A review of research instruments assessing levels of student acceptance of evolution

The theory of evolution by means of natural selection, called evolution throughout this article, is stated to be a unifying theme underlying biological concepts (Dobzhansky, 1973). It naturalistically explains about biological processes related to the origin, diversification, and geographic distribution of living things on Earth (Mayr, 2001). Research has shown that student acceptance of evolution positively associated with understanding of the content of biological evolution measured in the form of final grades (Ingram and Nelson, 2006), as well as understanding of the nature of science (Lombrozo, Thanukos and Weisberg, 2008). However, the association between student acceptance and understanding of evolution is less clear-cut in some other qualitative studies such as Demastes-Southerland, Settlage, and Good (1996), perhaps because of the nature of qualitative research which is able to uncover variations of responses. Therefore, it remains uncertain whether student acceptance of evolution leads to understanding of evolution or the other way around.

In addition, a lack of acceptance of evolution may contribute to negative learning experiences about evolution. For example, McKeachie, Lin and Strayer (2002) show a correlation that students who did not accept evolution in their survey study tended to express lower intrinsic motivation, less interest, higher anxiety and more emphasis on grades when learning about evolution. In other studies, students who did not accept evolution chose not to engage with the learning at all (Meadows, Doster and Jackson, 2000) or learned in order to falsify it (Yasri and Mancy, 2014).

Besides these educational implications, Brem et al. (2003) discuss the influence of student acceptance of evolution on personal and societal implications as they report that their US college student participants viewed undesirable consequences of accepting evolution, consisting of increase in selfishness and racism, and decrease in the sense of spirituality, purpose of life and self-determination. Therefore, these studies together suggest that it is important to study student acceptance of evolution in order to promote students’ better understandings of evolution as well as the nature of science.

A number of studies have investigated the extent to which school and university students accept evolution (as summarised in Table 1). According to the review of literature, there are at least four methods used in previous studies to measure and classify levels of student acceptance of evolution: quasi-continuous scales of acceptance using the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (the MATE; Rutledge and Warden, 2000), a binary classification scheme commonly used in quantitative studies such as Donnelly et al. (2009), Downie and Barron (2000), Southcott and Downie (2012) and Özay Köse (2010), a ternary classification scheme commonly used in qualitative studies such as Hokayem and BouJaoude (2008) and Clores and Limjap (2006), and a categorical system based on the multi-dimensional relationship between evolution and creation used by McKeachie et al. (2002).

In sum, apart from the MATE, the other quantitative studies present similar pre-defined categories of student acceptance of evolution, although they differ in research participants, settings, numbers of categories, category names, and research approaches for data collection. Donnelly et al. (2009), Downie and Barron (2000), Southcott and Downie (2012) and Özay Köse (2010) classify student acceptance of evolution based on a binary classification scheme: those accepting evolution (often referred to as evolution acceptors or evolutionists) and those rejecting evolution (often referred to as evolution rejecters or creationists). A ternary classification scheme is adopted in some other qualitative studies such as Hokayem and BouJaoude (2008) and Clores and Limjap (2006), adding one middle position to capture individuals who are unsure (or doubtful or uncertain) about evolution. In addition, McKeachie et al. (2002) examine student acceptance of evolution in the context where an explicit link between evolution and divine creation is made; thus an additional option is proposed such as “both evolution and creation accepted” (McKeachie et al., 2002).

On the one hand, these categories can be understood as qualitatively distinct categories (i.e. accept, unsure or reject evolution). On the other hand, they can be viewed as levels of acceptance in which those who are unsure whether they accept evolution or not may sit somewhere between those accepting evolution and those rejecting it. This suggests that there might be other levels in the “continuum”. For example, Smith (2010) suggests the additional levels “acceptance with some reservations” or “reject some parts”. Existing studies are discussed in more detail in the next sections according to the number of categories used.

Table 1. A summary of existing findings on student acceptance of evolution based on different research instruments and methods

Authors	Sample/context	Research method	Categorical levels of acceptance of evolution
Donnelly et al. (2009)	29 high school students in USA	Mixed methods including MATE	1. Acceptors (37.9%) 2. Rejecters (62.1%)
Downie & Barron (2000)	2584 undergraduates in the UK	Questionnaire	1. Acceptors (no data provided) 2. Rejecters (6.7%)
Southcott & Downie (2012)	1403 undergraduates in the UK	Questionnaire	1. Acceptors (no data provided) 2. Rejecters (5.0%)
Özay Köse (2010)	250 high school students in Turkey	Questionnaire (using Downie & Barron’s tool)	1. Acceptors (26.8%) 2. Rejecters (73.2%)
Hokayem & BouJaoude (2008)	11 undergraduates in Lebanon	Interviews using MATE questions	1. Accepting evolution (63.6%) 2. Uncertain about evolution (27.3%) 3. Rejecting evolution (9.1%)
Clores & Limjap (2006)	37 undergraduates in the Philippines	Interviews and journal entries	1. Acceptance of evolution (62.16%) 2. Doubtful about evolution (13.51%) 3. Rejection of evolution (24.32%)
McKeachie et al. (2002) – Pre test	60 undergraduates in USA	Questionnaire	1. Evolution accepted (18.3%) 2. Unsure (36.7%) 3. Evolution-Creation accepted (28.3%) 4. Evolution rejected (16.7%)
McKeachie et al. (2002) – Post test	28 undergraduates in USA	Questionnaire	1. Evolution accepted (10.7%) 2. Unsure (10.7%) 3. Evolution-Creation accepted (28.6%) 4. Evolution rejected (50.0%)