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

A ternary classification scheme for levels of student acceptance of evolution

Rather than classifying student acceptance of evolution into two oppositional groups, a number of studies, especially those by authors adopting a qualitative approach, provide an optional level for those who are unsure or unable to decide whether or not they accept evolution. For example, Hokayem and BouJaoude (2008) examine student perceptions of evolution with regard to their epistemological beliefs about science and religion, focusing on 11 biology students who attended a course on evolution at university level in Lebanon, holding either Christian or Muslim beliefs. Using mixed research methods relying on semi-structured interviews initiated by MATE questions, the researchers deductively classified their student participants into three groups: seven who completely accepted, three who were unsure, and one who rejected the theory.

A similar classification is presented by Clores and Limjap (2006) who used a qualitative study to inductively examine how university students in the Philippines perceived evolution. The study involved 20 biology and 17 psychology students of Roman Catholic faith undertaking a 4-week general biology course, who voluntarily took part in this study. Based on interviews and written tasks after completing the course, the researchers present three categories of student acceptance. These comprised 23 students who accepted, nine who rejected and five who were unsure about whether they accepted the theory of evolution.

Apart from providing rich information regarding student opinions on acceptance of evolution, these qualitative and mixed-methods studies, adopting inductive and deductive approaches, suggest that there are a number of students who are unable to make a decision whether they should accept evolution or not. This strengthens the critique about the drawback of the binary logic and, of course, these students should not and cannot be labelled as either acceptors or rejecters. The qualitative nature of these studies thus makes it valuable to examine the proportion of participants who are unsure about evolution compared to those who accept and reject evolution in a larger group of sample using a new research instrument which includes this categorical level.

Nonetheless, researchers need to be careful when including a “neutral” or “unsure” option in a questionnaire. As suggested by Kulas et al. (2008), in quantitative work adopting a five or seven Likert-type statements, this “middle response” (i.e. unsure) may be selected for different reasons. For example, it may be an indication of uncertainty (i.e. no firm decision has been made), neutrality (i.e. genuinely having no partiality), or ambivalence (i.e. neither agree nor disagree), the non-applicability of other response categories (i.e. none of the categories capture the participant’s view), in addition to possibly the worst case in which a participant selects the option because he or she does not want to consider the statement in any depth or does not really understand what they mean.

This “worst case” scenario is less likely to occur in qualitative interview studies because it is possible for researchers to ask participants further questions to clarify what is unclear. For example, those students who were classified in this category in Hokayem and BouJaoude (2008) and Clores and Limjap (2006) were able to explain why they were uncertain about evolution. Usually in questionnaire-based studies it is unclear what it means when the “unsure” option is selected. In a questionnaire, it is therefore valuable to ask participants directly why this box is ticked. However, the combination of two tasks - a selection of a level of acceptance of evolution based on a Likert item and a written explanation concerning reasons for selecting such level - should allow researchers to gain information regarding different levels of student acceptance of evolution and reasons for making a particular level of acceptance, while avoiding some of the ambiguities surrounding the selection of the “unsure” option in the absence of such information.