Evolution: Education and Outreach

by Scott, Eugenie C.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0153-0
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 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 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

by Williams, Matthew

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0151-2
Online Date: 7/24/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Bray Speth, Elena; Long, Tammy M.; Pennock, Robert T.; Ebert-May, Diane

Evolution is a complex subject that requires knowledge of basic biological concepts and the ability to connect them across multiple scales of time, space, and biological organization. Avida-ED is a digital evolution educational software environment designed for teaching and learning about evolution and the nature of science in undergraduate biology courses. This study describes our backward design approach to developing an instructional activity using Avida-ED for teaching and learning about evolution in a large-enrollment introductory biology course. Using multiple assessment instruments, we measured student knowledge and understanding of key principles of natural selection before and after instruction on evolution (including the Avida-ED activity). Assessment analysis revealed significant post-instruction learning gains, although certain evolutionary principles (most notably those including genetics concepts, such as the genetic origin of variation) remained particularly difficult for students, even after instruction. Students, however, demonstrated a good grasp of the genetic component of the evolutionary process in the context of a problem on Avida-ED. We propose that: (a) deep understanding of evolution requires complex systems thinking skills, such as connecting concepts across multiple levels of biological organization, and (b) well designed use of Avida-ED holds the potential to help learners build a meaningful and transferable understanding of the evolutionary process.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0154-z
Online Date: 7/23/2009
View article on SpringerLink

by Horenstein, Sidney

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0152-1
Online Date: 7/23/2009
View article on SpringerLink

Are you interested in the importance of evolution for public policy? EE&O editorial board member and Evolutionary Studies Consortium director at Binghamton David Sloane Wilson has announced the launch of an evolution think tank, The Evolution Institute, of which he and Jerry Lieberman are directors.

The Evolution Institute describes its mission:

The mission of the Evolution Institute is to use evolutionary science to solve real-world problems. Currently, there is no mechanism for applying current theory and research to public policy formulation. We aim to provide the mechanism. Working with our distinguished advisory board, we can:

Identify and assemble the evolutionary expertise for virtually any topic relevant to human welfare.
Organize workshops, coordinate the writing of position papers, and provide advisors.
Assist in the implementation of the policies that we formulate.

The Institute describes the need for an evolution think tank:

When Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, it was obvious to everyone that it would revolutionize our understanding of humanity. Yet, by the early 20th century, evolutionary theory was largely restricted to the biological sciences and avoided for most human-related subjects. Ian Lustick, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, offered this assessment in 2005:

Of course social scientists have no objection to applying evolutionary theory in the life sciences—biology, zoology, botany, etc. Nevertheless, the idea of applying evolutionary thinking to social science problems commonly evokes strong negative reactions. In effect, social scientists treat the life sciences as enclosed within a kind of impermeable wall. Inside the wall, evolutionary thinking is deemed capable of producing powerful and astonishing truths. Outside the wall, in the realm of human behavior, applications of evolutionary thinking are typically treated as irrelevant at best; usually as pernicious, wrong, and downright dangerous.

The Institute is currently at work on childhood education, risky adolescent behavior, the nature of regulation, The Binghamton Neighborhood Project, which “uses the city of Binghamton, New York, as a “field site” for basic and applied research from an evolutionary perspective,” evolutionary religious studies, and The EVoS Consortium.

Hello All—Glenn Geher, whose blog is among the EVoS (Evolutionary Consortium) blogs, has just put up a new post about a new organization, The Feminist Evolutionary Psychology Society. To introduce Glen, consider what he says about himself on his “about” page:

Glenn Geher is professor and chair (starting mid-August, 2009) of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. In addition to teaching courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and conducting research in various areas related to evolutionary psychology, Glenn directs the campus’ EvoS program, one of the most successful, noteworthy, and vibrant features of a campus that prides itself (rightfully) on academic vibrance. In Building Darwin’s Bridges, Glenn addresses the details of New Paltz’s EvoS program as well as issues tied to the future of evolutionary studies in the rocky and often unpredictable landscape of higher education.

To lead off the post, Glen proposes the following.

Kramare and Treichler (1996): “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.”

Geher (2009): “Evolutionary psychology is the radical notion that human behavior is part of the natural world.”

There is no reason on earth to believe that these two “radical” notions are irreconcilable.

He adds that “I am glad to say that an important and growing intellectual movement is in the works.”

Take a look at the Feminist Evolutionary Psychology Society’s facebook group, too.