 of the 10 pairs of items that represented

470the 10 different evolutionary concepts emerged together on the same component ” (p. 966).

471That pattern is not readily seen in the present study, with the exception of questions 4 and 13,

472which probed for change in a population. In addition, the present study shows seemingly

473unrelated questions emerging on the same component (e.g., questions 11, 12, and 9 all loading

474on component 2). The fact that there is contrast between these and Anderson et al. ’s results

475may indicate that the CINS is also detecting the present study’s students’ lack of expertise with

476natural selection concepts; in that, the students could be responding to surface features of the

477questions, as opposed to deeper conceptual understanding. At the ninth-grade level, this

478surface-level response is most likely to be expected.

479RQ No. 2

480We begin the results for RQ no. 2 by providing an overview of how the current study ’s

481students performed on the CINS before their teachers’ instructional units on evolution

482commenced (see Table 4). As mentioned previously, the CINS assesses 10 different concepts

483related to natural selection. On average, the current study’s students experienced less difficulty

484with questions that assessed biotic potential , variation within a population, and inheritable

485variation. Conversely, the students experienced most difficulty with questions that assessed

486origin of variation and differential survival . For a concise description of each of these CINS

487concepts, please refer to Table 2. The overall pre-test results from the current study’s students

488 became a useful guide to explore which CINS concepts were more or less emphasized by these

489teachers during instruction.

490After reviewing her students’ pre-test results, teacher A commented that the results

491confirmed what she already knew about her students’ alternative conceptions. Nevertheless,

492she did appreciate the breakdown of her students’ data and some of the results helped her with

493realizing and confirming which evolutionary concepts needed to be stressed throughout her

494instructional unit. For example, teacher A described how the concept of biological fitness (or

495differential survival , in CINS terminology) was particularly important; “It ’s like…with the

496fitness and what does that mean to them and stuff …so that was like, ‘Uh-huh…kind of

497figured’…mostly in that way. It ’s like…those are the particular areas that we need to hit.”

498(post-instruction interview)

Res Sci Educ



16/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

499Teacher B welcomed the CINS as a form of assessment and found it to be more useful in

500relaying student understanding as opposed to other forms of assessment, such as results from

501the state-mandated tests. She also found value with the student results that were presented to

502her after the pre-test administration. Teacher B admitted pleasant surprise with the way her

503students answered some of the questions and used some of the results as an additional guide

504for planning instructional activities and deciding which concepts really needed to be stressed

505and those that did not.

t3:1 Table 3 PCA comparison between current study and Anderson et al.’s (2002) original study for the CINS

t3:2 Component

t3:3 Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

t3:

4 Biotic potentialt3:5 1 .624 .672

t3:6 11 .594 .714

t3:7 Population stability

t3:8 3 .845 .591

t3:9 12 .667 .455 .596

t3:10 Natural resources

t3:11 2 .706 .684

t3:12 14 .502

t3:

13 Limited survivalt3:14 5 .569 .756

t3:15 15 .589 .443

t3:16 Variation within a population

t3:17 9 .569 .737

t3:18 16 .669 .547

t3:19 Inherited variation

t3:20 7 .502 .513

t3:21 17 .743 .687

t3:22

Differential survivalt3:23 10 .769

t3:24 18 .472 .562

t3:25 Change in a population

t3:26 4 .406

t3:27 .636

t3:28 13 .671

t3:29 .722

t3:30 Origin of variation

t3:31 6 .501 .725

t3:32 19 .659 .667

t3:33 Origin of species

t3:34 8 .418

t3:35 20 .593

Anderson et al.’s original study (2002) and the present study’s loading values are compared. Values for the

present study are in boldface

Res Sci Educ



17/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

506507What I did like about it …is it gave me an idea of what they understood and what I didn’t

508know that they understood. And I kind of like that because there some stuff that I chose

509that they didn’t, and I was like, “Oh wow…They do understand this a little more than I

510thought they had.” So that was kind of nice. It kind of helps you with the lesson in the

511sense that I’m like, “Well, I don’t really have to go and talk about that because they do

512know.” So I can kind of just skim through this. (post-instruction interview) 513

514Teacher C stated that he did use the students’ pre-test results to help guide his instruction

515and planning, but justification of his claim is difficult to ascertain as there exists little

516evidence. He provided no specific examples as to how the CINS results were affecting his

517 practice. He mentioned he paid particular attention to the CINS concepts his students found

518difficult and made an effort to incorporate and concentrate on these concepts more than he

519normally would. However, evidence pertaining to his claim was elusive because of the few

520total interactions that exist with his students regarding these concepts (see Table 4). In

521addition, there was a lack of instructional activities in which his students were engaged

522with these concepts.

523The novice (with regards to teaching experience) of the group, teacher D found herself still

524 being acquainted with the various forms of assessment made available to her. She explored her

525different options and found the CINS to be a useful form of assessment; in that, it provided

526 practical information about how her students understood natural selection concepts, especially

527with differential survival . From this information, teacher D occasionally tweaked her

t4:1 Table 4 Percentage of student correct responses on CINS pre-test grouped according to each teacher

t4:2 CINS concept Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D Average

t4:3 No. 1 Biotic potential 69 % 42 % 67 % 57 % 59 %

t4:

4 No. 11 Biotic potential 48 % 27 % 54 % 49 % 45 %t4:5 No. 2 Natural resources 51 % 62 % 53 % 60 % 57 %

t4:6 No. 14 Natural resources 29 % 23 % 33 % 21 % 27 %

t4:7 No. 3 Population stability 71 % 67 % 63 % 58 % 65 %

t4:8 No. 12 Population stability 25 % 19 % 31 % 23 % 25 %

t4:9 No. 4 Change in a population 29 % 26 % 22 % 21 % 25 %

t4:10 No. 13 Change in a population 36 % 31 % 25 % 21 % 28 %

t4:11 No. 5 Limited survival 39 % 26 % 40 % 38 % 36 %

t4:12 No. 15 Limited survival 20 % 22 % 28 % 27 % 24 %

t4:

13 No. 6 Origin of variation 14 % 11 % 9 % 11 % 11 %t4:14 No. 19 Origin of variation 44 % 31 % 40 % 26 % 35 %

t4:15 No. 7 Inheritable variation 68 % 62 % 56 % 51 % 59 %

t4:16 No. 17 Inheritable variation 53 % 46 % 42 % 28 % 42 %

t4:17 No. 8 Origin of species 35 % 46 % 37 % 29 % 37 %

t4:18 No. 20 Origin of species 28 % 25 % 24 % 20 % 24 %

t4:19 No. 9 Variation within a population 43 % 38 % 41 % 38 % 40 %

t4:20 No. 16 Variation within a population 66 % 49 % 78 % 51 % 61 %

t4:21 No. 10 Differential survival 10 % 17 % 17 % 12 % 14 %

t4:22

No. 18 Differential survival 14 % 15 % 19 % 15 % 16 %t4:23 Average number of student respondents on pre-test 83 81 80 81 38 %

Res Sci Educ



18/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

528instructional unit in different places to ensure that her students received optimal engagement

529with natural selection concepts. Teacher D cited an example.

530531…‘cause when I looked at that, I could see what they would be thinking for fitness. So, I

532did give more like examples of what fitness…well, which one do you think is more fit

533and then we would do that. I had a mission countdown [warm-up questions], I think, too.

534So, I added that. (post-instruction interview)535

536As mentioned previously, 10 concepts encompass natural selection on the CINS. Figure 3

537displays how often each CINS concept occurred across the instructional activities within each

538teacher ’s instructional unit. Overall results did not yield any significance with certain CINS

539concepts being more or less emphasized than others. Based on descriptive results, the CINS

540concepts of inheritable variation and differential survival received slightly more mention than

541other CINS concepts during the teachers’ instructional units. None of the teachers’ instruc-

542tional activities placed an emphasis and built on the concept of population stability.543Tables 5 and 6 provide an overview of the teacher-student evolution-related interactions that

544occurred during each teacher ’s instructional unit. While Table 5 gives an overall sense of the

545amount and sort of classroom interactions each teacher had during instruction, Table 6 further

546categorizes the CINS interactions into those which had a specific focus on CINS concepts. In

547addition, the concepts with which each teacher ’s students experienced most and least difficulty

548are indicated, thereby enabling trends to be observed and noted between these most and least

549difficult concepts for students and the amount of interactions devoted to specific CINS

550concepts during instruction.

551An avid questioner of her students, teacher A had an approximate 181 interactions with her

552students throughout her instructional unit and of those interactions; approximately 51 %

553(n = 92) were devoted to CINS concepts (see Table 5). She had her students engage with

554almost all (with the exception of two, biotic potential and population stability; see Table 6) of

555the CINS concepts in some form or another during her instructional unit. Several of her

556instructional activities also coincided with various CINS concepts (see Fig. 3), and some of

557these concepts appeared more frequently (e.g., differential survival and inheritable variation)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

B i o t i c

P o t e n t i a l

N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s

P o p u l a t i o n

S t a b i l i t y

C h a n g e i n a P

o p u l a t i o n

L i m i t e d

S u r v i v a l

O r i g i n o f

V a r i a t i o n

I n h e r i t a b l e

V a r i a t i o n

O r i g i n o

f S p e c i e s

V a r i a t i o n

W i t h i n a

P o p u

l a t i o n

D i f f e r e n t i a l S u r v i v a l

T o t a l O c c u r r e n c e s o f C I N S C o n c e p t s

D u r i n g I n s t r u c t i o n a l U n i t

CINS Concept

Tchr A

Tchr B

Tchr C

Tchr D

Fig. 3 Total number of targeted CINS concepts found within instructional activities across each teacher ’s

evolutionary unit

Res Sci Educ



19/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

558than others with the selection of these activities. Not surprisingly, the frequency of these

559concepts with her instructional activities matched the frequency of her interactions with her 560students.

561Using a variety of instructional strategies and questions (especially during her lectures when

562her students were taking notes), teacher B had an approximate 125 different interactions with

563her students throughout her instructional unit. Of those interactions, approximately 40 %

564(n = 50) were devoted to CINS concepts (see Table 5). Overall, results suggest that teacher

565B had her students engage with certain CINS concepts (e.g., origin of species and inheritable

566variation; see Table 6) more than other concepts during her instructional unit. The same sort of

567trend appears with teacher B’s instructional activities as with her interactions. The CINS

568concepts of origin of species and inheritable variation appear more frequently with teacher B

’s

569use of instructional activities (see Fig. 3).

570Throughout his instructional unit, teacher C had approximately 88 interactions with his

571students on the topic of evolution. Compared with his colleagues, teacher C’s total interactions

572occurred less frequently. Of his 88 interactions, about 34 % (n = 30) specifically dealt with

573CINS concepts (see Table 5). When his students were engaged with specific instructional

574activities (i.e., watching selected videos, creating word clouds, and presenting music videos),

575there was minimal teacher-student or student-student interaction with regard to CINS concepts.

576With the exception of differential survival and inheritable variation, teacher C’s students were

577not able to explore other CINS concepts with the various instructional activities. The concepts

578were briefly mentioned with a few isolated teacher-student exchanges (see Table 6). When his

579students did receive opportunities to explore more CINS concepts, the opportunities came all

580at once in a teacher-centered lecture toward the end of his instructional unit. Recall that by

581choice, teacher C did not participate in common planning meetings with his colleagues.

582Whether it being due to his lack of participation in these meetings, uneasiness with evolu-

583tionary concepts, or by some other mechanism, there were substantially fewer CINS concepts

584found with the instructional activities of his evolutionary unit (see Fig. 3) as opposed to his

585colleagues.

586Quite methodical and purposeful with her strategies and questioning, teacher D had an

587approximate 128 interactions with her students throughout her instructional unit and of those

588interactions; approximately 56 % (n = 72) were devoted to CINS concepts (see Table 5).

589Teacher D’s overall results demonstrate that her students engaged with almost all (with the

590exception of two, biotic potential and population stability; see Table 6) of the CINS concepts

591in some form or another during her instructional unit. Similar to her manner in determining

592how to interact with her students, teacher D was also conscientious with which instructional

t5:1 Table 5 Each teacher ’s percentage of interactions with CINS concepts and other evolution-related ideas among

his/her total teacher-student evolutionary interactions

t5:2 Number of total teacher-student

evolution-related interactions

during instructional unit

Teacher-student interactions

with CINS concepts (%)

Other evolution-related

teacher-student interactions

(%)

t5:3 Teacher A 181 51 49

t5:4 Teacher B 125 40 60

t5:5 Teacher C 88 56 44

t5:6 Teacher D 128 34 66

Res Sci Educ



20/29


21/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

593activities her students engaged. Several of her interactions that involved instructional activities

594coincided with various CINS concepts (see Fig. 3) and, like teachers A and B, some of these

595concepts appeared more frequently (e.g., differential survival , inheritable variation, and

596variation within a population) than others with the selection of these activities. The frequency

597of these concepts occurring with her instructional activities approximately matched the598frequency of their occurrence with her total CINS concepts classroom interactions.

599With this group of teachers, the overall alignment of interactions and instructional activities

600with CINS concepts that may have needed the most attention was met with mixed results.

601According to student pre-test responses (see Table 4), differential survival was the most

602difficult concept for students to grasp. As verified with teacher responses, classroom interac-

603tions, and implementation of instructional activities, the majority of these teachers made

604instruction surrounding differential survival a priority (see Table 6). Furthermore, the teachers

605may have realized that they could spend less time with certain concepts because their students

606seemed to have an overall grasp of these concepts (e.g., biotic potential ). However, there were607still less conceptually difficult CINS concepts that were prioritized during instruction over

608other concepts that were considerably more difficult for students. For example, every teacher

609spent significant instructional time with inheritable variation (see Fig. 3 and Table 6), even

610though students demonstrated overall competency with this concept; whereas, three of four

611teachers placed less instructional priority with origin of variation, a concept with which

612students seemed to grapple.

613Discussion

614Overall results from the present study suggest that the CINS has potential for use in secondary

615classes, as evidenced by the study’s teacher participants’ enthusiasm for becoming familiar

616with an instrument that can identify their students’ alternative conceptions. However, further

617research with additional secondary school populations will be required in order to refine

618various assessment items, particularly because of the teachers’ demonstrated limited approach

619and skepticism about the CINS’s use as an instructional tool in its current form. We believe that

620the core reasons for this approach and skepticism can be traced back to the CINS’s internal

621structural properties.

622The results of the present study’s PCA fall short of the “strong support ” that Anderson et al.

623(2002) originally demonstrated for the inventory. Consequently, it appears that some of the

624concerns about the CINS that were relayed with Nehm and Schonfeld’s (2008, 2010) findings

625apply in the present study’s context as well. Specifically, if the eight components on the present

626PCA represent distinct evolutionary concepts, then only one component contained a single set

627of question pairs that represented one concept (change in a population). This finding is similar

628to that of Nehm and Schonfeld (2008), in which there was only one component that “included

629a highly correlated suite of key concepts” (p. 1145). Most other components revealed where

630questions intended to measure different concepts were actually similar to each other. For

631example, component 1 contained questions 16 (variation within a population) and 17

632(inherited variation). A closer examination of these two questions reveals that they are related

633to each other in the respect that they both occur toward the end of the assessment and ask about

634features or traits of the Canary Islands lizard population (please refer to separate attachment to

635this manuscript for full wording of CINS questions and answer choices). While question 16

636was intended to ask about the variability of certain traits and question 17 was intended to ask

Res Sci Educ



22/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

637about how such traits were passed down from generation to generation, it is entirely reasonable

638that a high school student sees these concepts as being very closely related, being that many

639traits manifest themselves as physical characteristics and these traits are inherited from parents.

640Also, some students may have resorted to guessing for the answers to these questions as these

641questions appeared toward the end of the assessment.642The same rationale can be used for questions 2 (natural resources) and 5 (limited survival ),

643which were both contained in component 3. Both questions had very similar wording in that

644they asked about the relationships between the Galapagos finches and their food supply. Many

645of the students most likely viewed these particular questions as practically indistinguishable

646from each other and may have been reacting to the surface-level features of these questions

647rather than any deep conceptual understanding. Follow-up questions with a sample of students

648would be required to corroborate this claim, but for the moment, it remains a reasonable

649hypothesis. Anderson et al. revealed a similar finding in stating, “This is not surprising because

650when students understand that there is a competition for resources, they acknowledge that 651some individuals die” (p. 968).

652In a similar vein, the current analysis showed that questions 1 (biotic potential ) and 15

653(limited survival ) were both contained on component 5 (which seems to be related to the

654aforementioned component 3). Question 1 was designed to assess a student ’s understanding of

655how populations would grow if there were ideal conditions, that is, no predators and unlimited

656food. Question 15’s scenario of predicting what would happen to a population when the food

657supply was limited was the exact opposite in nature. Therefore, students may have viewed

658these two questions as being very similar to one another because of the questions’ inherent

659opposing realities

— when a population has an unlimited food supply, it thrives, and when food

660 becomes scarce, individuals begin to starve and die.

661The other two questions which were found on a single component were questions 6 (origin

662of variation) and 18 (differential survival ). These two questions were contained in component

6638, and it was initially unclear as to why they clustered together. Question 6 asked about how

664different finch beak types may have appeared on the Galapagos Islands, whereas question 18

665dealt with notions of biological fitness. These questions appear to be assessing two distinct

666ideas, but upon closer inspection of specific answer choices, there appears to be a subtle

667relationship between these two questions for this population of students. Question 6’s answer

668choices (i.e., answer choices b and d) contain language that suggests the acquisition of specific

669traits through generations, and in a similar manner, question 18’s data table also has language

670regarding traits and offspring. It is conceivable that the present study’s students perceived these

671two questions as being related to the acquisition of inherited traits through time.

672There were two instances in which three different questions were contained on a single

673component. In one case, all three questions were designed to be assessing three separate

674natural selection concepts. Questions 9 (variation in a population), 11 (biotic potential ), and

67512 ( population stability) were all contained in component 2. Such an instance never occurred

676in the original study’s PCA. These three questions all used the context of the Venezuelan

677guppies to assess the seemingly different concepts. Questions 11 and 12 are more related to

678one another in the sense that, like the situation mentioned above with questions 1 and 15, one

679question describes a scenario where there are ideal conditions for a population to grow

680(question 11) and the other question describes a more realistic setting where there are predators

681that threaten population expansion (question 12). Question 9, which describes the overall

682features of the guppy population, is more peripherally related to questions 11 and 12.

683 Nevertheless, students may have gleaned from question 9’s answer choices that the

Res Sci Educ



23/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

684 population’s characteristics certainly have an influence on certain members’ survival when

685they are faced with predators. As a whole, these three questions were tied to the entire theme of

686 population dynamics, and the variability of a population is a strong determinant of how a

687 population fluctuates or remains the same.

688The next case which had three questions load strongly on a single component was a bit 689different from the previously mentioned case; in that, two of the questions (questions 4 and 13)

690represented a pair that was originally designed to assess one concept — change in a population.

691Question 7 (inheritable variation) was the third question that was contained in component 4.

692Questions 4 and 13 described scenarios from two different contexts (i.e., Galapagos finches

693and Venezuelan guppies) and probed for the main changes that occur in a population over time.

694The answer choices of these two questions used genetic-inclined language (e.g., “traits,”

695“ passed on to their babies,” and “mutations”), and this may explain why the students related

696these questions to question 7. Question 7 also dealt with the Galapagos finches and directly

697asked what type of variation was being passed on future finch populations. The students may698have reasoned that only genetic variation can be inherited and the main mechanism by which

699changes can occur in populations is through inheritance.

700There were four questions which were not contained in any component: questions 8 (origin

701of species), 10 (differential survival ), 14 (natural resources), and 20 (origin of species).

702Questions 8 and 20 probed for understanding of origin of species, and this may have been a

703case of the students truly having a limited awareness of how different species arise. Indeed,

704when teacher C asked his students what their thoughts were about the origins of plants on an

705island, many students were unable to offer any explanations, and those that did offer an

706explanation claimed some

“force

” or

“something in the soil

” made the plants appear. Within

707the study site’s home state, the concept of speciation is not fully realized until high school. In

708fact, there is minimal mention of speciation in the elementary and middle grades according to

709the state standards. Question 14 dealt with the availability of food for the Canary Islands

710lizards. However, when taken and read independently, the question suggests that an under-

711standing of the food supply on the Canary Islands may be required in order to correctly answer

712the question. Since the students had never heard of the Canary Islands, they may have believed

713that it was impossible to correctly answer the question if one had no familiarity with the food

714supply dynamics of the Canary Islands. Lastly, it is unclear why question 10 was not contained

715in any component. Question 10 probed understanding of biological fitness and was intended to

716detect any alternative conceptions that dealt with strength, size, speed, and agility. Further

717exploration into this question and its counterpart (question 18) will be needed in order to see

718how these items can be improved for future use.

719Since the CINS was such an integral component of the current study, the teachers may have

720had a heightened awareness of the concepts involved with natural selection, but this was not

721always the case. Granted, the teachers’ units involved other evolutionary topics, such as

722evidence for evolution, sexual selection, and genetic drift , that were not specific to the

723CINS’s topics, but teachers A and D demonstrated efficiency with natural selection concepts,

724with more than half of their total interactions with students from their units dealing with CINS

725concepts. Teachers B and C were not as efficient with their frequencies occurring below 50 %.

726When examining the occurrence of a CINS concept, especially in the form of written questions

727or other tasks, teachers A, B, and D’s students received opportunities to make associations with

728these concepts two to three times more than teacher C’s students were able to do so, suggesting

729that the three teachers who common planned together maintained a tighter adherence to natural

730selection concepts than did the single teacher who planned in isolation.

Res Sci Educ



24/29

U N C O R R E C

T E D

P R O

O F

731As mentioned previously, certain CINS concepts received more mention than others by

732the teachers, with an increased frequency on differential survival and inheritable variation.

733As noted in the “Results” section, the students’ pre-test results on CINS questions dealing

734with differential survival were of special interest to some of the teachers and the results

735may have guided these teachers to frequently mention this concept. These teachers often736used the phrase “survival of the fittest ” to help explain natural selection. Once this phrase

737was used, the teachers inevitably followed up with their students by asking them what was

738meant by “ being fit ” or “fitness.” Inheritable variation dealt with organisms’ different

739adaptations and how traits were passed from one generation to the next. The topic of

740genetics had been taught by all four t

a resource for eliciting student alternative conceptions: examining the adaptability of a concept...

Documents