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

Due to the drawbacks of the classification schemes presented above, I suggest here a newly developed scheme proposed by Smith (2010). This classification scheme embraces the advantage of the ternary classification scheme in terms of the inclusion of all possible ranges of levels of acceptance (i.e. acceptance, unsureness and rejection). In addition, it does not leave the usefulness of the multi-dimensional classification scheme which concerns qualitatively clear distinctions between categories (i.e. spaces between proposed categories can be clearly identified). However, this scheme avoids drawing an explicit link between biological evolution and biblical creation as done in the study of McKeachie et al. (2002), but emphasises merely accepting evolution as a scientifically valid explanation of the biodiversity in order that participants would not be misled. Figure 1 shows the original proposal suggested in Smith (2010, p. 534).

Figure 1. A question assessing levels of student acceptance of evolution proposed by Smith (2010)

More specifically, Smith (2010) suggests a more explicit way to classify the levels of acceptance of evolution than the approaches used in earlier studies. Building on the idea of the ternary classification scheme, Smith (2010) extends the levels of acceptance to five categories. In fact, these five levels of acceptance are typical in the 5-point Likert type of question (i.e. strongly agree, agree, unsure, reject, strongly reject). However, instead of dividing acceptance into strongly accept and accept as is usually done, Smith (2010) divides it into strongly accept and accept with reservation. Likewise, instead of dividing rejection into strongly reject and reject, Smith (2010) divides it into strongly reject and reject some parts.

This way of classification, which is similar to the idea of the multi-dimensional classification scheme, provides a more clearly defined space between the categories which enable participants to be able to justify the qualitatively distinct space between strongly accept and accept with reservation, and between strongly reject and reject some parts more clearly. In addition, doing this would prompt respondents to think more carefully in terms of what the reservation is when they are going to select accept with reservation or what the rejected parts are when they are going to select reject some parts. On top of this, these modifications would help researchers ensure that respondents select one of these positions not because they only avoid choosing the “extreme” positions.