Research & Teaching
By Clinton Thomas Laidlaw, Seth M. Bybee, Steven Shumway, Thomas Heath Ogden, Steven Peck, and Jamie L. Jensen
Biology is an essential part of a general education (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; Brewer & Smith, 2011; Bybee, 1997; Kagan, 1992; National Association of Biology Teachers, 2010; National Research Council, 1996). Learning is easier when new information is unified and fits into existing schema (Piaget, 1967). The field of biology is unified by the theory of evolution (Dobzhansky, 1973; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; Brewer & Smith, 2011; Bybee, 1997; Kagan, 1992; National Association of Biology Teachers,2010; National Research Council, 1996). Despite being accepted overwhelmingly by the scientific community (Pew Research Center, 2015; Alters & Alters, 2001), biological evolution is frequently rejected by the general public (Miller et al., 2006). In many cases, because it is viewed as a source of controversy or rejected by the instructors, evolution is omitted from a biology curriculum (Lerner, 2001; Farber, 2003; Oliveira et al., 2011; Verhey, 2005; Goldston & Kyzer, 2009), leaving biology as a disconnected grouping of facts to be memorized, repeated, and then forgotten (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007; Nehm & Reilly, 2007; Catley & Novick, 2009). Students who do not accept evolution generally do not apply it outside the classroom (Lerner, 2001; Farber, 2003; Oliveira et al., 2011; Verhey, 2005; Goldston & Kyzer, 2009).
Taken together, the literature indicates that there should be a positive relationship between evolution instruction and acceptance (Anderson et al., 2002; Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Demastes et al.,1995; Lord & Marino, 1993; Nehm & Schonfeld,2008, Sinatra et al.,2003). Some studies have supported this hypothesis (Robbins & Roy, 2007; Akyol et al., 2010; Kim & Nehm, 2011; Ha et al., 2012), and some have not (Bishop & Anderson, 1990; Demastes et al., 1995; Jensen & Finley, 1996; Asterhan & Schwarz, 2007; Stover & Mabry, 2007; Rutledge & Sadler, 2011; Deniz & Donnelly, 2011; Lawson & Worsnop, 1992; Crawford et al., 2005; Cavallo & McCall, 2008; Sinatra et al., 2003; Brem et al., 2003; Shtulman, 2006; Cavallo et al., 2011). What is the difference between instruction that increases evolution acceptance and instruction that does not? Among the possible explanations is pedagogical style (Tanner & Allen, 2004)—for example, that informed by constructivist learning theory such as active learning (Nehm & Reilly, 2007; Alters & Nelson, 2002).
Constructivism assumes that conceptual understanding is constructed from the interaction of new and old experiences within the mind of the individual (Piaget, 1967; Airasian & Walsh, 1997; Vrasidas, 2000). This concept contrasts with behaviorism, a learning theory based principally on the increase or decrease in the number of behaviors, based on their relationship to rewards and punishments (Ertmer & Newby 1993). Constructivists assume that when using techniques designed to provide experience for students, the students will show an elevated level of ownership for that understanding compared to alternative instruction methods (Alters & Nelson, 2002).
Freeman and colleagues (2014) found that using active learning of any kind increased exam performance in STEM classes. Active learning was also suggested to increase knowledge and acceptance of evolution (Alters & Nelson, 2002) since active learning could increase learning about concepts correlated with evolution acceptance, such as the nature of science and evolution (Deng et al., 2011; Farber, 2003; Dunk et al., 2017; Nehm & Reilly, 2007).
Constructivist pedagogy and active learning, however, may be more time consuming than traditional instruction (Oliver-Hoyo et al., 2004). Changing to a constructivist pedagogy may also require altering entire courses (Airasian & Walsh, 1997). Reflexive journaling (Clark & Rossiter, 2008) could increase the rate of acceptance without requiring such imposing levels of restructuring.
Journaling encourages students to reflect, particularly regarding material that introduces doubt or perplexity (such as evolution), and to address such doubt (Spalding et al., 2002). Reflection is the “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends” (Dewey, 1933, p. 9). Boud and colleagues (1985) further define reflection as “an important human activity in which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it” (p. 19). Given that self-reflection is one of the most important aspects of learning according to constructivism (Vrasidas, 2000), instructors should encourage students to reconsider their experiences and take the time to evaluate them. Journaling can provide this opportunity for students (Scharmann & Butler, 2015; Chirema, 2007; Fosnot, 1996; Munday et al., 2014; Reynolds, 2013; Makaiau et al., 2015; Blake, 2005; Wald & Reis, 2010; Kuiper & Pesut, 2004). Students report that journaling increases the clarity of their thoughts (Pinkstaff, 1985) and reflective journals assist them in reviewing and critically assessing the importance of class material (Maypole & Davies, 2001; Fritson et al., 2013).
Scharmann & Butler (2015) found that journaling about evolution increases the number of correct ideas regarding evolution. Though promising, this study included only the journaling treatment, making it impossible to determine the actual effect that the act of journaling played. There was also no outside measurement of acceptance except for the statements made in the journals themselves. Akkaraju & Wolf (2016) conducted a similar study in which students engaged in online blogging. They also observed improvement during the course. Again, there was no control group, and measurements of knowledge and acceptance were obtained exclusively from the blog entries.
This study is focused on answering three questions regarding instruction and acceptance of evolution. First, are students taught using pedagogy designed for constructivism more likely to accept evolution than those who are taught using pedagogy designed for behaviorism? Second, are students taught in an active classroom more likely to accept evolution than those taught in a minimally active classroom? And third, are students who keep reflexive journals about the relationship between what they are learning and evolution more likely to accept evolution than those who do not? These questions were tested in a full factorial, quasi-experimental design to determine if any combination of the three strategies led to differential increases in acceptance of evolution compared to other combinations.
Our study population consisted of 351 students enrolled in 10 sections of an entry-level, non-majors biology class at a large (approximately 37,000 students), open-enrollment, 4-year, public university in the western United States that used evolution as an organizing principle.
The course consisted of four units that each comprised approximately one quarter of the semester:
The diversity of organisms was presented in a phylogenetic context.
We randomly assigned entire classes of introductory biology to one of two treatments: constructivist and behaviorist. Constructivist classrooms were taught using pedagogy that facilitated the personal construction of conceptual understanding by posing questions and providing experiences to the students, giving them time and opportunity to build their own understanding of the content, and verifying afterward that correct constructs had been built. Grades were still assigned based on exam and other classroom performance, so this design did still have some behaviorist aspects as well.
The behaviorist treatment was similarly student centered in nature to the constructivist treatment. The behaviorist treatment presents conclusions upfront and then rewards the students through affirmation and praise whenever those conclusions are appropriately repeated (Scheurman, 1998; Boghossian, 2006; Bichelmeyer, & Hsu 1999). To ensure we are testing the style of teaching and not the activities being used, we used the same activities in both treatments. Behaviorist classes were told at the onset what their constructs should be, and the examples (the same examples used in the constructivist classrooms) were used to illustrate what had been explained. Thus, the fundamental difference was in the order of the presentation and the emphasis placed on contemplation and discussion (Table 1). Both classes were in all other ways as similar to one another as possible. Because constructivism is a theory of learning, it is impossible to ensure a classroom is wholly nonconstructivist.
To test the effect of active learning, we prepared a full-factorial design in which both the constructivist and behaviorist treatments were conducted as both active and less active (Table 2). The fundamental difference between the active and less-active designs was that the students in the less-active classes were not asked to discuss the material with neighbors or the class, and all activities were performed by the instructor and only observed by the students. In the active class, on the other hand, the activities were performed by the students, who were encouraged to discuss the material. We do not call the less-active treatment “not active,” because even listening and taking notes can be considered active participation (Bonwell & Eison, 1991).
We randomly selected students from our existing constructivist and nonconstructivist sections, assigning half of the students following each treatment to complete a weekly journal entry (Table 3). Students were informed that their grade on the journaling assignment would be based on the thought and consideration they put into their journal entries, not the opinions expressed. Journals were to be about 1 page submitted weekly and were to address each of these three topics:
Data were collected at the beginning of the semester (before instruction) and at the end of the semester (after instruction). Both surveys were administered using Qualtrics software. These surveys included the Knowledge of Evolution Exam (KEE) composed of “10 basic, discriminating questions about evolutionary topics,” resulting in scores between 0 and 10, to measure evolution knowledge (Moore et al., 2009, p. 6). The Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE; Rutledge & Sadler, 2007), which consists of 20 items scored on a six-option Likert scale (points were given from 0 to 5, with possible total scores ranging from 0 to 100 and higher scores indicating greater acceptance), was used to quantify change in acceptance. The pre-instruction survey also included the Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (LCTSR; Lawson, 1978, 2000), which measures scientific reasoning ability on a scale of 0 to 24. Five questions regarding the frequency of students’ religious practices from a religiosity instrument (Manwaring et al., 2015) were included to ensure equivalence in terms of student religiosity. Students were also asked if they believed in God. These were used because scientific reasoning and religiosity can be significant predictors of acceptance (Glaze et al., 2015). These were included as covariates, as were demographic questions (e.g., gender, age, STEM or non-STEM major).
Data were analyzed using multiple regression to determine which factors were statistically correlated with acceptance gains over the semester for all students who completed both the pre- and post-instruction instruments.
Our study population had an average age of 22, with 52.41% male and 47.59% female, 52.69% STEM majors and 47.61% non-STEM majors, an average LCTSR score of 13.86 out of 24, and religiosity of 47.35 out of 75, with 94.33% reporting a belief in God (Table 4).
Across treatments, MATE (acceptance) scores increased 15.29 points on a 100-point scale (t = -17.48, p < .001), with a high effects size (d = 1.13) from a pre-instruction mean score of 60.68 out of 100. KEE (knowledge) scores increased by 1.22 points on a 10-point scale (t = -9.75, p < .001), with a medium effects size (d = 0.63) from a mean pre-instruction score of 5.56 out of 10.
There was no statistically significant difference in increase in MATE scores between behaviorist and constructivist treatments with the interactions between the treatments included (p = .605) or without the interactions between treatments (p = .247) in the presence of the other variables: KEE score before instruction, MATE score before instruction, change in KEE, if the class was taught in an active- or less-active manner, if students keeping a reflexive journal or not, students’ declared sex, LCTSR score, whether or not students were a STEM major, religiosity score, whether or not students believed in God, and age (Tables 5 and 6).
There was also no statistically significant difference in increase in KEE scores between behaviorist and constructivist treatments, with the interactions between the treatments included (p = .998) or without the interactions (p = .437) in the presence of the other variables.
There was no statistically significant difference in increase in MATE scores between active and less-active treatments, with the interactions between the treatments included (p = .434) or without the interactions included (p = .586) in the presence of the other variables (Tables 5 and 6).
There was also no statistically significant difference in increase in KEE scores between active and less-active treatments, with the interactions between the treatments included (p = .982) or without the interactions included (p = .980) in the presence of the other variables.
There was no statistically significant difference in increase in MATE scores between journaling and not-journaling treatments, with the interactions between the treatments included (p = .231) or without the interactions included (p = .839) in the presence of the other variables (Tables 5 and 6). No interactions of treatments were statistically significant (Table 6).
There was no statistically significant difference in increase in KEE scores between journaling and not-journaling treatments, with the interactions between the treatments included (p = .241) or without the interactions included (p = .252) in the presence of the other variables.
The only statistically significant predictors of MATE score change were students’ pre-instruction KEE (knowledge) score (p < .001), which was directly correlated with MATE change; their change in KEE score from before instruction to after instruction (p < .001), which was also directly correlated with MATE change; and their pre-instruction MATE score (p < .001), which was inversely related to their change in MATE (see Tables 5 and 6).
The only statistically significant predictors of KEE score change were students’ pre-instruction MATE score (p = .001), which was directly correlated with KEE change; their change in MATE score from before instruction to after instruction (p < .001), which was also directly correlated with MATE change; their pre-instruction KEE score (p < .001), which was inversely related to their change in MATE; and their LCTSR (scientific reasoning) score (p < .001).
Though it has frequently been hypothesized that pedagogical styles designed for constructivism, active learning, and reflexive journaling would increase evolution acceptance, our results do not support these hypotheses in any combination. We found statistically significant acceptance increases in terms of MATE score, but this change was observed irrespective of the treatment or combination of treatments employed in the classroom. The same is true for increases in knowledge as measured by the KEE.
The only statistically significant predictors of MATE change were the student’ initial KEE scores (how much they knew about evolution entering the course), their KEE change (how much they learned about evolution during the course), and their initial MATE score (how much they accepted evolution at the beginning of the course). Knowledge of evolution was related to acceptance of evolution. Initial MATE score was inversely related to their change in MATE score, indicating a ceiling effect. One of the leading criticisms of the MATE is that it may conflate knowledge with acceptance (Smith et al., 2016; Smith, 2010); as that may be the case, it could be argued that the correlation between knowledge gains and acceptance gains would be expected when using the MATE. While this is a possibility, the inverse relationship observed between initial MATE scores and change in MATE scores is not observed with initial KEE scores and change in MATE scores where a positive correlation exists. Students with higher initial knowledge scores as measured by the KEE also demonstrated higher, not lower, increases in acceptance as measured by the MATE over the course of the semester.
As has been observed in other studies, knowledge of evolution and increased knowledge of evolution were correlated with an increase in acceptance (Nadelson & Southerland, 2010; Fowler & Zeidler, 2016; Glaze et al., 2015). Thus, factors kept constant may account for the increase in acceptance observed. These factors include the curriculum and specific examples used in this course, the amount of time dedicated to instruction about evolution, the fact that evolution was used as the unifying theme of the course, the single instructor as a possible role model or as a perceived member of the in-group or groups to which students in the class perceive themselves to belong, or the culture of the classroom.
There is the possibility that the amount of time spent on evolution is an important factor in increasing overall evolution acceptance. However, there is no consistent trend in the literature showing that increasing the amount of instruction about evolution consistently results in higher acceptance rates (Glaze et al., 2015).
Some key factors we observed about the instructor include that they shared the same religious convictions as the majority of the students. This study was performed at the same institution with demographically similar students to those observed by Holt and colleagues (2018), who found that students taught by an instructor who observably shared the students’ religious and cultural convictions were more likely to accept what was being taught than those taught by the same instructor when that instructor concealed this fact.
Social identity and self-categorization theories in social psychology explain intergroup behavior based on the perceived membership of individuals to relevant social groups (Turner & Oakes, 1986; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Haslam, 1997). People are generally critical of ideas coming from individuals perceived as being outside of their group and accepting of ideas coming from individuals perceived as being within their group (Tajfel, 2010). Classes in which the teacher is not viewed as part of the in group could result in reduced credence for what is being presented.
Increased levels of student acceptance of biological evolution can be attained as a result of instruction using a wide diversity of pedagogical styles. Though differences may exist based on other measures, we see no statistically significant difference in acceptance or knowledge gains based on the use of pedagogy designed for constructivism or behaviorism, active or less-active learning, or whether or not the students are asked to keep a journal. Increasing evolution acceptance is possible for instructors who use a broad range of teaching styles.
Clinton Thomas Laidlaw was a doctoral student at Brigham Young University and is now a full-time animal husbandry specialist. Seth M. Bybee (email@example.com) is an associate professor in the Department of Biology and curator at the Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum; Steven Shumway is a professor of technology and engineering studies; Steven Peck is an associate professor in the Department of Biology; and Jamie L. Jensen is an associate professor in the Department of Biology, all at Brigham Young University. Thomas Heath Ogden is an associate professor in the Department of Biology at Utah Valley University.
Abraham, J. K., Perez, K. E., Downey, N., Herron, J. C., & Meir, E. (2012). Short lesson plan associated with increased acceptance of evolutionary theory and potential change in three alternate conceptions of macroevolution in undergraduate students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 152–164.
Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 444–449.
Akkaraju, S., & Wolf, A. (2016). Teaching evolution: The blog as a liminal space. Journal of Effective Teaching, 16(2), 32–46.
Akyol, G., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2010). The contribution of understandings of evolutionary theory and nature of science to pre-service science teachers’ acceptance of evolutionary theory. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1889–1893.
Alters, B. J., & Alters, S. (2001). Defending evolution in the classroom: A guide to the creation/evolution controversy. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56(10), 1891–1901.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952–978.
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639.
Bichelmeyer, B. A., & Hsu, Y. C. (1999, February 10–14). Individually guided education and problem-based learning: A comparison of pedagogical approaches from different epistemological views [Meeting report]. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Houston, TX, United States.
Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415–427.
Blake, T. K. (2005). Journaling; An active learning technique. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 2(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.2202/1548-923x.1116
Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, and Socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6), 713–722.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18–40). RoutledgeFalmer.
Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived consequences of evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education, 87(2), 181–206.
Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann.
Catley, K. M., & Novick, L. R. (2009). Digging deep: Exploring college students’ knowledge of macroevolutionary time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 311–332.
Cavallo, A. M., & McCall, D. (2008). Seeing may not mean believing: Examining students’ understandings and beliefs in evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 70(9), 522–530.
Cavallo, A. M., White, K. J., & McCall, D. (2011). The mismatch among students’ views about nature of science, acceptance of evolution, and evolutionary science understandings. Science Education Review, 10(2), 37–42.
Chirema, K. D. (2007). The use of reflective journals in the promotion of reflection and learning in post-registration nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 27(3), 192–202.
Clark, M. C., & Rossiter, M. (2008). Narrative learning in adulthood. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008(119), 61–70.
Cofré, H. L., Santibáñez, D. P., Jiménez, J. P., Spotorno, A., Carmona, F., Navarrete, K., & Vergara, C. A. (2018). The effect of teaching the nature of science on students’ acceptance and understanding of evolution: Myth or reality? Journal of Biological Education, 52(3), 248–261.
Crawford, B. A., Zembal‐Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry‐based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613–637.
Demastes, S. S., Settlage, J., & Good, R. (1995). Students’ conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 535–550.
Deng, F., Chen, D. T., Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.
Deniz, H., & Donnelly, L. A. (2011). Preservice secondary science teachers’ acceptance of evolutionary theory and factors related to acceptance. Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 31(4), 2.1–2.8.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. D.C. Heath and Company.
Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35(3), 125–129.
Dunk, R. D., Petto, A. J., Wiles, J. R., & Campbell, B. C. (2017). A multifactorial analysis of acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 10(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-017-0068-0
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.
Farber, P. (2003). Teaching evolution and the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 65(5), 347–354.
Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism in theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 182–204). Teachers College Press.
Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of evolution acceptance inhibits students’ negotiation of biology-based socioscientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 50(4), 407–424.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.
Fritson, K. K., Nelson, D. A., Vontz, H., & Forrest, K. D. (2013). Students’ perceptions of journaling in undergraduate classes. Journal of Instructional Research, 2, 3–9.
Glaze, A. L., Goldston, M. J., & Dantzler, J. (2015). Evolution in the southeastern USA: Factors influencing acceptance and rejection in pre-service science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 1189–1209.
Goldston, M. J., & Kyzer, P. (2009). Teaching evolution: Narratives with a view from three southern biology teachers in the USA. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(7), 762–790.
Grossman, W. E., & Fleet, C. M. (2017). Changes in acceptance of evolution in a college-level general education course. Journal of Biological Education, 51(4), 328–335.
Ha, M., Haury, D. L., & Nehm, R. H. (2012). Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 95–121.
Haslam, S. A. (1997). Stereotyping and social influence: Foundations of stereotype consensus. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. ١١٩–١٤٣). Blackwell Publishing.
Holt, E. A., Ogden, T. H., & Durham, S. L. (2018). The positive effect of role models in evolution instruction. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 11(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0086-6
Ingram, E. L., & Nelson, C. E. (2006). Relationship between achievement and students’ acceptance of evolution or creation in an upper‐level evolution course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 7–24.
Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in students’ understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 879–900.
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90.
Kim, S. Y., & Nehm, R. H. (2011). A cross‐cultural comparison of Korean and American science teachers’ views of evolution and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 33(2), 197–227.
Kuiper, R. A., & Pesut, D. J. (2004). Promoting cognitive and metacognitive reflective reasoning skills in nursing practice: Self‐regulated learning theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45(4), 381–391.
Lawson, A. E. (1978). Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(1), 11–24.
Lawson, A. E. (2000). Classroom test of scientific reasoning: Multiple choice version. http://www.public.asu.edu/~anton1/AssessArticles/Assessments/Mathematics%20Assessments/Scientific%20Reasoning%20Test.pdf
Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 143–166.
Lerner, L. S. (2001). Good science, bad science: Teaching evolution in the states. California Journal of Science Education, 1(2), 117–133.
Lord, T., & Marino, S. (1993). How university students view the theory of evolution. Journal of College Science Teaching, 22(6), 353–357.
Makaiau, A. S., Leng, L., & Fukui, S. (2015). Journaling and self-study in an international research collective. Studying Teacher Education, 11(1), 64–80.
Manwaring, K. F., Jensen, J. L., Gill, R. A., & Bybee, S. M. (2015). Influencing highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution: Mormons as a case study. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8, Article 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-015-0051-6
Maypole, J., & Davies, T. G. (2001). Students’ perceptions of constructivist learning in a community college American history 11 survey course. Community College Review, 29(2), 54–79.
Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765.
Moore, R., Cotner, S., & Bates, A. (2009). The influence of religion and high school biology courses on students’ knowledge of evolution when they enter college. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 9(2), 4–12.
Munday, J., Sajid, A., & Reader, B. (2014). Cultural identity through art(s) making: Pre-service teachers sharing ideas and experiences. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(7), 15–30.
Nadelson, L. S., & Southerland, S. A. (2010). Examining the interaction of acceptance and understanding: How does the relationship change with a focus on macroevolution? Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(1), 82–88.
National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). (2010). Mission statement. http://www.nabt.org/websites/institution/index.php?p=1
National Research Council (Ed.) (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.
Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience, 57(3), 263–272.
Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 699–723.
Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2008). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: A comparison of the CINS, an open‐response instrument, and an oral interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1131–1160.
Oliveira, A. W., Cook, K., & Buck, G. A. (2011). Framing evolution discussion intellectually. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 257–280.
Oliver-Hoyo, M., Anderson, M., & Allen, D. (2004). Inquiry-guided instruction: Practical issues of implementation. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(6), 20–24.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Major gaps between the public, scientists on key issues. http://www.pewinternet.org/interactives/public-scientists-opinion-gap/
Piaget, J. (1967). On the development of memory and identity. Clark University Press.
Pinkstaff, E. (1985). An experience in narrative writing to improve public health practice by students. Journal of Nursing Education, 24(1), 25–28.
Reynolds, B. R. (2013). The impact of transformational leadership, experiential learning, and reflective journaling on the conservation ethic of tertiary-level non-science majors [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga]. https://scholar.utc.edu/theses/374/
Robbins, J. R., & Roy, P. (2007). The natural selection: Identifying and correcting non-science student preconceptions through an inquiry-based, critical approach to evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 69(8), 460–466.
Rutledge, M. L., & Sadler, K. C. (2007). Reliability of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution (MATE) instrument with university students. The American Biology Teacher, 69(6), 332–335.
Rutledge, M. L., & Sadler, K. C. (2011). University students’ acceptance of biological theories: Is evolution really different? Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(2), 38–43.
Scharmann, L. C., & Butler, W. (2015). The use of journaling to assess student learning and acceptance of evolutionary science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(1), 16–21.
Scheurman, G. (1998). From behaviorist to constructivist teaching. Social Education, 62(1), 6–9.
Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 170–194.
Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 510–528.
Smith, M. U. (2010). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: I. Philosophical/epistemological issues. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 523–538.
Smith, M. U., Snyder, S. W., & Devereaux, R. S. (2016). The GAENE—generalized acceptance of evolution evaluation: Development of a new measure of evolution acceptance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1289–1315.
Spalding, E., Wilson, A., & Mewborn, D. (2002). Demystifying reflection: A study of pedagogical strategies that encourage reflective journal writing. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1393–1421.
Stover, S. K., & Mabry, M. L. (2007). Influences of teleological and Lamarckian thinking on student understanding of natural selection. Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching, 33(1), 11–18.
Tajfel, H. (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations (Vol. 7). Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2004). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Learning styles and the problem of instructional selection—engaging all students in science courses. Cell Biology Education, 3(4), 197–201.
Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(3), 237–252.
Verhey, S. D. (2005). The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes toward creationism and evolution. BioScience, 55(11), 996–1003.
Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339–362.
Wald, H. S., & Reis, S. P. (2010). Beyond the margins: Reflective writing and development of reflective capacity in medical education. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(7), 746–749.
Wiles, J. R., & Alters, B. (2011). Effects of an educational experience incorporating an inventory of factors potentially influencing student acceptance of biological evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2559–2585.