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

A binary classification scheme for levels of student acceptance of evolution

A number of quantitative studies present the classification of levels of student acceptance into two: those accepting evolution or “acceptors” and those rejecting evolution or “rejecters”. Using the MATE alongside additional analyses, Donnelly et al. (2009) classified 29 US high school biology students into 11 acceptors and 18 rejecters. All of the acceptors accepted human evolution as well as evolution as the explanation for modern life forms, and none accepted young-earth creationist statements. In contrast, among the rejecters, 12 accepted the statement that evolution is wrong because it contradicts the Bible and seven accepted the statement for young-earth creationism. Although the sample is small, and generalisation is therefore problematic, the ratio between acceptors and rejecters in this study does nonetheless reflect on the ratio reported in a larger survey study based on 1484 American adults which is almost 1:1 (Miller et al., 2006).

A similar classification scheme is found in the studies of Downie and Barron (2000) and Southcott and Downie (2012). Using the same research instrument, these two studies surveyed how undergraduate biology students attending a Scottish university perceived evolution and what reasons made them accept or reject it. The former study was conducted during 1987 and 1999 with 2854 participants. The latter was carried out during 2008 and 2010 with 1403 participants. The student participants are simply classified to be either acceptors or rejecters depending on whether they accept or reject that “some kind of biological evolution, lasting many millions of years, has occurred on earth” (Downie and Barron, 2000, p. 140). Interestingly, unlike Donnelly et al. (2009)’s US based study, it is found that, within this context, the proportions of rejecters in both studies are much lower than the acceptors. In the former study, the average figure of the rejecters is 6.7%, whereas the figure in the latter work is about 5.0%. In contrast, using the research tool of Downie and Barron (2000) in a different context, Özay Köse (2010) showed that among 250 Turkish secondary school students, 73.2% were categorised as rejecters on the basis of their responses; whereas 26.8% as acceptors. These differences are probably explained by differences in the cultural context, as well as sample characteristics (e.g. Downie and Barron’s samples had chosen to study biology).

Like the MATE, this binary classification scheme exhibits some limitations. This is due to the fact that although the use of two oppositional categories (i.e. rejecters versus acceptors) is predominant in research studies as well as in the public domain (Alexander 2009), it is not well accepted by a number of scholars. For example, Reich (2010) argues that these categories rely on a binary logic that fails to reflect the inter-woven and complex nature of knowledge systems such as those of science and religion. He also argues for a developmental sequence of positions of “epistemic cognition”, according to which learners gradually become more competent at relating different ideas in religion and science. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that these two radical categories fail to represent actual levels of acceptance of evolution. Ironically, this kind of classification scheme used in research may in fact contribute to students’ perceived controversy of evolution as it seems to them that they have to take one side or can only either accept or reject evolution. This points to the importance of the development of a research measurement tool that includes a wider range of levels of acceptance of evolution and is explicit to the specific aspect of evolution that is being measured.