Exploring Relations Among Preservice ElementaryTeachers’ Ideas About Evolution, Understandingof Relevant Science Concepts, and CollegeScience Coursework

Diana C. Rice & Sibel Kaya

Published online: 15 September 2010# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract This study investigated the relations among preservice elementary teachers’ ideasabout evolution, their understanding of basic science concepts and college sciencecoursework. Forty-two percent of 240 participants did not accept the theory of humanevolution, but held inconsistent ideas about related topics, such as co-existence of humansand dinosaurs and plate tectonics. Accepting the theory of evolution was positivelycorrelated with correctly answering the three other questions related to the age of Earth.Furthermore, participants who rejected evolution scored significantly lower on a test ofbasic science concepts than did participants who held accurate views on human evolution.Study results revealed no apparent association between completion of advanced collegescience courses and acceptance of evolutionary theory or understanding of scienceconcepts. Implications for elementary science teacher education were discussed.

Keywords Evolution . Scientific understanding . Perservice teachers .

College science coursework

In the past several years, the debate over creation science, now reborn as ‘intelligentdesign’, versus evolution has gone back and forth, as one side then the other took control ofvarious state or local boards of education (Candinsky 2006; Davey and Blumenthal 2006;Slevin 2005). Attempts by anti-evolutionists to include their ideas in the sciencecurriculum have taken different forms and names in different states. In Louisiana, it has

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179DOI 10.1007/s11165-010-9193-2

D. C. RiceFlorida State University, School of Teacher Education, 131G Stone Building, 1114 West Call Street,Tallahassee, FL 32306-4459, USAe-mail: drice@fsu.edu

S. Kaya (*)Kocaeli University, Umuttepe Campus, College of Education, Department of Elementary Education,Kocaeli 41300, Turkeye-mail: sibelkaya@gmail.com

been called ‘The Balanced Treatment Act’; in Alabama, Florida, and Michigan,‘Supporting academic freedom’; and in Missouri and South Carolina, ‘Promotingteaching of evolution’s strengths and weaknesses’ (Branch and Scott 2009). In Kansas,the Board of Education that had been composed of an ‘intelligent design’ activist majoritythat voted in 2006 to adopt state science standards that were intended to ‘impugn thescientific status of evolution’ (National Center for Science Education 2006) shifted to amore moderate majority (Tonn 2007).

The influence this great debate has on what is being communicated at the level of theindividual classroom may, however, not be significant. As research has shown, long-heldbeliefs, including misconceptions are difficult to change and there is ample evidence thatteacher beliefs influence their classroom practice (Aguillard 1999; Eve and Dunn 1990;Shankar and Skoog 1993; Trani 2004). Therefore, the pertinent question to be asked, whenwe consider what children are actually being taught, is at the level of the classroom and thatquestion is, ‘what are the teacher’s ideas about evolution?’. It is clear that a large number ofindividuals in the U.S. hold ideas and beliefs that conflict with the theory of evolution.According to a 2007 Gallup Poll, about two-thirds of Americans surveyed indicated that the‘idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, isdefinitely or probably true’ (Lawrence 2007). On the eve of Darwin’s 200th birthday in2009, the Poll showed that only 39% of Americans surveyed “believe in the theory ofevolution” (Newport 2009). Even at the college level, more than half of students have beenfound to have naïve conceptions about the theory of evolution (Bishop and Anderson 1990;Lord and Marino 1993). Much less is known about elementary teachers’ ideas on thissubject. The goal of this study was to reveal the views of a sampling of preservice teachersabout evolution and explore possible correlations of these views with their understanding ofscience and college level course taking.

Background

The theory of evolution has probably been the most controversial topic in all of science(Nickels et al. 1996). A significantly higher proportion of Americans reject the concept ofevolution compared to European countries and Japan (Miller et al. 2006). Miller et al.identified three major reasons for the low acceptance of evolution among Americans:fundamentalist religious beliefs, the politicization of evolution, and a poor understanding ofmodern genetics among adults. The degree of public backlash surrounding the teaching ofevolution in the United States has also been more intense compared to other countries(Hermann 2008). Legal incidents involving the teaching of evolution vs. creationism inscience curriculum have become increasingly common in recent years (Bandoli 2008;Hermann 2008). Findings of a recent poll indicated that 54% of Americans support theteaching of creationism in public schools for the explanation of human origins (NationalScience Board 2008). Moreover, a significant number of college students who completedcoursework on evolutionary topics favored teaching ‘a range of theories’ includingevolution, creation and intelligent design in science classrooms (McCrory and Murphy2009; Paz-y-Miño and Espinosa 2009).

According to Dobzhansky (1973), “Nothing in biology makes sense except in thelight of evolution” (p. 125). This often-quoted statement accurately reflects thecentral role of evolution in biology. The National Science Teachers Association(NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept inscience and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and

166 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179

curricula. Furthermore, it is emphasized that if evolution is not taught, students willnot achieve the level of scientific literacy they need (NSTA 2003). The NationalScience Education Standards explicitly describe the evolution content that should beaddressed at different grade levels. From kindergarten to grade 4, students are toestablish a foundation for the later development of various concepts including the theoryof evolution. From grades 5 through 8, students should learn about biological evolutionand the fossil record (National Academy of Sciences 1998). A recent project byNadelson and colleagues (2009) showed that students in early elementary grades arecapable and eager to learn evolutionary science. Through prior knowledge, modeling,and guided inquiry, students were able to learn fundamental concepts of evolution, suchas speciation and adaptation which are required for learning abstract and more complexexplanations of evolution.

Even though the theory of evolution is expected to be prominent in life sciencestandards, this has not been the case in some states (Cavanagh 2005; Gross et al. 2005).Many states have revised their science standards recently; however, only 20 statesreceived a grade of A or B with regard to the teaching of evolution and 23 states receiveda D or an F (Gross et al. 2005). Yet, there is, in fact, some evidence that the coverage ofevolution in some public schools seems not to be influenced by the apparent quality ofthe evolution component of state science standards. In a survey study with high schoolstudents and teachers from Indiana and Ohio, Bandoli (2008) found that the mostcommon teacher explanation of diversity was one that gave equal emphasis to evolutionand creation. According to Lerner’s (2000) evaluation of the science standards in thesestates, Indiana’s standards were regarded as ‘exemplary’ while Ohio received a grade ofF. However, students’ perceptions of the coverage of evolution were similar in thesestates. In both states, less than a week, much less compared to the other topics, wasdevoted to evolution and 30% of students reported that evolution was never mentioned inbiology classes.

Besides the absence of evolution in science curricula (Alters and Alters 2001; Gross, etal. 2005; Lerner 2000) teachers are ill-prepared to teach topics related to evolution (Asgharet al. 2007; Rutledge and Warden 2000). Moore and Kraemer (2005) found that two thirdsof Minnesota biology teachers felt unprepared to teach evolution even though they tookundergraduate methods classes that covered evolution. Rutledge and Mitchell (2002)investigated the relationship between 989 public school teachers’ acceptance ofevolutionary theory and their academic backgrounds. Results revealed a significantassociation between teachers’ acceptance of evolution and their exposure to biology,evolution, and nature of science courses. Researchers have found that acceptance orrejection of evolution significantly affects the time teachers spend teaching this topic intheir classrooms (Aguillard 1999; Shankar and Skoog 1993; Trani 2004).

Nehm and Schonfeld (2007) found that after taking a 14-week course on evolutionsecondary teachers made significant gains in their knowledge of evolution and significantdecreases were observed in misconceptions about evolution. However, their views aboutthe teaching of evolution in schools had not changed. A majority of the science teachers inthe study still preferred that anti-evolutionary ideas be taught in school. Nehm andSchonfeld stated that “... knowledge alone may not be the primary solution to the problemof science teacher antievolutionary beliefs” (p. 720).

The rejection of evolution is common not only among the general public but also amongcollege students (Alters and Nelson 2002; Hodgson and Hodgson 1994) and teachers(Blank and Andersen 1997; Overman and Deckard 1997). Hodgson and Hodgson (1994)surveyed a total of 1,372 students in ten college science classrooms. Approximately

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179 167

38% of the students did not accept the theory of evolution. Other researchers havefound that, in most college student populations, approximately 50% of students acceptevolution (Bishop and Anderson 1990; Lord and Marino 1993). More recently,Brumfield (2005) found that the acceptance of the theory of evolution is 20% amonghigh school and 52% among college graduates, and 65% among postgraduates. Data fromthe 2009 Gallup poll were similar except for the latter group in which 74% believed inevolution (Newport 2009).

A 1994 survey by Overman and Deckard showed that of 313 science teachers randomlyselected from the National Association of Science Teachers membership, 39% disagreedwith the statement ‘evolution is a scientific fact.’ A total of 79% agreed that the physicaluniverse was supernaturally made by an eternal creator. Others reported that rejection of thetheory of evolution was higher among elementary education majors with about 57% thanfor other education majors (Blank and Andersen 1997). More recently, McCrory andMurphy (2009) found that 21% of preservice science teachers rejected evolution; and only48% of biology majors in Paz-y-Miño C. and Espinosa’s (2009) study expressed theiracceptance of evolution openly.

Hokayem and BouJaoude (2008) stated that the tension between belief, understanding,and acceptance of the theory of evolution is persistent and religious beliefs tend to play animportant role in the way an individual perceives the theory of evolution. To accept thistheory, one needs to understand it, and understanding sometimes conflicts with anindividual's beliefs, in this case, creationism (Southerland et al. 2001). For example,religious beliefs have been shown to be negatively associated with the understanding ofevolution (Lombrozo et al. 2008; Nehm and Sheppard 2004; Trani 2004) and understandingof the nature of science (Trani 2004). On the other hand, beliefs were not related to theunderstanding of photosynthesis (Sinatra et al. 2003) or continental drift (Downie andBarron 2000). Beliefs have also been found to affect the anxiety level when teaching thetheory of evolution. Griffith and Brem (2004) found that the level of pressure for teacherswho teach evolution is highest among those who experience a conflict between theirreligious beliefs and the theory of evolution.

Statement of the Problem

In light of suggestions that student achievement in science might be related in some wayto their views on evolution (McKeachie et al. 2002), and that science achievementinfluences interest in and access to science-related fields (National Science Board 2006),the role of teachers in the development of students’ ideas about evolution meritsconsideration. Exploring teachers’ views on evolution is particularly pertinent, given thatteachers’ acceptance or rejection of evolution is highly likely to influence theirinstructional practices related to this topic (Aguillard 1999; Eve and Dunn 1990; Shankarand Skoog 1993; Trani 2004). In the context of such findings, it would seem thatknowing and understanding more about the sources and nature of teachers’ views onevolution would be valuable to a number of constituencies, including science teachereducators, K-12 administrators, and state level policy makers. Extensive research hasbeen conducted investigating middle and high school teachers’ views about evolution;however, elementary teachers’ views have remained virtually unexplored. Given that insome states, the teaching of ‘evolution of living organisms’ starts as early as third grade(Florida Department of Education 2008), it would seem important to learn more aboutelementary teachers’ views about evolution.

168 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179

The research questions guiding this study were, 1) Do preservice elementary teachersaccept the theory of evolution? 2) Is the acceptance of evolution related to preserviceelementary teachers’ understanding of basic science concepts? 3) Is the acceptance ofevolution related to having taken college level advanced science courses?

Method

This exploratory study grew out of a broader examination of the science contentknowledge of over 414 preservice and 67 in-service elementary teachers (Rice 2005).Answers to 13 science concept questions were collected over a 10-year period as part ofan introductory activity in science methods classes. Ten of the questions (see Appendix)originated from the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Public Attitudes Toward andUnderstanding of Science and Technology that is given to a representative sample in theU.S. approximately every two years. The other three questions were designed by theresearcher/instructor.

The current study used the data collected from a subset of 240 of the preservice teachersfrom the original larger study. The scope of this study involved the whole 13-question test,particularly focusing on four of the questions. Those questions were three true/falsequestions from the NSF survey (#4, 5 & 6 below) and one of the multiple choice questionsdesigned by the researcher (#11) (with correct answers):

& Question #4: The continents on which we live have been moving their locations formillions of years and will continue to move in the future. TRUE

& Question #5: Human beings as we know them today developed from earlier species ofanimals. TRUE

& Question #6: The earliest human beings lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. FALSE& Question #11: Which of the following organisms are animals? Human, dog, worm,

spider? ALL

These four questions provided the opportunity to specifically explore the ideas of asample of preservice elementary teachers about the origins of humans, our relationship toother animals and the age of the Earth, all of which are controversial issues in the creation/evolution debate.

A number of background variables were also available including lists of all of theircollege level science courses provided by the preservice teachers. Coursework could not beverified because no identifying information about students was collected. These courseswere classified by the researcher as ‘introductory’ or ‘advanced’ based upon the coursenumbers and names and descriptions provided on the lists. This classification was madeeasier and more reliable because almost every one of the preservice teachers had completedgeneral education requirements, including science courses, in a state with a common coursenumbering system. An independent variable was created based upon the classification ofthese science courses. Preservice teachers who reported having taken one or more advancedscience courses (i.e. genetics, organic chemistry, physiology, etc.) were identified as‘advanced science’ and if they had not taken any advanced science courses, they wereidentified as ‘no advanced science.’ These groups were subsequently used as a basis foranalyzing answers to the science concept questions.

A second independent variable in the study was constructed based upon the preserviceteachers’ answers to question #5 about humans evolving from other species. This question

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179 169

provided an indication of the teachers’ views on human evolution. Those answering ‘true’were identified as members of the ‘evolutionist’ group; those answering ‘false’, as membersof the ‘non-evolutionist’ group.

This use of the single question about humans evolving from earlier species of animals asthe criterion for classifying the participants warrants additional comment. As notedpreviously, the 13 questions, including the 10 from the NSF survey, have been used as partof a course activity for a period that now spans well over 10 years. In addition to answeringthe questions, many students wrote comments about some of the questions, particularly thequestion about human evolution. Those remarks have almost always come from individualswho indicated that the statement is ‘false,’ an answer that we have defined as ‘non-evolutionist,’ and generally have reflected strong viewpoints. Examples of such commentsare, “God made us,” or “We don’t come from monkeys!” While these responses are totallyanonymous, class discussions related to evolution, such as those about Darwin’sobservations and conclusions, confirm this association between question #5 and other‘anti-evolution’ views. While anecdotal, the consistency of these observations over manyyears, we feel, validates our use of this question as a basis for classifying the preserviceteachers as ‘evolutionists’ or ‘non-evolutionists.’

Data Analysis

The primary set of analyses was based upon the ‘evolutionist/non-evolutionist’ variablecreated from answers to question #5. The two groups’ total scores on the rest of theitems in the science concept test were compared. The differences between ‘advancedscience’ and ‘no advanced science’ groups in terms of their science scores and theirresponses to question #5 were also examined. A t-test was used to compare groups onthe science test. Additionally, correlational analyses were conducted to examine ifresponses given to question #5 were related to responses for other questions. Morespecifically, we examined the correlation between accepting evolution and correctlyanswering questions related to age of Earth (i.e., evolution) as well as those that areunrelated to age of Earth.

As described previously, participants were also divided into two groups based uponcollege level advanced science courses, advanced courses having been defined as thoseabove a freshman or introductory level, although the latter in some cases weresophomore level courses. Forty four percent of the participants indicated that they hadtaken one or more advanced science courses whereas, 56% had not taken any advancedcourses.

Results

Descriptive statistics of the data showed that 42% of the preservice teachers in thestudy answered ‘false’ to question #5, suggesting that they did not ascribe to the theoryof human evolution. These respondents were defined as the ‘non evolutionist’ group.The remaining 58% who answered ‘true’ to question #5 were defined as the‘evolutionist’ group.

First, the two student groups based on their response to question #5 were compared ontheir science concept test scores. T-test results indicated that students in the ‘evolutionist’group scored significantly higher on the remaining items of the basic science concept testthan the ‘non-evolutionists’ (t=6.99, p<0.001) (see Table 1).

170 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179

Students’ science concept test scores were also compared in terms of having takencollege level advanced science courses. The scores of the ‘advanced science’ group on thetotal concept questions were not significantly different from the scores of the ‘no advancedscience’ group (see Table 2). With respect to college level course taking, 57.5% of thepreservice teachers who had taken college level advanced science courses acceptedevolution. The percentage was 58.2 for those who had not taken any advanced sciencecourses. Chi square test of the cross tabulation between advanced course taking andaccepting evolution was not significant (p>0.05) indicating that these two variables werenot related.

An examination of answers to the three other questions related to ideas about evolutionrevealed discrepant results (see Fig. 1). A near-unanimous majority (98%) of the totalsample of preservice teachers answered #4 correctly (true) about the continents moving formillions of years. However, this rate was quite different from the response rate (58%) forcorrect answers (true) to questions #5 about evolution of humans and #6 about co-existenceof dinosaurs and humans (false) (75%). These contradictions were particularly strikingwhen the number of participants incorrectly answering #5, i.e., ‘false’, putting them in the‘non-evolutionist’ group (42%) was contrasted with the number answering #4 about themovement of continents, ‘false’, also indicating a non-evolutionist view (2.5%). Thesenumbers clearly indicated that many of those in the ‘non-evolutionist’ group were‘defaulting’ to a point of view on the motion of continents that was inconsistent with theirapparent ideas about the evolution of humans.

Although more subtle, a similar contradiction was found when we examined theanswers of the total sample to #6 about the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans. Wewould expect that individuals not agreeing with the idea of evolution of humans wouldrespond that all living things, including humans and dinosaurs, existed at the sametime. However, we found that the percentage of those indicating that humans anddinosaurs lived at the same time to be much smaller (25%) than the percentage whoindicated that humans did not evolve from other animals (42%), an apparent defectionamong the ‘non-evolutionists’ when answering question #6 about the co-existence ofthese two groups of animals.

In order to examine the relations between answering question #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, and #11and answering question #5, we conducted bivariate correlation analysis. Among thesequestions, #1, #2, and #3 were related to miscellaneous science topics such as atomic

Table 2 T-test of mean scores on the science test for advanced vs. no advanced science groups

Group N % in sample % accepts evolution Mean SD Sig. (2-tailed)

Adv. Science 106 44.2 57.5 10.10 1.95 .509

No Adv. Science 134 55.8 58.2 9.93 2.02

Table 1 T-test of mean scores on the science test (12 Questions) for evolutionists vs. non-evolutionists

Groups N % in sample Mean SD t Sig. (2-tailed)

Evolutionist 139 57.92 10.04 .13 6.99 .000**

Non-evolutionist 101 42.08 8.59 .16

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179 171

structure or photosynthesis. On the other hand, questions #4, #5, #6, and #11 were directlyrelated to age of the Earth or other evolutionary topics as described previously. The resultsshowed that answering question #5 about human evolution correctly was significantly andpositively correlated with answering questions that were related to the evolutionaryconstructs (#4, #6, #11) correctly (see Table 3). However, there were no correlationsbetween answering question #5 correctly and therefore, answering question #1, #2, and #3correctly.

Summary of Findings

An examination of the ideas of the sample in this study (n=240) provided answers to thethree research questions. As noted, study results revealed that almost 60% indicatedagreement with the assertion that humans evolved from other animals (‘evolution’ group).When scores on a 13-item science concept test, that included questions on topics inevolution, were examined, those in the sample who expressed the contrary ideas (‘non-evolution’ group) scored significantly lower on the rest of the test items. Similarly, whenasked about the classification of humans as ‘animals,’ significantly fewer in the ‘non-evolutionist’ group correctly identified humans as ‘animals.’

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

q4 q5 q6 q11

Survey Questions

Per

cen

tag

e

CorrectIncorrect*

Fig. 1 Percentages for responsesto questions #4, #5, #6, and #11.*For q4 and q5 the correctanswer is “True”, for q6 thecorrect answer is “False”, for q11correct answer is defined asclassifying humans as animals

Table 3 Bivariate correlation test of the answering questions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #11

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q11

Q1 1

Q2 0.062 1

Q3 -0.030 -0.157* 1

Q4 0.048 -0.023 0.048 1

Q5 0.018 -0.065 0.032 0.134* 1

Q6 0.035 -0.017 -0.037 0.154* 0.171** 1

Q11 0.027 0.013 -0.166** 0.001 0.230** 0.001 1

* Significant at p=0.05 level; **Significant at p=0.001 level

172 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179

Although a majority of the 240 respondents gave correct answers to each of the fourevolution-related questions, there were significantly different ratios getting each questioncorrect when any two questions were compared. Even for the two questions answeredcorrectly by the largest margins, questions #4 about continental drift/plate tectonics andquestion #11 involving identification of humans as animals, the percentages were quitedifferent. As noted previously, while 42% of participants indicated that humans did notevolve from animals (#5), 25% said that humans and animals lived at the same time (#6).Viewed broadly, comparisons of answers on these questions suggested that many of thosein the study who held views inconsistent with evolution had conflicting beliefs about otheraspects of evolutionary theory. Furthermore, pre-service teachers’ answers to the‘evolution’ question were significantly related to their answers on other questions thatimplied an old Earth.

Finally, scores on the 13-item test were examined relative to college level sciencecourses. When participants were classified based upon having completed advanced sciencecourses, there was no difference in scores on the 13-items for those who had taken andthose who had not taken advanced courses.

Discussion and Conclusions

It is clear that the views on the subject of evolution of the preservice teachers in the sample,as indicated by their answers to the three NSF Survey questions, were more valid withrespect to scientific description of evolution than those expressed by the recent nationalrandom sample of US citizens (see Fig. 2) (National Science Board 2008). This finding isencouraging; although anything different would have been somewhat perplexing anddisturbing, given the higher level of education of the preservice teachers in this study, ascompared to the general population. Yet, we understand that it is not necessarily a ‘given’that more education would be related to accurate ideas about or acceptance of evolution, asevidenced by previous studies (Lombrozo et al. 2008; McCrory and Murphy 2009; Paz-y-Miño. & Espinosa 2009).

The results of this study showed that the majority of our sample accepted the theoryof plate tectonics/continental drift. However, the level of acceptance of humanevolution from other species of animals was significantly lower. These findings were

Per

cen

tag

e

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

q4 q5 q6

Survey Questions

National SampleStudy Sample

Fig. 2 Percentages of correctanswers for study participants andtypical national sample on threequestions from NSF 2006 survey

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179 173

consistent with those of Downie and Barron (2000) who compared college students’ideas about evolution with other scientific ideas in a study spanning a 12-yearperiod. Among their findings was that compared to ‘evolution acceptors’, ‘evolutionrejectors’ were “more skeptical on tectonic plates and massively skeptical aboutevolution” (p. 8). Our finding was similar which is not surprising, in light of the factthat the two theories have a close relationship and they are both related to a very oldEarth. There were inconsistencies in the thinking of students in our study (seeTable 3). While a substantially large percentage (see Fig. 1) of the sample correctlyrejected the statement about the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs (a statement atodds with the theory of evolution), about half that number rejected the idea of humanevolution.

Downie and Barron (2000) found that ‘evolution rejectors’ were less skeptical of ideas‘unrelated’ to evolution such as CFC’s, acid rain and lung cancer. Our study appears to haveconfirmed this suggestion. Clearly, botanical/plant-related processes such as photosynthesisand evolutionary geological/physical processes such as plate tectonics were more easilyaccepted than ideas like human evolution. This trend is quite evident if we look at thenumbers of correct responses to questions #4, #5 and #6 in Fig. 1. To question #4 aboutplate tectonics, 98% responded correctly; to question #6 about coexistence of humans anddinosaurs, 75% responded correctly; to question #5 about human evolution from earlierspecies, the percentage of correct responses dropped down to 58. While this result mayhave been in part a result of the wide-spread attention paid to ‘plate tectonics’ in the generalmedia, another interpretation is that the idea of ‘rock plates sliding around’ is lessthreatening than an idea that hints at human evolution, even if the idea, i.e., plate tectonics,is quite consistent with the geologic record, an ‘old Earth,’ and other basic evolutionconcepts.

An examination of answers to questions #1 (center of Earth is hot), #2 (oxygencomes from plants), and #3 (electrons are smaller than atoms), provides additionalconfirmation of this supposition. The percentages of students getting these questionscorrect were 92, 98, and 30% respectively. Clearly, these three questions show lesssubstantive link to evolution. The percentage of students getting the first two questionscorrect was on target with the numbers getting question number 4 about plate tectonicscorrect. The low percentage of correct responses to question number 3 about the size ofelectrons is not surprising. In fact, several studies pointed out that because of theabstract nature of atomic structure, students have difficulty understanding theseconcepts (see Griffiths and Preston 1992; Harrison and Treagust 1996; Taber 1998). Inthe current study, understanding of atomic structure was unrelated to an acceptance orrejection of evolution.

Further, the results of this study showed that preservice elementary teachers’understanding of the several basic biological, physical, and earth science concepts testedwas strongly associated with their acceptance of the idea of evolution reflected in question#5, i.e., those who were identified as ‘evolutionists’ tended to score higher on the sciencetest or vice versa. These results were similar to those of Trani (2004) who found thatteachers’ acceptance of evolution was directly correlated with their understanding of thetheory of evolution and the nature of science.

The results of this study suggest that simply requiring more science, at leastwithout some attention to the identity of the courses, is not a quick fix. Despitehaving completed teacher education requirements in science, often at advanced levels,many of the students did not have the coherent view that scientists have about platetectonics, the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs and evolution. One speculation

174 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179

about why students held these inconsistent ideas related to the age of Earth would bethat they may not understand how science attempts to fit new observations with extantknowledge in the process of creating new knowledge. Even in upper levelundergraduate courses, students learn a vast body of facts and do not understandhow these facts relate to one another (Kennedy 1998; Lord 1997). As researchers havepointed out, college-level science courses generally focus on specific scientific contentand not on the nature of science (Lombrozo et al. 2008) that is the key to teachingevolution (Lombrozo et al. 2008; McCrory & Murphy 2009).

Identifying misconceptions can be the first step in understanding the nature of science.When students cannot understand some scientific key terms such as ‘fact’, ‘theory’, ‘law’,and ‘hypothesis’, it is hard for them to digest evolution (McCrory & Murphy 2009). One ofthe common misconceptions is the everyday notion of a theory as a ‘hunch’ or ‘guess’(Lombrozo et al. 2008; McCrory & Murphy 2009) that is not supported by evidence(Branch and Mead 2008). Therefore, evolution has “been misleadingly labeled as ‘just atheory’ by opponents for decades” (Gregory 2008, p.46). Students need to learn thattheories are explanations of natural phenomena with incorporation of observations, facts,hypotheses, and laws; and are testable and open to scrutiny (McCrory & Murphy 2009). Itis also important for students to understand that testing of modern theories like quantummechanics, atomic theory, and evolutionary theory has not been done directly; rather,inferences have been made through slow accumulation of evidence (Lombrozo et al. 2008).As Gregory (2008) indicates, evolutionary theory might not yet be complete but it has anextremely solid foundation.

As stated earlier, students who do not accept evolution often find it in conflict with theirreligious beliefs (Hokayem and BouJaoude 2008; Lombrozo et al. 2008; Nehm andSheppard 2004; Trani 2004). Rather than posing a threat to their beliefs or avoiding theissue, we might help students take steps toward understanding evolution. Scharmann (2005)in discussing how to help students understand evolution, suggested that one way this mightbe accomplished is by introducing benefits and products of evolutionary theory such asantibiotics, herbicides, development of new varieties of grains, vaccines and identificationof new diseases. Thus, the instructional focus as we prepare preservice teachers for theelementary classroom where concepts related to evolution will be presented is onunderstanding not on believing (Scharmann 2005). Through a more realistic descriptionof scientific process students might not only understand evolution but accept it as well(Lombrozo et al. 2008).

While generalizations are not possible due to the correlational and exploratory nature ofthe study, the results suggested that further study of elementary teachers’ ideas aboutevolution is warranted. This recommendation is particularly pertinent in light of ongoingvacillations in state educational policies and court decisions related to the teaching ofevolution and creation science/intelligent design in the public schools. The approval inearly 2008 of new science standards in the State of Florida reflected the continuinginstability of the political environment surrounding this issue and places the need forcontinued study in this area in context. Previous versions of the state science standards hadomitted any reference to evolution, a characteristic that had resulted in much criticism inscientific circles. A last minute compromise substitution of the phrase, ‘scientific theory ofevolution’ for ‘theory of evolution’ (Bhattacharjee 2008) saved the new standards. Still,science educators had feared that this phrase would open the door to other ‘creationtheories’ so the term ‘scientific theory’ was added to other scientific principles such asphotosynthesis, resulting in the ‘scientific theory of photosynthesis’, and so forth. However,many heralded this compromise as a victory as it meant that evolution would not be taught

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179 175

as a ‘fact’ and that “the standards are now inclusive of a variety of viewpoints” (p. 1168).Those who still maintain that the standards are not open to alternative theories arecommitted to finding ways to “allow teachers to teach criticisms of evolution” (p. 1168). Aslate as spring, 2009, legislation requiring “that the instructional staff of a public schoolteach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution andcertain governmental, legal, and civic-related principles” was introduced but died in theFlorida State Senate (2009).

Such events make it clear that the science education of the next generation of UScitizens is still at risk when it comes to the theory of evolution and reveals some of thechallenges that teachers face in teaching evolution in grades K-12. As NSTA describedin its position paper (2003), a number of reasons account for the fact that evolution hasreceived relatively little attention despite its importance to all of science. In addition toofficial policies such as those reviewed previously, others include the intimidation facedby teachers and pressure they experience to introduce creationism and other non-scientificideas.

Since our data were collected, a few sets of new data have been collected by twodifferent instructors. The review of the new data continue to show fairly consistent resultswhich demonstrates that elementary teachers’ ideas have not changed over the years. Notincluding preservice science teachers and graduate science students in the study might beconsidered a limitation of our study, because even they have inconsistent views aboutevolution. However, as stated earlier, extensive research has been conducted investigatingtheir ideas and understanding of evolution. What is clear is that steps must be taken tolearn more about elementary teachers’ ideas about evolution, how these ideas are relatedto other teacher characteristics and experiences, and how these ideas impact what goes onat the classroom level. Without this information, teacher education programs are notlikely to prepare elementary teachers who have a comprehensive understanding ofevolution and its relation to all of science and who have the teaching skills to pass on thisknowledge to their students.

While the topic of evolution per se does not figure as prominently in the elementarycurriculum, many concepts, such as adaptation, classification, genetics, geologic changeand time, and extinction that are basic ideas in the theory of evolution are addressed inthe elementary grades. As we have noted, teaching even these topics may presentspecial challenges to science teachers in many jurisdictions, particularly for elementaryteachers whose ideas about evolution are not well thought out or consistent, asindicated by this study. It has been shown that even preservice biology students can beswayed by persuasive resources on alternatives of evolutionary theory aimed at schoolchildren (McCrory and Murphy 2009). As Scharmann (2005) pointed out, helpingstudents, and in our case, these are preservice elementary teachers, understand evolutionis not easy: “It requires overcoming apprehension, misunderstanding and incorrectassertions” (p. 15).

With recent surveys revealing that only 39% of US citizens ‘believe in evolution,’and while except for one, those numbers for all other G 12 countries exceed 70%(Miller et al. 2006), helping our students learn correct science is imperative. At a timewhen the race for world economic and technological supremacy is growing tighter, it isclear that the quality of science education of US children must be a highest priority andthat science educators in the US must take this challenge head on. As noted by NSTA(2003), “. . . if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientificliteracy they need” (p. 1).

176 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179

Appendix—Science Test*

References

Aguillard, D. (1999). Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: a decade following Edwards V.Aguillard. American Biology Teacher, 61(3), 182–188.

Alters, B., & Alters, S. (2001). Defending evolution in the classroom: A guide to the creation/evolutioncontroversy. Boston: Jones and Barlett.

Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56,1891–1901.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179 177

Asghar, A., Wiles, J. R., & Alters, B. (2007). Canadian pre-service teachers’ conceptions of biologicalevolution and evolution education. McGill Journal of Education, 42(2), 189–210.

Bandoli, J. H. (2008). Do state standards matter? Comparing student perceptions of the coverage of evolutionin Indiana & Ohio public high schools. The American Biology Teacher, 70(4), 212–216.

Bhattacharjee, Y. (2008). Florida standards support evolution with a twist. Science, 319, 1168. RetrievedFebruary 29, 2008 from, www.sciencemag.org.

Bishop, B., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415–427.

Blank, L., & Andersen, H. (1997). Teaching evolution: coming to a classroom near you? National Center forScience Education Reports, 17(3), 10–13.

Branch, G., & Mead, L. S. (2008). “Theory” in theory and practice. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(3), 287–289.

Branch, G., & Scott, E. C. (2009). The latest face of creationism. Scientific American (January), 92–99.Brumfield, G. (2005). Who has designs on your students’ minds. Nature, 434, 1062–1065.Candinsky, C. (2006). Darwin faces another challenge. Some on state board seek guidelines for controversial

topics. Columbus Dispatch.Cavanagh, S. (2005). Treatment of evolution inconsistent. Education Week, 25(11), 1–21.Davey, M., & Blumenthal, R. (2006). Fight over evolution shifts in Kansas school board vote. New York

Times, p.15.Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology

Teacher, 35, 125–129.Downie, J., & Barron, N. (2000). Evolution and religion. Attitudes of Scottish first year biology and medical

students to the teaching of evolutionary biology. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 139–146.Eve, R. A., & Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology & creationism in the classroom? American

Biology Teacher, 52(5), 10–20.Florida Department of Education. (2008). Sunshine state standards: Science. Retrieved December 24, 2008

from, https://www.floridastandards.orgGregory, T. R. (2008). Evolution as fact, theory, and path. Evolution: Education and Outreach 1, 46–52.Griffith, J., & Brem, S. (2004). Teaching evolutionary biology: pressures, stress, and coping. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 791–809.Griffiths, A. K., & Preston, K. R. (1992). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions relating to fundamental

characteristics of atoms and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Education, 29(6), 611–628.Gross, P., Goodenough, U., Haack, S., Lerner, L., Schwartz, M., & Schwartz, R. (2005). The state of science

standards. Washington: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules:

implications for teaching science. Science Education, 80, 509–534.Hermann, R. S. (2008). Evolution as a controversial issue: a review of instructional approaches. Science &

Education, 17, 1011–1032.Hodgson, R., & Hodgson, S. P. (1994). A survey on university students understanding of the place of

evolutionary biology in the creation/evolution controversy. Creation-Evolution, 34(1), 29–37.Hokayem, H., & BouJaoude, S. (2008). College students’ perceptions of the theory of evolution. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 395–419.Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 35(3), 249–263.Lawrence, J. (2007). Poll shows belief in evolution, creationism. USA Today, p.1a.Lerner, L. S. (2000). Good science, bad science: Teaching evolution in the states. Washington: Thomas B.

Fordham Foundation.Lombrozo, T., Thanukos, A., & Weisberg, M. (2008). The importance of understandingthe nature of science

for accepting evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(3), 290–298.Lord, T. R. (1997). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology.

Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197–216.Lord, T., & Marino, S. (1993). How university students view the theory of evolution. Journal of College

Science Teaching, 22, 353–357.McCrory, C., & Murphy, C. (2009). The growing visibility of creationism in Northern Ireland: are new

science teachers equipped to deal with the issues? Education and Outreach, 2(3), 372–385.McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y., & Strayer, J. (2002). Creationist vs. evolutionary beliefs: effects on learning

biology. The American Biology Teacher, 64, 189–197.Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313, 765–766.Moore, R., & Kraemer, K. (2005). The teaching of evolution and creationism in Minnesota. The American

Biology Teacher, 67(8), 457–466.

178 Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179

Nadelson, L., Culp, R., Bunn, S., Burkhart, R., Shetlar, R., Nixon, K., et al. (2009). Teaching evolutionconcepts to early elementary school students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(3), 458–473.

National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington:National Academy Press.

National Center for Science Education. (2006). Evolution and the Kansas Primaries. Retrieved August 10, 2006,from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/KS/313_evolution_and_the_kansas_prima_7_14_2006.asp

National Science Board. (2006). Science and engineering indicators 2006, Volume 1. Arlington, VA:National Science Foundation (volume 1, NSB 06-01).

National Science Board. (2008). Science and engineering indicators 2008. Two volumes. Arlington, VA:National Science Foundation (volume 1, NSB 08-01; volume 2, NSB 08-01A).

National Science Teachers Association. (2003). NSTA position statement: The teaching of evolution.Retrieved August 12, 2006 from www.nsta.org/159&psid=10

Nehm, R., & Sheppard, K. (2004). A comparative study of evolutionary understanding and advocacy forteaching evolution in pre-certified biology and other science teachers. Paper presented the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, Canada.

Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and thenature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of ScienceTeacher Education, 18, 699–723.

Newport, F. (2009). On Darwin’s birthday, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution. Retrieved June 28, 2010 fromwww.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

Nickels, M. K., Nelson, C. E., & Beard, J. (1996). Better biology teaching by emphasizing evolution and thenature of science. American Biology Teacher, 59, 332–336.

Overman, R. L., & Deckard, S. (1997). Origins beliefs among American science teachers. Impact, 292, i–vi.Paz-y-Miño, C. G., & Espinosa, A. (2009). Assessment of biology majors’ versus nonmajors’ views on

evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(1), 75–83.Rice, D. C. (2005). I didn’t know oxygen could boil! What preservice and inservice elementary teachers’

answers to ‘simple’ science questions reveals about their subject matter knowledge. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 27(9), 1059–1082.

Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of science & high school biologyteachers: critical relationships. The American Biology Teacher, 62(1), 23–31.

Rutledge, M., & Mitchell, M. (2002). High school biology teachers’ knowledge structure, acceptance andteaching of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 64(1), 21–28.

Scharmann, L. C. (2005). A proactive strategy for teaching evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 67(1),12–16.

Shankar, G., & Skoog, G. (1993). Emphasis given evolution and creationism by Texas high school biologyteachers. Science Education, 77(2), 221–233.

Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs instudents' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 40(5), 510–528.

Slevin, P. (2005). Battle on teaching evolution sharpens. Washington Post, p.A01.Southerland, S., Sinatra, G., & Mathews, M. (2001). Belief, knowledge, and science education. Educational

Psychology Review, 13, 325–351.Taber, K. S. (1998). The sharing-out of nuclear attraction: or I can’t think about physics in chemistry.

International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1001–1014.The Florida Senate. (2009). Senate bills for 2009 regular session. Retrieved May 23, 2009 from, http://www.

flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Mode=Bills&ElementID=JumpToBox&SubMenu=1&Year=2009&billnum=2396

Tonn, J. L. (2007). Kansas school board goes out fight’n. Education Week, 26(18), 14.Trani, R. (2004). I won’t teach evolution: it’s against my religion. The American Biology Teacher, 66(6),

419–427.

Res Sci Educ (2012) 42:165–179 179