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

A multi-dimensional classification scheme for levels of student acceptance of evolution

In the situation where any alternatives explanations of the origins of life and biodiversity are known – for example in a Christian context – an alternative approach has been used that directly integrates these alternatives, leading to a multi-dimensional scheme for classifying qualitative different categories of student acceptance of evolution. McKeachie et al. (2002) explored acceptance of evolution by American college students taking a biology course using a questionnaire administered twice during the term (the first and the last weeks). Based on a single question with four qualitatively different choices representing different opinions on the acceptance of evolution in relation to interpretations of the biblical account of divine creation (the actual question is shown in Appendix B), the researchers report that among 60 volunteering participants at the start of the study, there were 11 who accepted evolution as fact, 22 were unsure about evolutionary theory, 17 accepted both the theory of evolution and the biblical account of divine creation, and 10 rejected evolution. However, by the end of the study when the second data collection was conducted, some of these perceptions had changed in the direction of greater acceptance of evolution over the period of the study. Although they did not collect evidence on causes, the researchers believe that these changes were the consequence of students’ intrinsic motivation to learn about evolution related to their acknowledgement of the importance of the theory of evolution in the scientific community. Nonetheless, among those students who claimed to accept both evolution and divine creation, it remains unclear in what particular ways they reconciled the two accounts.

The usefulness of this classification scheme is that each of the categories can be clearly distinguished by respondents. While accepted evolution as fact, unsure and rejected evolution are unidirectional, changing from the greatest degree of acceptance towards lesser degrees, accepted both provides another dimension which concerns a compatible relationship between evolution and creation. Although the idea of the clearly identified spaces between categories based on this classification scheme is useful, an issue is raised: whether it is necessary to explicitly make a reference to alternative explanations to evolution such as divine creation. Indeed, different research studies have different purposes. Student acceptance of evolution within the context of religious beliefs might be of interest of many researchers. However, some learners might not use religious lenses when considering the theory of evolution, and might use other rationalisations for accepting or rejecting evolution, or might provide justifications that rely on other forms of reasoning, whether or not their acceptance or rejection is religiously motivated. For example, the only student who rejected evolution in the study of Hokayem and BouJaoude (2008) did not express his opposition based on religious faith but on his scepticism about evolutionary evidence. The same is true with participants of Clores and Limjap (2006) who appeared to reject evolution based on their misconceptions about evolutionary theory and the nature of science.

In addition, in a context where the theistic belief regarding divine creation is little known, the inclusion of a specifically religious additional position (both evolution and creation accepted) might be awkward and rather less general. It is therefore useful to gain insight into how students perceive evolution on its own merits, only later focusing more specifically on its relationship with other explanations. In other words, rather than limiting student acceptance of evolution in religious contexts, the focus should be made on how students accept evolution as a scientifically valid explanation of the origin of life and emergence of the diversity of life forms. This allows religious rationales for particular levels of acceptance to emerge naturally. Claims about the roles of science and religion can be made more confidently if it is found that students still refer to religious perspectives even when the questionnaire question is explicitly limited to the scientific context.