Abstract
Evolution is the central, unifying, and overarching theme in biology. Nevertheless, researchers have consistently reported that students face conceptual difficulties with their understanding. In particular, those aspects of evolution that are strongly related to abstract concepts like randomness and probability , so-called threshold concepts , are misunderstood. We conducted two studies to test the hypothesis that one central problem of understanding evolution is the comprehension of the abstract concepts of randomness and probability. In the first study, we analyzed the relationships of students’ understanding of randomness and probability with their understanding of evolution. Additionally, three interventions were applied to train students’ understanding of randomness : an animation , a text on randomness , and mathematical tasks. German university students participated in a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest intervention study. Data from the pretest show a significant positive correlation between understanding the concept of randomness and understanding the concept of evolution. In the second study, we focused on developing an instrument to measure students’ understanding of randomness and probability .
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The original animation is no longer available, but copies may be found on the Internet. The playing time was 5 min and 28 s with English spoken language.
- 2.
EvoVis: Challenging Threshold Concepts in Life Science—enhancing understanding of evolution by visualization is a Swedish-German cooperation project funded by the Swedish Research Council.
- 3.
This study is part of the EvoVis project.
References
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10053.
BBC & Open University (Producers) (2011). Bang goes the theory – evolving lines [Video clip]. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00wwvfs.
Berkman, M. B., & Plutzer, E. (2011). Defeating creationism in the courtroom, but not in the classroom. Science, 331(6016), 404–405. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198902.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270503.
Brumby, M. (1979). Problems in learning the concept of natural selection. Journal of Biological Education, 13(2), 119–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1979.9654240.
Buiatti, M., & Longo, G. (2013). Randomness and multilevel interactions in biology. Theory in Biosciences, 132(3), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-013-0179-2.
Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Common origins of diverse misconceptions: Cognitive principles and the development of biology thinking. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-06-0074.
Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. D. (2015). Relations between intuitive biological thinking and biological misconceptions in biology majors and nonmajors. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1), ar8. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0094.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.
Döhrmann, M. (2004). Zufall, Aktien und Mathematik: Vorschläge für einen aktuellen und realitätsbezogenen Stochastikunterricht [Chance, stocks, and math: Suggestions for a current and real-world teaching of stochastics]. Hildesheim, Germany: Franzbecker.
Evans, E. M., Spiegel, A. N., Gram, W., Frazier, B. N., Tare, M., Thompson, S., et al. (2010). A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 326–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20337.
Fiedler, D., Tröbst, S., & Harms, U. (2017). University students’ conceptual knowledge of randomness and probability in the contexts of evolution and mathematics. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar38. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-07-0230.
Garvin-Doxas, K., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2008). Understanding randomness and its impact on student learning: lessons learned from building the Biology Concept Inventory (BCI). CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7(2), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-08-0063.
Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1.
Heams, T. (2014). Randomness in biology. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 24(03), e240308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096012951200076X.
Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). KFT 4-12 + R: kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision [Cognitive abilities test for grades 4 to 12]. Beltz Test: Göttingen, Germany.
Hillis, D. M. (2007). Making evolution relevant and exciting to biology students. Evolution, 61(6), 1261–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00126.x.
Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science & Education, 17(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9075-9.
Kozma, R. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf02313481.
Kuckartz, U. (2012). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computer unterstützung [Qualitative content analysis. Methods, practice, computer-assistance]. Beltz Juventa: Weinheim, Germany.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lenormand, T., Roze, D., & Rousset, F. (2009). Stochasticity in evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(3), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.09.014.
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McDonald, C. V. (2016). Evaluating junior secondary science textbook usage in Australian schools. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9468-8.
Mead, L. S., & Scott, E. C. (2010). Problem concepts in evolution part II: Cause and chance. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(2), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0231-3.
Meagher, T. R. (2007). Is evolutionary biology strategic science? Evolution, 61(1), 239–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00041.x.
Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory and practice ten years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD).
Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765–766. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1126746.
Millstein, R. L. (2000). Chance and macroevolution. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1086/392857.
Nehm, R. H., Poole, T. M., Lyford, M. E., Hoskins, S. G., Carruth, L., Ewers, B. E., & Colberg, P. J. (2009). Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses reinforce students’ faulty mental models of biology and evolution? Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(3), 527–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0100-5.
Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience, 57(3), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1641/b570311.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20251.
Opitz, S. T., Blankenstein, A., & Harms, U. (2017). Student conceptions about energy in biological contexts. Journal of Biological Education, 51(4), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1257504.
Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. London, United Kingdom: Viking Penguin.
Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2004). Dynamic visualisations and learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.001.
Robson, R. L., & Burns, S. (2011). Gain in student understanding of the role of random variation in evolution following teaching intervention based on Luria-Delbruck experiment. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education: JMBE, 12(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v12i1.272.
Ross, P. M., Taylor, C. E., Hughes, C., Whitaker, N., Lutze-Mann, L., Kofod, M., et al. (2010). Threshold concepts in learning biology and evolution. Biology International, 47, 47–52.
Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20437.
Sinatra, G. M., Brem, S. K., & Evans, E. M. (2008). Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0037-8.
Spektrum (1999). Zufall in der Biologie [Chance in biology]. Retrieved from http://www.spektrum.de/lexikon/biologie/zufall-in-der-biologie/72005.
Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Taber, K. S. (2017). The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education (pp. 1–24). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
Tibell, L. A., & Harms, U. (2017). Biological principles and threshold concepts for understanding natural selection. Science & Education, 26(7–9), 953–973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9935-x.
Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. (1971). Cognitive abilities test. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Wagner, A. (2012). The role of randomness in Darwinian evolution. Philosophy of Science, 79(1), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1086/663239.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harms, U., Fiedler, D. (2019). Improving Student Understanding of Randomness and Probability to Support Learning About Evolution. In: Harms, U., Reiss, M. (eds) Evolution Education Re-considered. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14697-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14698-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)