Evolution: Education and Outreach

Rose Chang writes the following:

Hi everyone:

Issue 1 has its newest piece:

Fisher, M., Goetz, A., Hill, S., Kruger, D., Michalski, R., Osipowicz,
K., Platek, S. M., & Salmon, C. (2009). Voices from the field: Current
trends and experiences in Evolutionary Psychology. EvoS Journal: The
Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 1(1), 11-33.

While you are checking it out at (http:evostudies.org/vol1.html)
please also sign up for the RSS feed for EvoS Journal. Then you will
be first to learn of new articles!

Thanks,

Rose Chang
Editor, EvoS Journal: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies
Consortium

This is sure to be interesting and controversial, since it’s on the topic of Evolutionary Psychology, which is often divisive—some people think its main ideas are virtually self-evident as an approach to human thought and behavior, while others think it’s an example of science run amok.

Regardless, take a look, so that when the EvoS journal is publishing its 101st article, you can say, “I remember when they published their 1st. . . . “

by Jenkins, Kristin P.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0158-8
Online Date: 8/8/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Mead, Louise S.; Mates, Anton

In 2000, Lawrence Lerner and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation reviewed state science standards in 49 states and the District of Columbia, specifically with respect to the coverage of evolution. We repeat his survey for all current standards publicly available as of May 2009 and discuss the history and role of state science standards in American public education. Our survey indicates that science standards tend to cover evolution more extensively than they did a decade ago, and that the average quality of the treatment has increased. However, certain types of creationist language are also becoming more common in state standards. We also discuss the history and role of state science standards in American public education.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0155-y
Online Date: 8/7/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Eldredge, Greg; Eldredge, Niles

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0159-7
Online Date: 8/7/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Eldredge, Greg

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0160-1
Online Date: 8/7/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Scott, Eugenie C.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0153-0
Online Date: 7/30/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Ladine, Troy A.

Students at private Christian colleges tend to have a viewpoint that incorporates faith and belief in God. Whether due to misconceptions about evolution, lack of knowledge of the nature of science, or belief that their faith cannot allow them to accept evolution, there tends to be a great deal of confusion about evolution. This study investigates the attitudes toward evolution of students at a small Christian liberal arts university located in east Texas (East Texas Baptist University, ETBU) and how they would feel most comfortable being approached about evolution in the college science classroom. The majority of students at ETBU are from either Texas or Louisiana. In high school, both states require at least one science course to be taken and evolution to be taught at some level of understanding. Students show a fair understanding that science includes only naturalistic explanations $$ \left( {\overline{x} = 2.16 \pm 0.68} \right) $$. However, a greater number of science courses and maturity level of the student resulted in significant differences (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.002, respectively) in the understanding of science. Nevertheless, there was a general assertion that God should be included in the definition of science by the majority of students (64.4%), indicating a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Students responded that they would be most comfortable with being approached in the classroom about evolution through the presentation of the science supporting evolution (19.6%), and being shown how creationism and intelligent design are not science (29.8%). A number of students responded that the professor should accept creationism and intelligent design as science and teach them as such (38.2%). This paper will present methods to address students that respond to evolution in this manner.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0147-y
Online Date: 7/30/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Smith, James J.; Cheruvelil, Kendra Spence

Biodiversity was originally taught in our Introductory Organismal Biology course at Michigan State University (LB144; freshman/sophomore majors) by rote memorization of isolated facts about organisms. When we moved to an inquiry-based laboratory framework to improve pedagogy, an unfortunate and unforeseen result was the loss of much of our study of biodiversity. In this paper, we describe the restructuring of LB144 to restore the study of biodiversity and organismal groups while retaining the benefits of an inquiry-based approach. The curricular intervention was accomplished through the creation and implementation of a four-week Comparative Biology laboratory stream. During this stream, student research teams recorded and organized observations that they made on a range of organisms and analyzed their data in a phylogenetic framework. During the stream, our students worked through a set of exercises designed to help them learn how to read, interpret, and manipulate phylogenetic trees. We placed particular emphasis on the concept that phylogenetic trees are hypotheses of relationship that can be tested with scientific data. This incorporation of phylogenies and phylogenetic analysis, or “tree-thinking,” into our students’ work provided an explicit synthetic evolutionary framework for their comparative biodiversity studies. End-of-stream products included a team phylogenetic analysis exercise and an individual comparative biology oral presentation.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0156-x
Online Date: 7/30/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Schwartz, Joel S.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0150-3
Online Date: 7/29/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Kuzoff, Robert K.; Kemmeter, Seth B.; McKinnon, Jeffrey S.; Thompson, Courtney P.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, biology students in the USA are not being adequately prepared for successful futures. Of paramount concern is a lack of sufficient training in quantitative and computational skills, which are needed to compete effectively for an array of educational and occupational opportunities. In this paper, we introduce a classroom exercise that invites students to solve a simple biological problem and illustrates the need for a computer-assisted strategy to arrive at a solution. The exercise invites students to consider the question “How old are the parts of your body?” Some features of the human body are more ancient than others. For example, our bodies have both hair and backbones, but backbones arose much earlier in evolutionary history. Our exercise relies upon MEGA 4.0, a free, visually appealing, and intuitive computer program that allows students to gather DNA or protein sequences from electronic databases, then use them to infer phylogenetic trees. Student-inferred phylogenies are used to explore the relative order in which diverse aspects of the human form evolved. In the process, students are trained to use powerful features of MEGA and encouraged through group discussion to consider additional applications of the technology they have learned. Our lesson plan includes a brief video, a web site with essential terminology and links for further exploration, a hands-on experience using MEGA, and a follow-up discussion.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0157-9
Online Date: 7/25/2009
View article on SpringerLink