Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ross Nehm Associate Professor, Educa5on & EEOB The Ohio State University
Todays
talk
1.
Birds
eye
view
of
the
evidence
base
2.
Thinking
evolu5onarily:
novice
to
expert
reasoning
paKerns
3.
Recent
discoveries
about
novices
evolu5onary
thinking
paKerns
4.
Implica5ons
for
evolu5on
across
the
curriculum
Low levels of evolu5onary knowledge and high levels of misconcep-ons are ubiquitous
High
school
students
(e.g.,
Demastes
et
al.,
1995)
Undergraduate
students
(e.g.,
Bishop
&
Anderson,
1990)
Undergraduate
biology
majors
(e.g.
Nehm
&
Reilly
2007);
Science
teachers
(e.g.,
Nehm
&
Schonfeld,
2007;
Nehm
et
al.,
2009).
Medical
students
(e.g.,
Brumby,
1984)
Source:
Nehm
&
Schonfeld
(2007)
Teachers
Author & Sheppard (2003); Eve and Dunn (1990), Sharmann et al. (2003), Sharmann and Harris (1992)
Eve and Dunn (1990); Zuzovsky (1994); Author & Sheppard (2003)
Deadman & Kelly (1978); Demastes, Settlage, & Good (1995); Hallden (1988); Settlage (1994).
Bishop & Anderson (1990); Brumby (1979, 1984); Dagher & BouJaoude (1997); Jensen and Jimenez (1992); Greene Finley (1995, 1997); Sinclair & (1990); Zuzovsky (1994) Pendarvis (1997/8); Sinclair, Pendarvis, & Baldwin (1997)
Interven5on with no comparison group (pre-post change; associa5ons) Survey research (associa5ons) Case studies, interviews, qualita5ve research (variable iden5ca5on, possible associa5ons)
0 6 24
200
Data from Nehm, 2006
Interven5on studies
Less
Assessment of the most easily measured knowledge elements fragments of isolated knowledge recogni5on of ideas, explana5ons mul5ple choice
More
Assessment of the most valuable skills and performances knowledge selec5on, organiza5on, and assembly communica5on of ideas, explana5ons constructed response
Todays
talk
1.
Birds
eye
view
of
the
evidence
base
2.
Thinking
evolu5onarily:
progressions
from
novice
to
expert
3.
Recent
discoveries
about
novices
evolu5onary
thinking
paKerns
4.
Implica5ons
for
evolu5on
across
the
curriculum
Views of competence
Identifying the appropriate elements of an evolutionary explanation (MC tests)
Nave model
Mixed model
Scientific model
One day snails had to have a poison in order to fight predator [Need]. Then, environmental pressure then caused them to have poison [Pressure]. Therefore, they all has changed into poisonous snails [Essentialism].
One day snails had to [Need] a mutation for poison [Variation]. The poisonous snail had gradually adapted to their environment [Adapt] so the population of the snail increase [Change of pop.].
One day there was a mutation [Variation] that produced a poison. The poisonous snail was better able to produce more offspring [Differential survival] in the environment passing on his trait [Heredity].
Non-majors
10 8 6 4 2 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 Key concepts Key
concept
Majors
Advanced majors
(%)
Experts
80 60 40
A **
**
**
Misconceptions Misconcep5on
20 0 10 8 6 4 2
4 Scientific models
Mixed 3 models
Nave 2 models
(%)
(%)
**
1 Non-adaptive concepts
** p<0.01
70
60
50
40
Teleology
30
20
Change of pop. Heredity Teleology Heredity Change of pop. Pressure Adapt Use/disuse Competition Energy Heredity Competition Energy Pressure Use/disuse
10
Heredity Adapt
Year 1 Non-majors
Year 2 Majors
Year 4 Expert
Scientific concept V: Variability H: Heritability D: Differential survival Nave idea T: Need/Goal U: Use/disuse I: Intentionality A: Adapt E: Energy P: Pressure R
D V Non-majors R
D V Majors
D V
D V
Advanced majors
Experts
Item b
Explanatory model B
Explanatory model N
Item c
Explanatory model C
Natural selection elements were linked consistently (more coherent) in experts, but haphazardly applied in novices. Nave ideas absent in experts, no coherence whatsoever in novices Nehm & Ridgway, in press
Coherence hypothesis
Novices solve problems using concrete surface features. Experts solve problems using domain principles (e.g., natural selection). Significant coherence characterizes experts, multiple explanatory models characterize novices.
Item b
Explanatory model B
Explanatory model N
Item c
Explanatory model C
Todays
talk
1.
The
knowledge
base:
Evidence- based
evolu5on
educa5on
2.
Thinking
evolu5onarily:
novice
to
expert
reasoning
paKerns
3.
Recent
discoveries
about
novices
evolu5onary
thinking
paKerns
4.
Implica5ons
for
evolu5on
across
the
curriculum
A 1 P 5 2 6
T 3
7 U 4 E
Storage
Experimental
design
Par5cipant
randomiza5on
Large
samples
of
novices
(>
200
par5cipants)
Control
of
all
aspects
of
language
and
item
features
Manipula5on
of
one
evolu5onary
problem
feature
Nehm
&
Ha
(2011)
JRST
Loss
Loss
Gain
Loss
Gain
Gain
Scale:
intraspecic
vs.
interspecic
Polarity:
trait
gain
vs.
trait
loss
(Same:
organisms
and
traits)
8
Accurate elements
6 4 2 0
Gain Loss
BetweenEGALT-B species
Scale: intraspecic vs. interspecic Polarity: trait gain vs. trait loss (Same: organisms and traits)
Misconceptions
6 4 2 0 Loss Gain
EGALT-B Between
EGALT-W Within
Familiarity
(Prosimian
vs.
Rose)
Taxon
(Plant
vs.
animal)
(Same:
interspecic
trait
gain)
2.0
Key concepts
Familiar Unfamiliar
Animal
Taxa
A. Within species V N U H I A P E U
B. Between species V N P E H I A D Scientific concept V: Variability H: Heritability D: Differential survival Nave idea N: Need/Goal U: Use/disuse I: Intentionality A: Adapt E: Energy P: Pressure p<0.01 (+) p<0.05 (+) U H I A D E p<0.01 (-) p<0.05 (-)
C. Trait Gain V N U H I A P E N
D. Trait loss V P
Specic surface features of evolu5onary problems play a huge role how novices think about evolu5on. Biology educa5on can be more precise in instruc5onal targets.
Todays
talk
1.
The
knowledge
base:
Evidence- based
evolu5on
educa5on
2.
Thinking
evolu5onarily:
novice
to
expert
reasoning
paKerns
3.
Recent
discoveries
about
novices
evolu5onary
thinking
paKerns
4.
Implica5ons
for
evolu5on
across
the
curriculum
Points
to
consider
1:
Students
appear
to
progress
from
nave
models
mixed
models
scien5c
models,
and
progress
is
very
slow
(25%
of
advanced
majorsstudents
who
have
completed
an
evolu5on
class
and
addi5onal
coursework--have
mixed
models).
Learning
evolu5on
is
characterized
by
adding
scien5c
ideas
to
nave
ideas,
and
yet
most
assessments
dont
allow
this
op5on.
Points
to
consider
2:
The
surface
features
of
evolu5onary
problems
play
a
huge
role
how
novices
think
about
evolu5on
(Nehm
&
Ridgway,
in
press).
Misconcep5ons
are
surface-feature
specic,
so
instruc5onal
examples
must
be
chosen
carefully.
Taxon
(animal/plant),
trait
change
polarity
(gain/loss),
scale
(within
vs.
between
species),
and
familiarity
present
unique
reasoning
challenges
for
students
(Nehm
&
Ha,
2011;
Opfer,
Nehm,
Ha,
et
al.,
2011).
Thank
you
NSF
CAREER
program;
NSF
CCLI
program;
NSF
TUES
program;
NSF
REESE
program
for
research
support
Numerous
collaborators
and
students,
par5cularly
Minsu
Ha,
Irvin
Schonfeld,
Hendrik
Haer5g,
Leah
Reilly,
Meghan
Rector,
for
their
important
contribu5ons.
Papers:
www.nehmlab.org