Understanding and acceptance of biological evolution and the

223 Pages·2015·2.2 MB·English

by  Justin William Rice

Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and
Graduate Theses and Dissertations
Dissertations
2012
Understanding and acceptance of biological
evolution and the nature of science: Studies on
university faculty
Justin William Rice
Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at:https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd
Part of theBiology Commons,Education Commons, and theEvolution Commons
Recommended Citation
Rice, Justin William, "Understanding and acceptance of biological evolution and the nature of science: Studies on university faculty"
(2012).Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 12705.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/12705
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University
Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University
Digital Repository. For more information, please [email protected].
Understanding and acceptance of biological evolution and the nature of science:
Studies on university faculty

by

Justin William Rice

A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Major: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Program of Study Committee
James T. Colbert, Major Professor
Michael C. Clough
Joanne K. Olson
Dean C. Adams
Robert S. Wallace

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa
2012

Copyright © Justin William Rice, 2012. All rights reserved.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 4
What is Biological Evolution? 4
State of Biological Evolution Education Research 7
History of issues with Biological Evolution Education (BEE) 7
Biological Evolution and America 11
Importance of Biological Evolution Education 18
Misconceptions regarding BEE 20
Reasons for Resistance to BEE 27
Education Policy, Practice, and BEE 32
The NOS and BEE 37
Study Rationale 42

CHAPTER 3: University Faculty understanding of and attitude toward Evolution 51
Introduction 51
iii

Study Context and Methods 58
Study Site 58
Survey Instrument 59
Statistical Analyses 62
Statistical Analyses Part 1: Tests on the Knowledge –
Acceptance relationship 62
Statistical Analyses Part 2: Tests of the impact of multiple
factors 63
Results 65
Quantitative Results 65
Results Part 1: Single Factor Tests 66
Results Part 2: Tests of the impact of multiple factors 82
Qualitative Results 86
Discussion 99
Conclusions 104

CHAPTER 4: University Faculty understanding of the Nature of Science 106
Introduction 106
iv

Study Context and Methods 116
Study Site 116
Survey Instrument 116
Statistical Analyses 120
Statistical Analyses Part 1: Tests on the Understanding –
Knowledge – Acceptance relationship 120
Statistical Analyses Part 2: Tests of the impact of multiple
factors 121
Results 123
Quantitative Results 123
Results Part 1: Single Factor Tests 123
Results Part 2: Tests of the impact of multiple factors 142
Qualitative Results 143
Discussion 155
Conclusions 160

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS 163
APPENDIX: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 172
v

REFERENCES CITED 191
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 208
vi

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 3

Table 1: Statistical results from ANOVA examining participant knowledge of
biological evolution and acceptance of biological evolution by their theistic viewpoint
using Schema A, B and C 71

Table 2: Mean percentage scores on measures of knowledge of biological evolution
and acceptance of biological evolution by theistic view groupings used in Schema
A, B, and C 72

Table 3: Correlations between participant knowledge of biological evolution and
acceptance of biological evolution by theistic view groupings used in Schema A, B,
and C (Mantel test using Jaccard’s) 74

Table 4: Correlation between participant knowledge of biological evolution and
acceptance of biological evolution by area of expertise (one-way ANOVA and
simple linear regression) 76

Table 5: Correlation between participant knowledge of biological evolution and
acceptance of biological evolution by area of expertise (Mantel test using Jaccard) 77

Table 6: Statistical results from ANOVA examining participant knowledge of
biological evolution by several demographic responses and participant acceptance
of biological evolution by several demographic responses 79

Table 7: Correlation between participant knowledge of biological evolution and
acceptance of biological evolution by amount of science education reported (one-way
ANOVA and simple linear regression) 81

Table 8: Correlation between participant knowledge of biological evolution and
acceptance of biological evolution by amount of science education (Mantel test using
Jaccard) 87

Table 9: Statistical results from two-way ANOVA examining participant knowledge
of biological evolution (response variable) by both theistic view and area of expertise 87

Table 10: Statistical results from two-way ANOVA examining participant acceptance
of biological evolution (response variable) by both theistic view and area of expertise 88
vii

Table 11: Statistical results from two-way ANOVA examining participant knowledge
of biological evolution (response variable) by both theistic view and amount of science
education 88

Table 12: Statistical results from two-way ANOVA examining participant acceptance
of biological evolution (response variable) by both theistic view and amount of science
education 89

Table 13: Log-likelihood and AIC of models on knowledge of biological evolution and
acceptance of biological evolution 90

Table 14: Statistical results from pairwise t-tests examining participant knowledge of
biological evolution and acceptance of biological evolution by their theistic viewpoint
grouped by area of expertise (Schema A) 91

Table 15: Statistical results from pairwise t-tests examining participant knowledge of
biological evolution and acceptance of biological evolution by their theistic viewpoint
grouped by area of expertise (Schema B) 92

Table 16: Statistical results from pairwise t-tests examining participant knowledge of
biological evolution by their theistic viewpoint grouped by area of expertise (Schema
C) 93

Table 17: Statistical results from pairwise t-tests examining participant acceptance of
biological evolution by their theistic viewpoint grouped by area of expertise (Schema
C) 94

Chapter 4

Table 1: SEM-based path analysis AIC scores of each model described in Figure 1 126

Table 2: Statistical results from ANOVA examining participant understanding of the
NOS by their theistic viewpoint using Schema A, B and C 130

Table 3: Mean percentage scores on measure of understanding of the NOS by theistic
view groupings used in Schema A, B, and C 130

Table 4: Correlations between participant understanding of the NOS and knowledge
of biological evolution by theistic view groupings used in Schema A, B, and C
(Mantel test using Jaccard’s) 131

Table 5: Correlations between participant understanding of the NOS and acceptance
viii

of biological evolution by theistic view groupings used in Schema A, B, and C
(Mantel test using Jaccard’s) 131

Table 6: Correlation between participant understanding of the NOS and knowledge
of biological evolution by area of expertise (one-way ANOVA and simple linear
regression) 133

Table 7: Correlation between participant understanding of the NOS and knowledge
of biological evolution by area of expertise (Mantel test using Jaccard) 134

Table 8: Correlation between participant understanding of the NOS and acceptance
of biological evolution by area of expertise (one-way ANOVA and simple linear
regression) 135

Table 9: Correlation between participant understanding of the NOS and acceptance
of biological evolution by area of expertise (Mantel test using Jaccard) 137

Table 10: Statistical results from ANOVA examining participant understanding of
the NOS by several demographic responses 137

Table 11: Correlation between participant understanding of the NOS and knowledge
of biological evolution by amount of science education reported (one-way ANOVA
and simple linear regression) 139

Table 12: Correlation between participant understanding of the NOS and knowledge
of biological evolution by amount of science education (Mantel test using Jaccard) 140

Table 13: Correlation between participant understanding of the NOS and acceptance
of biological evolution by amount of science education reported (one-way ANOVA
and simple linear regression) 140

Table 14: Correlation between participant understanding of the NOS and acceptance
of biological evolution by amount of science education (Mantel test using Jaccard) 141

Table 15: Statistical results from two-way ANOVA examining participant
understanding of the NOS (response variable) by both theistic view and area of
expertise 141

Table 16: Statistical results from two-way ANOVA examining participant
understanding of the NOS (response variable) by both theistic view and amount of
science education 144

Table 17: Statistical results from pairwise t-tests examining participant
ix

understanding of the NOS by their theistic viewpoint grouped by area of expertise
(Schema A)
144

Table 18: Statistical results from pairwise t-tests examining participant
understanding of the NOS by their theistic viewpoint grouped by amount of science
education (Schema A) 145

Table 19: Log-likelihood and AIC of models on understanding of the NOS 145

Table 20: Correlations between participant understanding of the NOS, knowledge of
biological evolution, and acceptance of biological evolution (partial Mantel test using
Jaccard’s) 145

Table 21: Correlations between participant understanding of the NOS, knowledge of
biological evolution, and acceptance of biological evolution grouped by theistic view
(partial Mantel test using Jaccard’s) 146

Table 22: Correlations between participant understanding of the NOS, knowledge
of biological evolution, and acceptance of biological evolution grouped by area of
expertise (partial Mantel test using Jaccard’s) 148

Table 23: Correlations between participant understanding of the NOS, knowledge
of biological evolution, and acceptance of biological evolution grouped by amount
of science education (partial Mantel test using Jaccard’s) 150