J Sci Teacher Educ (2010) 21:843–858 DOI 10.1007/s10972-009-9171-6
K-8 Educators Perceptions and Preparedness for Teaching Evolution Topics Louis S. Nadelson • Sandra Nadelson
Published online: 19 December 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2009
Abstract Many science education standards mandate teaching evolution concepts in the K-8 curriculum. Yet, not all K-8 certified educators embrace the notion of teaching evolution content Factors influencing K-8 teacher engagement with evolution curriculum include evolution familiarity and personal beliefs conflicts. With this in mind, we investigated the perceptions and beliefs about evolution of educators who had completed a science and mathematics education master’s degree. Our quantitative and qualitative data indicate some participants did not feel prepared or responsible for teaching evolution content. The discussion of our study results and implications was done in the context of achieving science learning standards.
Introduction Many state departments of education have mandated biological evolution curricula as an essential component of their science educational standards (Moore 2001; National Research Council [NRC], 1996). There has been a general trend toward developing science education standards that are based on unifying concepts, such as evolution, to reflect the multidisciplinary nature of science (National Academy of Science [NAS], 1998; NRC, NSTA 2003). As a unifying concept the theory of evolution integrates content from the domains of biology, geology, chemistry, archeology, genetics and ecology (Gould 2002; Miller 1999; NAS). The emphasis on unifying concepts in science education standards provides a consistent context for learning and application of science theme between grade levels (Hodson 1992). As a unifying concept, evolution may be integrated into the science education standards as early as kindergarten (NRC). L. S. Nadelson (&) S. Nadelson Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725-1700, USA e-mail:
[email protected]
123
844
L. S. Nadelson, S. Nadelson
The adoption and refinements of theme based science education standards has led to shifts in the K-8 science curriculum (NRC 2007). The adjustments and alterations within the science curriculum require teachers to be flexible in their perceptions of the science they teach and continue to learn about both science content and pedagogy. (NRC). Further, a shift in the science education standards has challenged teachers to effectively integrate what may be perceived as new curriculum. Our study was motivated by the relatively recent integration of evolution concepts in the K-8 science education standards. We sought to determine the perceptions and beliefs about teaching evolution among a unique group of K-8 certified educators who had completed a master degree program in math and science education. The completion of this master degree program would suggest that these educators were familiar with evolution and the corresponding science education standards and therefore, were prepared to teach the related content. However, previous research has not produced evidence of to confirm this assumption. Our study is the first that we are aware of to assess these measures among this unique group of educators. Teacher Preparation for Teaching Science The organization of science education standards by unifying concepts increases the demand on K-8 educators to have a multidisciplinary understanding of science and knowledge of how domains are integrated to inform each other (Chuang 2003; NRC 1996, 2007). However, the demands on the depth and breadth of K-8 teacher science knowledge are typically not attained through the fulfillment of basic graduation and certification requirements (NRC 2007; NSTA 2002). Research shows that most K-8 endorsed teachers are required to complete approximately two college level science courses to fulfill their graduation and certification requirements (Fulp 2002). Many times the recommended or required science courses are lower division offerings that concentrate on facts and vocabulary and provide general overviews of science topics, but do not necessarily provide students with theme based perspectives (Fulp). The limited time and attention toward science in the preservice teacher curriculum reinforces the critical importance of professional development and continuing education to prepare inservice teachers for developments in the science curriculum. As topics such as evolution are integrated into the K-8 science curriculum, some inservice teachers may not be adequately prepared with content or instructional knowledge to teach to the changes in the curriculum (Bloom 1989; Eiriksson 1997) which could lead to a reduction in teacher effectiveness. Teacher preparation is critical to assuring they are capable of providing their students with learning opportunities that allow them to attain the goals of science education standards (Downing and Filer 1999; Skoog and Bilica 2002). If teachers do not feel prepared to teach science or feel there are other teaching priorities above science curriculum they may respond by reducing the amount of time and attention toward teaching science further reducing the probability of student attainment of the education standards (Center on Education Policy 2008; Jesky-Smith 2002; Plourde 2002).
123
K-8 Educators Perceptions of Evolution
845
Teacher understanding and their corresponding efficacy for and interest in teaching science may be significant influences that potentially hinder the teaching of evolution content at the K-8 levels (Abell and Roth 1992; Wenner 1993). Issues with teacher preparation and attitudes toward science provide the justification for encouraging teachers to engage in continuing education that focuses on science curriculum and instruction. The expectation is that when educators engage in continuing education they will experience increases in their knowledge, confidence, and understanding about teaching science concepts, thereby making them more effective at teaching the content (Nadelson et al. 2009; NRC 2007; NSTA 2006). Continuing Education and Teacher Preparedness to Teach Science Teachers’ views of teaching and curriculum content are influenced by years of education and teaching experience (Hill 2004; Hoy et al. 2006; Pajares 1992). These influences encourage educators to teach in the manner they were taught (Deemer 2004), and to focus their instruction specifically on the content they have studied (Alters and Nelson 2002; Llinares and Krainer 2006). Yet, what teachers think that they teach and what students actually learn may not be consistent (NRC 2007). This discontinuity may be a manifestation of constraints on teachers’ awareness of student learning and their understanding regarding the highly effective instructional approaches to address learning challenges which is expertise that teachers develop with time, experience, and reflection. Teacher development of this awareness and increased understanding of how to respond to student learning challenges may be enhanced through their engagement in continuing education and professional development (Pinto´ et al. 2005). Teacher understanding of student learning and effective instructional approaches is inextricably linked to their content knowledge (Barnett and Hodson 2001; Darling-Hammond and Bransford 2005; Shulman 1987). Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) recognize the influence that a teacher’s personal experience and success with learning have on the development of their content knowledge. Through teacher engagement in professional developmental experiences that result in successful learning and increased concepts understanding, teachers can increase their knowledge of how to effectively teach complex or abstract concepts (DarlingHammond and Bransford; Hewson 2007; Loucks-Horsley 1998). The anticipated increases in teacher effectiveness resulting from elevated content knowledge provide justification for teacher engagement in continuing education programs (Bryan and Abell 1999). The anticipated increase in teacher understanding of content with continued education is why we purposefully sampled the study educators who had completed a master degree in science and math education. We anticipated, through involvement in a master degree program in math and science education that these educators would express high levels of familiarity with complex science ideas. In particular we anticipated the completion of a graduate degree in science and math education would prepare our participants for teaching theory of evolution content.
123
846
L. S. Nadelson, S. Nadelson
Teaching the Theory of Evolution The recent emphasis on evolution in science education standards potentiates the importance for teacher preparation to teach about the theory. In response to the challenges of teaching and learning evolution and its crucial relationship to fully comprehending many science concepts, the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (1993), the NRC (1996), and the NSTA (1997, 2006) are promoting evolution related continuing education for teachers as part of their science education agendas. In conjunction with the Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS 1993) the AAAS maintains an extensive collection of resources for professional development (AAAS 1997). In the National Science Education Standards, the NRC dedicates a full chapter to professional development standards of teachers; part of which addresses issues that are directly applicable to teaching evolution content. The NSTA’s position statements recognize the importance of teacher professional development (NSTA 2006) and in particular their preparations for teaching evolution (NSTA 2003). Even with multiple efforts in place to prepare teachers to teach evolution content, research reveals that many teachers continue to hold and express evolution misconceptions (Alters and Nelson 2002; Matthews 2001; Rutledge and Warden 1999). The persistence of teachers holding misconceptions of evolution may be the product of a cyclical process, for evidence indicates that teachers may teach their misconceptions to their students (Jarvis et al. 2003; Yip 2001). Further, if teachers do not feel that they understand science concepts, such as evolution, they may decrease attention toward the topics and focus on teaching content for which they are more knowledgeable and comfortable resulting in limited exposure to evolution content (Bohning and Hale 1998; Fulp 2002; Jones and Carter 2007). Perhaps the greatest issue impacting evolution education involves the acceptance of evolutionary theory (Miller 1999; Rutledge and Mitchell 2002). The constraints on acceptance of evolution are most prevalent among individuals who perceive evolution to be in conflict with their religious beliefs (Miller 1999). Similar to college students, teachers holding religious beliefs as an explanation for the origin of species may experience a personal conflict between these two seemingly comparable explanations for the origin of species (Dagher and Boujaoude 2005). Holding a religious explanation for the origin of species that contradicts the theory of evolution can interfere with or hinder teacher motivation and capacity to effectively teach evolution content that corresponds to state science standards (Nadelson 2009). The process of addressing teacher commitment and preparedness to teach evolution begins by assessing their positions on the situation. As others contend, addressing issues of teacher preparation to teach evolution should begin with an assessment of their attitudes, perceptions, and confidence for teaching evolution (Matthews 2001; McComas 2006; Rutledge and Mitchell 2002). We maintain that there is a need to investigate these perspectives among a wide range of educators and in particular among different populations of teachers. The reporting of empirical data from a wide spectrum of teachers is critical to determining levels of perceptions of personal preparedness and willingness to effectively teach evolution as part of
123
K-8 Educators Perceptions of Evolution
847
their science instruction. These data are essential for informing the development of targeted approaches that effectively address both preservice and inservice teachers’ pedagogical needs with regard to evolution education preparation. Study Objectives Our study objectives were to investigate the perceived levels of preparation to teach evolution and beliefs about evolution of a sample of K-8 prepared educators who had completed a master degree in math and science education. This master degree program required students to have taught at the K-8 level for at least 3 years. Therefore, we considered this program to be an extensive form of professional development for inservice teachers. Our goals for this mixed method, cross-sectional investigation (Creswell 2009) was to determine the relationships between these K-8 educators perceived familiarity and qualifications to teach with evolution, their perceptions of the importance of evolution to teaching life science, their belief compatibility with teaching evolution, and their desire to engage in continuing education to learn more about teaching evolution related content. Further, we sought to determine how personal or professional differences might be predictive of perceptions, beliefs, and interests in evolution. It is important to note that we do not view our sample as representative of all K-8 educators who had completed a master degree in math and science education. Our intent was not to determine the distribution of these perspectives within this population but to determine if a range of perceptions were detectable within this unique group of educators. Research Questions and Purpose The attainment of our research goals was guided by these three questions: 1.
2.
3.
What were the relationships between the participants’ perceived familiarity with biological evolution, qualifications to teach evolution, the importance of evolution to learning about life science, and interest in learning more about teaching evolution? How were the participants perceived evolution familiarity, qualification to teach evolution, the importance of evolution to teaching life science, and interest in learning more about teaching evolution, related to their area of professional responsibility and their years of service? What were the participants’ general beliefs toward evolution education and attitudes toward evolution curriculum?
Method Participants We recruited our participants from a group of K-8 educators who have completed a master’s degree in mathematics and science education. The recruitment was done as
123
848
L. S. Nadelson, S. Nadelson
part of a larger longitudinal program effectiveness project that was tracking the participant group. To be eligible for enrollment in this graduate degree program, the educators were required to have an undergraduate degree (or have completed an alternative certification program) and have three or more years of experience teaching at least one course (or equivalent) in mathematics or science at the K-8 level. The mission of this degree program was to strengthen the quality of K-8 teaching in mathematics and science education and address the shortages of teachers in these content areas. Although after completing the program some graduate entered other career paths outside of K-8 classroom teaching. The degree program graduates that participated in our study had completed 21 semester hours of courses focusing on pedagogy and content knowledge in mathematics and science education, as well as, an action research project. Of the 64 participants retained in our sample, the average years in the teaching profession was M = 18.36, (SD = 7.34), ranging from a minimum of 5 years to a maximum of 38 years. The demographics indicate our study participants were experienced teachers. The distribution of our participants by area of professional responsibility at the time of the survey is displayed in Table 1. It is interesting to note that over 80% of the participants were teaching at the K-8 level which was consistent with the degree program goal of preparing teachers for teaching mathematics and science at the elementary and middle school levels. Procedure In a continuing effort to assess the long term impact and effectiveness of a mathematics and science master’s program at meeting its mission, a survey is periodically sent to the program graduates (over 350 educators have completed this program). This survey is used to gather information regarding participants’ current demographic information, career status, classroom practices, and professional activities. The coordinators of the degree program regularly solicit faculty members to submit additional questions to the survey for research purposes. Thus, the survey serves as a method for tracking program participants as well as an opportunity to
Table 1 Participant distributions by area of professional responsibility
Subject area
Count
Public Elem (K-2)
12
18.75
Public Elem (3-5)
25
39.06
Public middle math Public middle science
3
4.69
13
20.31
Public high school
6
9.38
Higher ed
2
3.13
Other ed Total
123
Percent
3 64
4.69 100
K-8 Educators Perceptions of Evolution
849
gather research data. It is important to note that the desire for a high response rate places limitations on the number and the format of additional research questions that are appended to the survey. We were confined to five questions and were constrained to question formats that allowed for rapid completion. We utilized four Likert scale items and one openended question to gather the participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and perceived professional developments needs with regard to teaching evolution topics. The following were our Likert scale items and the corresponding scale terminals, which are provided in parentheses: 1. 2. 3. 4.
How familiar are you with the concepts of biological evolution? (Unfamiliar to Very Familiar) How qualified do you feel you are to teach concepts in the new state standards related to biological evolution? (Unqualified to Very Qualified) How important do you think that biological evolution is toward understanding life science? (Not at all Important to Very Important) Would you be interested in learning more about teaching biological evolution and evolution related content? (Not at all Interested to Very Interested)
In addition, we requested that the participants complete our single open ended question: ‘‘To what extent do you believe that your own beliefs about evolution are compatible with the new science learning standards in allowing you to be an effective teacher in this content area?’’ The degree program coordinator contacted the participants by e-mail requesting them take part in their study and complete the survey. The survey was delivered using the Zoomerang survey website. Data collection took place over a 4 week period with periodic reminders being e-mailed to participants requesting their participation. After 4 weeks of collection the data was downloaded from Zoomerang revealing 144 participants completed as least part of the full survey and of those 67 completed at least one of our five survey questions. The data that were collected revealed that three of the 67 participants completed just one of our items and therefore we eliminated these participants from further analysis, dropping our sample size to 64. Of this 64 three of the participants did not complete one question and four participants did not complete two of the four items. Given the similarity in the provided responses by these seven participants with others in the sample with comparable demographics, we felt justified in retaining these participants in the sample and replacing their missing data with acceptable values. We used the expectation–maximization (EM) algorithm in SPSS, a maximum likelihood approach promoted as an effective technique for replacing data with values that are representative of the data within the sample (Enders 2001; Schafer and Olsen 1998). By using EM, we were able to provide acceptable values for the seven participants who had one or two responses missing for our four Likert scale questions. We used our research questions to guide our analysis.
123
850
L. S. Nadelson, S. Nadelson
Results Relationships Between Perceptions and Interests Our first research question asked: What were the relationships between the participants’ perceived familiarity with biological evolution, qualifications to teach evolution, the importance of evolution to learning about life science, and interest in learning more about teaching evolution? To answer this question we conducted a correlation analysis on our participants’ responses to our four Likert scale questions (N = 64). Our analysis revealed all four Likert scale measures were significantly positively correlated (see Table 2). The correlations suggest the participants’ perceptions of their familiarity with evolution were positively correlated with their perceptions of their qualifications to teach evolution concepts (p \ .01). Participants’ perceived familiarity of evolution was also found to be positively correlated to their perceptions of the importance of evolution to understanding life science (p \ .01), and to their interest in learning more about teaching evolution content (p \ .05). Our results indicated that our participants’ perceptions of their qualification to teach evolution was positively correlated to their views of the importance of the theory to learning life science (p \ .01), and to their desire to learn more about teaching evolution (p \ .01). Further, our analysis revealed that our participants’ perceptions of the importance of evolution to learning life science was significantly positively correlated to their desire to learn more about teaching evolution (p \ .01). Individual Differences in Perceptions and Interest Our second research question asked: How were the participants perceived evolution familiarity, qualification to teach evolution, the importance of evolution to teaching life science and interest in learning more about teaching evolution related to their area of professional responsibility and their years of service? In answering this question, we began by conducting an ANOVA using the area of professional responsibility as the factor and the participants’ responses to our familiarity, qualifications, importance, and interest in continuing education items as the dependent variables. The results revealed significant differences across area of professional responsibility for all four measures. The relationship with familiarity was found to be, F(6, 57) = 3.40, p \ .01 and a power of .92, with the Tukey post-
Table 2 Pearson correlations of our four likert scale measures (N = 64)
* p \ .05, ** p \ .01
123
Measure
Familiarity Qualified Important Learning More
Familiarity
–
Qualified
0.72**
–
Important
0.41**
0.46**
–
0.44**
0.59**
Learning More 0.37*
–
K-8 Educators Perceptions of Evolution
851
hoc analysis indicated that high school teachers had significantly higher perceptions of familiarity than their K-2 elementary teacher peers (p \ .05). We detected a similar outcome for perceptions of be qualified to teach evolution, F(6, 57) = 3.42, p \ .01 and a power of .81 with the Tukey post-hoc analysis again indicating that high school teachers had significantly higher perceptions of qualifications than their K-2 elementary teacher peers (p \ .05). Our analysis revealed the same outcome for participant perceptions of the importance of evolution to understanding life science, F(6, 57) = 2.59, p \ .05 and a power of .81, with our Tukey post-hoc analysis again revealing significant pairwise differences between the perceptions of the high school teachers and their K-2 elementary teacher peers. Our ANOVA results for interest in learning more about evolution by area of professional responsibility, F(6, 57) = 2.62, p \ .05 and a power of .82. While our Tukey post-hoc analysis did not reveal any significant pairwise differences, an examination of scores revealed high school teachers did have the highest interest score (M = 2.5, SD = .84) and their K-2 teacher peers had the lowest interest (M = 1.00, SD = .74). Overall, it is apparent from our ANOVA results that educator perceptions and attitudes toward teaching evolution are not equally distributed across the curriculum or instructional grade levels. We failed to detect any relationship between our participants’ years of service and our measured variables. Teacher Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Evolution Education Our third research question ask: What were the participants’ general beliefs toward evolution education and attitudes toward evolution curriculum? We used the data from our single open ended question to determine the status of our participants’ beliefs and perceptions of teaching an evolution curriculum. Not all of the 64 study participants provided a response to this question (N = 48) and the responses varied in length from a single word to full paragraphs. We began the analysis of this data by coding responses for classification into three belief categories. The three categories were developed based on the communicated level of compatibility of beliefs to teaching evolution. We labeled these categories as: incompatible, unsure or not an issue, and compatible. To assure consistency and inter rater reliability, we also had a graduate student studying education code and categorize the participants’ responses. Agreement in coding was found for all but two of the responses and after further discussion, classification agreement was reached. The coding and classification results revealed that twelve participants held the perspective that teaching evolution was incompatible with their personal beliefs, sixteen participants were undecided about a possible conflict between their beliefs and teaching evolution, and 20 participants maintained a perspective that teaching evolution was compatible with their beliefs. We selected responses that were representative from each coding category to report. We begin the discussion of our coding results by presenting the participants’ responses that were coded as representative of beliefs incompatible with evolution. This presentation is followed by a presentation of participants’ responses which we
123
852
L. S. Nadelson, S. Nadelson
coded as reflective of unsure belief with regards to evolution. We conclude our discussion of our participants’ belief compatibility with a presentation of responses representative of evolution compatible beliefs. Incompatible Beliefs The following passages are representative of the participants’ responses which we coded as communicating perceptions of incompatibility between personal beliefs and teaching evolution: ‘‘My personal believes are Biblically based and therefore not compatible with the new standards.’’ ‘‘I do not believe in evolution at all. I believe in Creationism; that God made everything. I do not teach evolution.’’ ‘‘I do not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. There’s no fossil record to prove his theory even though we have millions of fossils. Also, the changes that occurred in the birds’ beaks in the Galagopos Islands were changes within the species and they went back to their normal beaks when the rains came back to the island. Also, these changes to their beaks didn’t cause the birds to change species. Darwin made a huge and outlandish leap with his theory and I wish people would stop presenting it like it was truth. I believe in the intelligent design and find it very difficult not to talk about the biblical facts of creationism when evolution creeps into science. I don’t believe evolution should be taught without creationism. The facts of the flood in Genesis support the continental drift and plate tectonics. Ecosystems and balances point toward an intelligent design. Our own bodies point toward a creator.’’ ‘‘I teach at a Christian-based school which are aligned with my own beliefs. We are not required to teach biological evolution.’’ It is apparent from these participants’ responses that their incompatible beliefs are dominated by a creationist perspective. These responses also indicated that these teachers view a biblical explanation for the origin of the species as having a higher level of acceptability and plausibility than the scientifically based explanation of evolution. Because of this perspective, these teachers would most likely be resistant to teaching evolution content (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002). Undecided and Non-Issue Belief Compatibility The participants who communicated beliefs that we coded as undecided regarding the compatibility with teaching evolution responded with passages such as: ‘‘Don’t know.’’ ‘‘Not that familiar’’ ‘‘Not sure’’
123
K-8 Educators Perceptions of Evolution
853
And several simply answered: ‘‘Not part of my curriculum’’ These responses indicate that some educators have not explored evolution to the degree that would lead to situations in which they would develop views of compatibility with personal beliefs. Such responses are particularly interesting for educators who have completed a master’s degree in mathematics and science education, which possibly indicates that such issues may not have been addressed in their graduate program curriculum. These responses may also be reflective of a lack of interest in engaging in controversies surrounding personal beliefs and evolution. Compatible Beliefs We selected the following responses as being representative of the participants who responded that their beliefs were compatible with teaching evolution: ‘‘I teach what I need to teach without bias.’’ ‘‘I tend to agree with the scientists, so I think my beliefs are very compatible.’’ ‘‘My own beliefs line up well.’’ ‘‘My beliefs are compatible.’’ Several responses were similar to this participant’s reply: ‘‘My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the teaching process.’’ It is apparent from these responses that our sample included several participants who held beliefs that were compatible with teaching evolution. Interestingly, our data also suggests that some of our participants contend that their beliefs were noninfluential on what or how they teach. The ability to separate beliefs from the responsibility of teaching of evolution may be one way educators resolve the potential conflict they may experience between their personal perspectives and the necessity to teach evolution related curriculum. Belief Compatibility and Perceptions and Interest Measures The analysis of our open-end question made evident that our participants held a range of compatibility beliefs about evolution. To determine if there was a relationship between belief compatibility and our four Likert scale perceptions and interest measures, we conducted an ANOVA using the levels of belief compatibility as the factor and the responses to our four Likert scale items as dependent variables. Surprisingly, our results revealed only one significant relationship. We found that levels of belief compatibility was only predictive of the participants’ perceived importance of evolution to learning life science, F(2, 39) = 4.84, p \ .05, with our post-hoc pairwise analysis revealing a significant difference between the incompatible beliefs and compatible belief groups (p \ .05). These results indicate that
123
854
L. S. Nadelson, S. Nadelson
belief compatibility with evolution may influence perceptions of the importance of teaching evolution as part of the life science curriculum. Grade Level Influences As we coded our open-response item data, we detected an unexpected trend. We found several instances in which participants responded that evolution was not part of their curriculum because of their grade level of instruction. These perspectives were typified by responses such as: ‘‘I am a Christian and teach 5th grade. These two will probably preclude me from teaching evolution.’’ ‘‘As a first grade teacher, I have never found the opportunity or need to discuss evolution with the students.’’ ‘‘We do not teach this in elementary school.’’ ‘‘I teach Kindergarten so it is not a part of the curriculum of Sunshine State Standards.’’ It is apparent from these responses that some of our participants held perspectives that evolution was not a topic that is taught at their level. These results suggests that many elementary teachers may not be actively engaging in a science curriculum that includes evolution content, even though evolution is included in the national and many state science K-8 education standards starting in the early elementary grades.
Discussion In this research project, we set out to determine how educators with a master’s degree in mathematics and science education viewed the teaching and learning of evolution. Although all of the educators participating in this study have completed similar graduate curriculum, they held significantly different perceptions on teaching and learning evolution. These perceptions suggest that range of beliefs and knowledge about evolution among our sample is consistent with the other populations of educators with a science education (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002). Our results make evident teachers’ beliefs may significantly influence efforts to reform and modify science education standards to include evolution content. The attitudes and perceptions of the unique group of K-8 educators participating in our study indicate that even graduate level study in science education may not provide enough learning experience to prepare teachers to teach evolution concepts. The outcome of these programs may be teachers’ who continue to feel uncomfortable teaching evolution topics but may be perceived as adequately prepared. The potential for this condition supports the need for further professional development specifically focused on teaching and learning evolution related content. Scientists and educators continued development and revision of state and national science education standards constantly brings new demands on K-8 teachers’
123
K-8 Educators Perceptions of Evolution
855
knowledge of science in general and more specifically their understanding of evolution. However, we found evidence suggesting that there is a perception among some K-8 educators that evolution is not part of the curriculum that they are expected to teach. Further, our evidence indicates that some K-8 educators may have low familiarity with evolution, may not feel qualified to teach the concepts, and may not view evolution as important to learning life science. It was interesting to find that the low perceived levels of familiarity, qualification to teach, and importance of evolution were accompanied with a low desire to learn more about teaching evolution. This evidence suggests that those educators that may have the greatest need for professional development in evolution education may not be interested in engaging in such activities. Yet, assuring that K-8 teachers have at least a fundamental familiarity of evolution, feel qualified to teach at least basic evolution concepts, and possess an awareness of the importance of evolution to learning life science, may be essential to meeting the goals of the K-8 science education standards. Although it might be assumed that evolution, the often touted unifying concept of biology (Dobzhansky 1973), would be emphasized in any masters’ of science and mathematics curriculum, our results indicate otherwise. Our participants’ perceptions and beliefs about teaching evolution suggest the importance and relevance of evolution to the K-8 science curriculum may need to be explicitly addressed across the teacher preservice and inservice curriculum. Although there may be some resistance to learning more about teaching evolution, as reflected in this study, additional instruction may help some to resolve some of these conflicts and demonstrate that many aspects of evolution education can be taught without controversy or compromising personal beliefs. The significant relationship between the measure of importance and the four other measures (qualification, familiarity, learning more, and compatibility) has profound instructional implications. The notion that reduced importance is accompanied by reduced familiarity and a lack in the desire to learn more reflects the complexity of this situation and the unlikely discovery of a quick solution. The lack of a desire to learn more about teaching evolution may impede efforts to increase familiarity with evolution and learn more about the importance of evolution to teaching and learning in life science. Those working on shifting current science education standards to include evolution as an essential educational component of the K-8 science curriculum need to be aware of the lack of perceived familiarity and qualification to teach evolution that some seeming well prepared K-8 educators may hold. The outcome of this investigation on the perceptions of experienced teachers with a master’s degree in mathematics and science education suggests that new teachers entering the profession with undergraduate degrees may have even less of an understanding of evolution education issues. Our findings certainly suggest that there is a need for further education and support of elementary teachers’ professional development if evolution education going to be successfully included in the K-8 science education standards.
123
856
L. S. Nadelson, S. Nadelson
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research The educators who responded to our request for participation may not be representative of the population of K-8 educators who have completed a master degree in math and science education. Our intent was to document the range of perceptions within this population and not to determine the distribution of such perspectives. Therefore, the results of this investigation may not reflect the perceptions from which our sample was drawn. A more systematic investigation of perceptions to determine the distribution of these perspectives within this population is an excellent direction for future research. Our study participants were self selected from a group involved in a longitudinal study of program effectiveness. With over 350 requests for participation distributed and only 64 completing online surveys, there is the possibility of participant bias with individuals choosing to engage because of strong feelings about evolution one way or another. Although the data appeared to be consistently distributed, we still may have collected bias data. An increased sample size may confirm or refute our findings. Again, we present this as an excellent direction for future research. Finally, the use of single questions to measure our variables may not effectively capture the true conditions or complexity of some of the participants’ perspectives. More comprehensive surveys may expose alternative results. The determination of the effectiveness of our single questions for exposing educators’ true positions on evolution is an interesting topic warranting further investigation.
Conclusion Our research project exposed limitations in the preparation of teachers who have completed a graduate degree program to teach biological evolution. These limitations are of concern because many state science education standards are integrating evolution concepts throughout the k-8 science curriculum. Yet, without our research it may be assumed that teachers with a master degree in science education would be prepared and confident in their abilities to teach evolution content. Our findings expose the importance of sustaining research efforts that investigate teachers’ perceptions, interests, and beliefs in evolution. When educators complete graduate programs in science and math education holding perceptions indicating they are not comfortable with teaching evolution concepts, it suggests new approaches may need to be explored. It is critical that we identify and implemented teacher preparation curriculum that addresses the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, content knowledge, and pedagogy in the context of evolution. More research in this area is essential for assuring educators are prepared to effectively teach evolution curriculum to their students in a manner that results in the achievement of the goals of national and state science education standards.
123
K-8 Educators Perceptions of Evolution
857
References Abell, S., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76, 581–595. Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56, 1891–1901. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1997). Resources for science literacy: Professional development. New York: Oxford University Press. Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426–453. Bloom, J. W. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of science: Science, theories and evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 401–415. Bohning, G., & Hale, L. (1998). Images of self-confidence and the change-of-career prospective elementary science teacher. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 10(1), 39–59. Bryan, L. A., & Abell, S. K. (1999). The development of professional knowledge in learning to teach elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 121–139. Center on Educational Policy. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools a closer look at changes for specific subjects. Retrieved November 26, 2008 from http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm? fuseaction = document.showDocumentByID&nodeID = 1& DocumentID = 234. Chuang, H. C. (2003). Teaching evolution: Attitudes and strategies of educators in Utah. American Biology Teacher, 65, 669–674. Creswell, J. (2009). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dagher, Z. R., & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378–391. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Deemer, S. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46(1), 73–90. Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, 125–129. Downing, J., & Filer, J. (1999). Science process skills and attitudes of preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 11(2), 57–64. Eiriksson, S. (1997). Preservice teachers’ perceived constraints of teaching science in the elementary classroom. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 9(2), 18–27. Enders, C. K. (2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128–141. Fulp, S. L. (2002). The status of elementary school science teaching. Retrieve on January 16, 2008 from: http://www.horizon-research.com/reports/2002/2000survey/elem_sci.php. Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hewson, P. W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1179–1203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hill, L. (2004). Changing minds: Developmental education for conceptual change. Journal of Adult Development, 11(1), 29–40. Hodson, D. (1992). In search of a meaningful relationship: An exploration of some issues relating to integration in science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 14(5), 541–562. Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 715–737). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jarvis, T., Pell, A., & McKeon, F. (2003). Changes in primary teachers’ science knowledge and understanding during a two year in-service programme. Research in Science & Technology Education, 21(1), 17–42. Jesky-Smith, R. (2002). Me, teach science? Science and Children, 39(6), 26–30.
123
858
L. S. Nadelson, S. Nadelson
Jones, M. J., & Carter, G. (2007). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1067–1104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Llinares, S., & Krainer, K. (2006). Mathematics (student) teachers and teacher educators as learners. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers B.V. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). The role of teaching and learning in systemic reform: A focus on professional development. Science Educator, 7, 1–6. Matthews, D. (2001). Effect of a curriculum containing creation stories on attitudes about evolution. American Biology Teacher, 63(6), 404–409. McComas, W. F. (2006). Investigating evolutionary biology in the laboratory. Dubuque, WI: Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company. Miller, K. R. (1999). Finding Darwin’s God: A scientist’s search for common ground between God and evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books, HarperCollins. Moore, R. (2001). Teaching evolution: Do state standards matter? Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 21(1–2), 19–21. Nadelson, L. S. (2009). Preservice teacher understanding and vision of how to teach biological evolution. Evolution education and Outreach, 2(3), 490–504. Nadelson, L. S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., & Schrader, C. (2009). A systemic solution: Elementaryteacher preparation in stem expertise and engineering awareness. Austin, TX: Proceedings of the American society for engineering education annual conference & exhibition. National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Teachers Association. (1997). An NSTA position statement on the teaching of evolution. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(1), 7–8. National Science Teachers Association. (2002). An NSTA position statement: Elementary school science. Arlington, VA: NSTA. National Science Teachers Association (2003). Standards for science teacher preparation. Retrieved on January 16, 2008 from http://www.nsta.org/pdfs/NSTAstandards2003.pdf. National Science Teachers Association. (2006). An NSTA position statement: Professional development in science education. Arlington, VA: NSTA. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. Pinto´, R., Couso, D., & Gutierrez, R. (2005). Using research on teachers’ transformations of innovations to inform teacher education. The case of energy degradation. Science Education, 89(1), 38–55. Plourde, L. (2002). Elementary science education: The influence of student teaching—Where it all begins. Education, 123(2), 253–259. Rutledge, M. L., & Mitchell, M. A. (2002). High school biology teachers’ knowledge structure, acceptance and teaching of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 64(1), 21–28. Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (1999). The development and validation of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 99(1), 13–18. Schafer, J. L., & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst’s perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545–571. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Skoog, G., & Bilica, K. (2002). The emphasis given to evolution in state science standards: A lever for change in evolution education? Science Education, 86, 445–462. Wenner, G. (1993). Relationship between science knowledge levels and beliefs toward science instruction held by preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2, 461–468. Yip, D. Y. (2001). Promoting the development of a conceptual change model of science instruction in prospective secondary biology teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(7), 755– 770.
123
