JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 31, NO. 5, PP.

445-448 (1994)

Evolution: Biological Education’s Under-Researched Unifying Theme

Catherine L. Cummins and Sherry S. Demastes

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803

Mark S. Hafner
Museum of Natural Science and Department of Zoology and Physiology,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803

This special issue of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching deals with a topic that
addresses students’ fundamental questions such as: Where did I come frdm? Why am I struc-
tured in this way? What is the history of my world? The scientific conceptions of the answers to
these questions involve the theory of evolution, a controversial and difficult topic in the teaching
of biology. As was seen in the “Note from Former Editor” for this issue, several of the articles in
this special issue will quote Dobzhansky’s (1973) famous statement about the centrality of
evolution to the understanding of biology. Along with this quote, we want to add an excerpt
from Science for All Americans (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990): “The modem concept of evolu-
tion provides a unifying principle for understanding the history of life on earth, relationships
among all living things, and the dependence of life on the physical environment” (p. 63). This
special issue is an attempt to bring together diverse research approaches and an international
perspective to the teaching and learning of evolution.
Despite the centrality of evolution to biology, relatively little research on evolution educa-
tion has been reported (Good, 1992). However, the research that has been done has spanned a
wide variety of related topics. The theory of evolution as mechanized by natural selection
requires conceptions of (a) an old earth, (b) an earth undergoing gradual changes, (c) change in
a species through random occurrences acted on by natural selection (e.g., adaptation), (d)
common descent of organisms, (e) a view of a species as a collection of variable individuals,
and ( f ) a view of humans as existing within the biological realm. These modified conceptions
are necessary components of a scientific understanding of evolution and have been the focus of
much of the research done in students’ understandings of evolution. Commonly cited science
education research includes works related to (a) natural selection (e.g., Bishop & Anderson,
1990; Brumby, 1984), (b) adaptation (e.g., Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1983, (c) teleology
(e.g., Jungwirth, 1977; Tamir & Zohar, 1991), (d) inheritance (e.g., Kargbo, Hobbs, &
Erickson, 1980), and (e) conceptions of time (e.g., Keown, 1988). A review of previous
research and research-based suggestions for teaching can be found in an article by Demastes,
Trowbridge, and Cummins (1992).

0 1994 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ccc 0022-4308/94/050445-04
446 CUMMINS, DEMASTES, AND HAFNER

The Call for Papers for this special issue stated that we sought research topics that included,
but were not limited to, the study of students’ evolutionary conceptual frameworks, alternative
conceptions, and successful teaching strategies. We welcomed and received articles represent-
ing a diversity of research methods. We were also delighted to have articles representing the
international community of science education researchers. This international comparison is
especially insightful considering the influence culture has on an individual’s conceptions of
evolution. The influence of culture is easily reflected by the ardor that has characterized the
evolution/creationism debate in the United States in comparison to the ready acceptance evolu-
tion has enjoyed in many other countries.
We would like to provide a brief overview of the articles in the special issue. The first two
articles, those by Settlage and by Trowbridge and Wandersee, study students’ conceptions of
evolution and the barriers to learning posed by alternative conceptions. These studies also show
that instruction can produce changes in some of these alternative conceptions.
The next three articles, those by Swarts, Anderson, and Swetz, by Jeffery and Roach, and
by JimCnez Aleixandre, analyze textbook presentations of evolution. These analyses span a
wide range of school grades and are international in scope. Owing to the centrality of science
textbooks to instruction (Yager, 1983), these studies offer important insights into the teaching of
evolution.
The JimCnez Aleixandre article and the Zuzovsky article deal with teachers’ conceptions of
evolution at both the preservice and in-service level. These studies emphasize the special issue’s
focus on both teaching and learning and also provide an international perspective on teacher
preparation. These works will be useful when related to the work of Scharmann and Harris
(1992), which focused on U.S. teachers.
The articles by Bizzo and by Duveen and Solomon deal with the history of evolutionary
thought and how this can be related to the teaching and learning of evolution. The Bizzo work
combines a study of student conceptions of evolution with a historical and philosophical analysis
of evolutionary concepts as presented in the scientific literature. The Duveen and Solomon work
presents a teaching method that enables students to learn about evolution by role-play of
characters contemporary with Darwin.
The Duveen and Solomon, the Settlage, and the Trowbridge and Wandersee articles directly
address effective teaching methods for improving student learning of evolution. Much work still
needs to be done both in science education research and in curriculum development to produce
materials and methods that effectively convey to students the complexity and elegance of
evolutionary theory.
As stated in the Call for Papers for this special issue, we intended to de-emphasize the
evolution/creationism debate. By this position, we did not intend to discount the importance of
religious belief in the learning of evolution. However, for many individuals both inside and
outside the science education community, investigation and research have progressed no further
than outlining the many positions within this debate. For that reason we chose to focus the
investigation of the special issue away from the creationism debate and on learning and teach-
ing. It is evident, however, that no clear picture of the teaching and learning of evolution can be
constructed without incorporating this facet. Toward these ends, we have included Point/
Counterpoint articles in the Comments and Criticism section on the topic of belief and its affect
on learning, authored by Cobern and Smith, respectively. Through the articulation of these
opposing arguments, much insight can be gained into the learning of evolution as well as the
science education community’s understanding of the nature of learning itself.
It is hoped that readers of this special issue will find many interesting possibilities for
 BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION’S UNDER-RESEARCHED THEME 447

further research. We also suggest that interested readers consult the Proceedings of the 1992
Evolution Education Research Conference (Good, Trowbridge, Demastes, Wandersee, Hafner,
& Cummins, 1992). This conference brought together science education researchers, teachers,
and scientists from across the country and sought to establish an agenda for evolution education
research. These proceedings can be obtained by writing to Evolution Education Research
Conference Secretary, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, 223 Peabody Hall, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803.
It is our hope that this special issue will spark additional research into the teaching and
learning of biological evolution, for few scientific concepts are so closely intermingled with our
cultural knowledge. The juxtaposition of scientific knowledge and knowledge taken from other
cultural activities causes students to ask fundamental questions (as were mentioned at the outset)
as science is applied to their lives. These questions must be addressed in our science classrooms.
The negotiation of such questions requires a complexity of instruction that is seldom seen for
other scientific concepts. It is our hope that this special issue and the research it inspires will
provide educators with the knowledge to help their students find the answers to such questions.

We would like to thank Ron Good, outgoing editor for the Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
for both the inspiration for this special issue and for continued assistance in its preparation.

References

Bishop, B.A., & Anderson, C.W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its
role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427.
Brumby, M.N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical
biology students. Science Education, 68, 493-503.
Clough, E.E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). How secondary students interpret instances
of biological adaptation. Journal of Biological Education, 19, 125- 130.
Demastes, S.S., Trowbridge, J.E., & Cummins, C.L. (1992). Resource paper on evolution
education research. In R.G. Good, J.E. Trowbridge, S.S. Demastes, J.H. Wandersee, M.S.
Hafner, & C.L. Cummins (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1992 evolution education research confer-
ence (pp. 42-7 1). Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.
Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
The American Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.
Good, R. (1992). Evolution education: An area of needed research. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 29, 1019.
Good, R.G., Trowbridge, J.E., Demastes, S.S., Wandersee, J.H., Hafner, M.S., & Cum-
mins, C.L. (1992). Proceedings of the 1992 evolution education research conference. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University.
Jungwirth, E. (1977). Should natural phenomena be described teleologically or anthro-
pomorphically? A science educator’s view. Journal of Biological Education, 11, 191- 196.
Kargbo, D.B., Hobbs, E.D., & Erickson, G.L. (1980). Children’s beliefs about inherited
characteristics. Journal of Biological Education, 14, 137- 146.
Keown, D. (1988). Teaching evolution: Improved approaches for unprepared students.
American Biology Teacher, 50, 407-4 10.
Rutherford, F.J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science f o r all Americans. New York: Oxford
University Press.
448 CUMMINS, DEMASTES, AND HAFNER

Scharmann, L.C., & Hanis, W.M. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and apply-
ing the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 375-388.
Tamir, P., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about
biological phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 25, 57-67.
Yager, R.E. (1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577-588.