Table 2 Summary of studies showing the high degree of misunderstanding of natural selection and adaptation among various groups of subjects
From: Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions
Reference | Method and subjects | Accurate understanding of basic conceptsa | Common alternative concepts and misconceptions |
|---|---|---|---|
Jungwirth (1975a) | Tests (involving choice of pre-written descriptions of adaptation) of 10 Grade 9 classes, 10 Grade 11 classes, and a sample 3rd year university agricultural science majors in Israel | Chose only nonanthropomorphic description: Grade 9, 9–12%; Grade 11, 12–25%; undergraduate, 33–49% | Most commonly chose anthropomorphic descriptions (usually less obvious ones). Most students who chose a non-anthropomorphic description also chose an anthropomorphic one. Further testing showed that most students take anthropomorphic descriptions literally and not metaphorically |
Jungwirth (1977) | Study A: Test of 20 science education specialists, 25 scientists, 33 practicing teachers, and 41 prospective teachers in Israel | N/A (tested opposition to anthropomorphic and teleological descriptions of biological phenomena intended for use in teaching high school students) | Prospective teachers showed almost no objection to anthropomorphic (A) and teleological (T) descriptions. Education specialists were the most likely to reject A or T descriptions, followed by scientists from Australia, then teachers from both countries. Scientists from Israel were relatively prone to approving A or T descriptions. Anthropomorphic descriptions were more likely to be rejected than teleological descriptions |
Study B: Test of 18 science education specialists, 25 scientists, 24 practicing teachers, and 33 prospective teachers in Australia | |||
Deadman and Kelly (1978) | Interviews of 52 high school students (all male) in the UK | Qualitative results only. No student exhibited a full concept of selection. Minimal appreciation for variation. Differential survival was generally invoked only in terms of species extinction | Change due to need, tendency toward improvement, use, and disuse, inheritance of acquired characteristics |
Brumby (1979) | Test of 65 1st year undergraduate science students in the UK | Natural selection, 18% | No concept of variation, mutations caused by environmental changes, adaptation as positive change rather than selection against maladaptive traits, individual organisms change, inheritance of acquired characteristics |
Brumby (1984) | Test of 150 1st year medical school students in Australiab, interviews of 32 students | Natural selection, 10% sound understanding (41% at least partial understanding) | Adaptive change of individual organisms |
Clough and Wood-Robinson (1985) | Interviews of 84 students aged 12–16 in the northern USA | Natural selection, 10% | Conscious effort by non-human animals, change in response to need |
Jiménez-Aleixandre et al. (1987) | Test of 157 2nd year university students (biology majors) in Spain | Natural selection, 31–59% | Directed mutations, inheritance of acquired characteristics, anthropomorphism, individual organisms changing, change in response to need |
Halldén (1988) | Essays by 23 Grade 11 students from Sweden | 5/23 gave explanation involving variation within species | Most students considered elimination of whole species, some change by individual organisms |
Bishop and Anderson (1990) | Test of 110 university undergraduates (non-biology majors) in Michigan | Origin and survival of new traits, 0–5%; role of variation, 16–31%; change of proportion within population, 0–17% | Primarily change in response to need, use and disuse, and individual organisms adapting |
Greene (1990) | Test of 322 university students (education majors) in North Carolina | Natural selection, 3% “true” understanding (43% “functional” understanding) | Change in response to need, inheritance of acquired characteristics, typological thinking |
Tamir and Zohar (1991) | Interviews of 12 Grade 10 students and 16 Grade 12 students in Israel | Natural selection: Grade 10, 7%; Grade 12, 33% | Grade 10, 88% accept teleological formulationsc; 81% believe non-human animals wish, try, strive; 25% believe plants wish, try, strive; 38% teleological, 56% partly teleological. Grade 12, 75% accept teleological formulations; 42% believe non-human animals wish, try, strive; 33% believe plants wish, try, strive; 16% teleological, 67% partly teleological |
Jiménez-Aleixandre (1992) | Test of 69 high school students in Spain | Natural selection, 3% (before course) | Change in response to need, inheritance of acquired characters, change of entire population rather than proportions within population |
Creedy (1993) | Test of 20 high school students | Natural selection: none with a complete understanding | Not specified |
Sundberg and Dini (1993) | Test of 1,200 1st year university students (both biology majors and non-biology majors) in Louisiana | “Ecology and evolutionary biology,” 34–40% (before course) | Not specified |
Bizzo (1994) | Test of 192 high school students in Brazil. Interviews of 11 students | Responses involving natural selection: 7–28% depending on question | ~50% use and disuse |
Pedersen and Halldén (1992) | Essays by 16 students at age 13 (Grade 7) and again at age 16 (Grade 9) in Sweden | Darwinian explanations—1/16 at age 13, 2/16 at age 16 | Teleological explanations—13/16 at age 13 (2/16 with no idea), 14/16 at age 16 |
Settlage (1994) | Test of >200 high school students from five states in the USA | Variation, 10%; mutation, <10% (before course) | More than half involving change in response to need and/or use and disuse |
Demastes et al. (1995) | Study A: Test of 192 university students (non-biology majors) from Louisiana. | Study A: Origin of variation, 4%; role of variation, 11–17%; change in proportion in population, 6–7% (before course) | Change in response to internal desire, use and disuse, change in traits themselves rather than proportion of traits |
Study B: Test of 180 high school students from Colorado, Tennessee, and Wisconsin | Study B: Origin of variation—0% good, 5–9% fair; role of variation—0% good, 2–6% fair; change in proportion in population—0% good, 3–4% fair (before course) | ||
Jensen and Finley (1995) | Test of 42 1st year university students (non-biology majors) in Minnesota | Natural selection, 23% (before course) | Organisms changing in response to need or in an attempt to adapt, “fitness” relating to physical condition, minimal variation within populations |
Jensen and Finley (1996) | Test of 155 university undergraduates (non-biology majors) in Minnesota | Natural selection, 37–55% (mostly “survival of the fittest”) | Inheritance of acquired characteristics, teleology |
Vlaardingerbroek and Roederer (1997) | Test of 102 prospective science teachers in Papua New Guinea | “Generally poor understanding of evolutionary concepts” (not only natural selection), even after 5 semesters of biology training | Not specified |
Ferrari and Chi (1998) | Test of 40 university students (non-biology majors) in the USA | At least some Darwinian components, 37% of answers (but overall understanding poor) | Sudden change by major mutation, inheritance of acquired characteristics, use and disuse |
Moore et al. (2002) | Test of 126 1st year university students in South Africa | “Scientific” explanation, 6–41% depending on question | “Agency” (intentionality), 19–31%; “non-scientific”, 30–45% |
Brem et al. (2003) | Test of 135 university students (various majors) from western USA | Mean knowledge scores: ∼3 out of a possible 5 | Not specified |
Beardsley (2004) | Test of 86 Grade 8 students from Washington | Origin of new traits—0% good, 28% fair; role of variation—0% good, 21% fair; natural selection—0% good, 15% fair (before course) | Not specified in detail, but included inheritance of acquired characteristics and change in response to need |
Tidon and Lewontin (2004) | Survey of 71 high school teachers in Brazil. | N/A | 41% suggest that individual organisms evolve |
Interviews of 32 museum visitors from three museums in midwestern USA | Natural selection, 34% “informed naturalistic reasoning” | 54% “novice naturalistic reasoning,” including change in organisms in response to need | |
Geraedts and Boersma (2006) | Test of 109 Grade 10 students in The Netherlands; interviews of 13 students | Mutation and natural selection, 59% (after teaching unit; pre-instruction not reported) | Organisms change, inheritance of acquired characteristics |
Shtulman (2006) | Test of 29 high school students and 13 university undergraduates in Massachusetts | Variation, 22%; inheritance, 42%; adaptation, 49% | Variation, 47% transformationist; 31% ambiguous. Inheritance, 36% directed mutations; 22% ambiguous. Adaptation, 22% analogous to “growth”; 16% analogous to “force”; 13% analogous to “intention” |
Asghar et al. (2007) | Test of 138 and interviews of 8 pre-service elementary teachers in Quebec | Most “lack an understanding of the most basic concepts in the science of evolution” | Not specified (analysis related primarily to level of acceptance of evolution in general) |
Kampourakis and Zogza (2008) | Test and interviews of 100 high school students (14–15 years old) in Greece | Explanation of adaptation based on natural selection, 2% | 53% need via purposeful change, 16% use and disuse |
MacFadden et al. (2007) | Interviews of 380 museum visitors at 6 museums in the USA | Natural selection, 30% | Change in response to need, organisms changing by experience and learning |
Nehm and Reilly (2007) | Survey of 182 university students (1st year biology majors) from northeastern USA | Natural selection, 3% “adequate” understanding involving multiple component concepts (before course) | Goal-directedness, use and disuse, individual organisms changing |
Nehm and Schonfeld (2007) | Test of 44 precertification science teachers in New York | Natural selection, <50% | Change in response to need, use and disuse, inheritance of acquired characteristics |
Robbins and Roy (2007) | Test of 141 university undergraduates (non-biology majors) in Ohio | Nature of evolutionary theory, 6% (before teaching unit) | Change of individual organisms, “fitness” related to physical condition rather than reproduction |
Chinsamy and Plaganyi (2007) | Test of 94 university students in South Africa | “Very little understanding of evolutionary concepts” | Not specified |
Deniz et al. (2008) | Test of 132 pre-service science teachers in Turkey | “Understanding of evolution” (several topics, including natural selection): mean score of 9.29 (range 4–17) out of possible 21 | Not specified |
Prinou et al. (2008) | Test of 411 Grade 10 students in Greece | Natural selection, <10% | High percentage of change in response to need, smaller percentage use and disuse |
Test and interviews of 98 Grade 9 students in Greece | Natural selection, 2–40% (depending on amount of information provided in question) | Change in response to need, use and disuse | |
Nehm et al. (2009) | Test of 167 pre-service teachers (biology and non-biology) in New York | Origin of variation: ∼25%; survival and reproduction: ∼40%; other aspects, <20% | 25% change in response to need. ∼20% use and disuse. Similar misconceptions in both biology and non-biology teachers |
Spindler and Doherty (2009) | Test of 90 Grade 10 students in Pennsylvania | Natural selection: average score of 16% on test | No mention of difference in reproductive success, no mutation, inheritance of traits by entire population |
D. Graf (unpublished), cited in Curry (2009) | Test of 1,228 prospective teachers in Germany | Fitness, <33% | 20% inheritance of acquired characteristics |