Examining the Validity of History-of-Science-Based Evolution Concept Assessment and Exploring Conceptual Progressions by Contexts

과학사에 근거한 진화개념검사도구의 타당도 확인 및 맥락에 따른 진화개념 발달 탐색

  • Received : 2016.06.03
  • Accepted : 2016.06.27
  • Published : 2016.06.30


Previous studies have investigated the similarity between the development of evolutionary explanations and students' conceptual developments on evolution. However, the validity and reliability of the assessment method reflecting the similarity have not been quantitatively examined yet. In addition, no study has examined the conceptual progressions of evolution concept based on contexts although literature has addressed the contextual difference of evolutionary explanation in the history of science. This study examined the validity and reliability of history-of-science-based evolution concept assessment using ordered multiple choice (OMC) methods and Rasch analysis and explored conceptual progression by three contexts (e.g., human, animal, and plant). The evolution concept assessment developed by Ha (2007) was used to examine 1711 elementary, middle, and high school students, and pre- and in-service science teachers' (biology majors and non-majors) evolution concepts. Internal consistency reliability and item response fitness of the OMC method that provide 0- to 4-point scores to creationism, teleology, intentionality, use/disuse, and natural selection respectively met the benchmark based on the Cronbach alpha and MNSQ indices of Rasch analysis. The level of elementary and middle school students' evolution concepts were located between intentionality and use/disuse while the level of high school and non-biology science teachers' evolution concepts were located between use/disuse and natural selection. The conceptual progressions of evolution concepts were differentiated according to three contexts. This study provided the quantitative evidence for the similarity between the development of evolutionary explanations and students' conceptual developments on evolution and suggest new analysis methods (i.e., OMC) of evolution concept assessment.


evolution;history of science;ordered multiple choice;Rasch analysis;conceptual progression


  1. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952-978.
  2. Bowler, P. J. (2009). Evolution: The history of an idea. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  3. Churchill, F. B. (1968). August Weismann and a break from tradition. Journal of the History of Biology, 1(1), 91-112.
  4. Clement, J. (1983). A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 325-339). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Buttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1-9.
  6. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  7. Grant-Downton, R., & Dickinson, H. G. (2005). Epigenetics and its implications for plant biology. 1. The epigenetic network in plants. Annals of botany, 96(7), 1143-1164.
  8. Greene, J. C. (1992). From Aristotle to Darwin: Reflections on Ernst Mayr's interpretation in the growth of biological thought. Journal of the History of Biology, 25(2), 257-284.
  9. Ha, M. (2007). Development of the instructional strategies of evolution based on the cross-sectional analysis of evolution conception. Unpublished master thesis. Cheong-ju: Korean National University of Education.
  10. Ha, M. Cha, H. Y., & Ku, S. (2012). A comparative study of Korean and United States college students' degree of religiosity, evolutionary interest, understanding and acceptance and their structures. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 32(10), 1537-1550.
  11. Ha, M., & Nehm, R. H. (2014). Darwin's difficulties and students' struggles with trait loss: cognitive-historical parallelisms in evolutionary explanation. Science & Education, 23(5), 1051-1074.
  12. Ha, M., Ku, S., & Cha, H. Y. (2010). Study of conceptions, interest and acceptance of evolution, and religiosity between biology majors and non-majors in colleges. Biology Education, 38(3), 467-475.
  13. Ha, M., Lee, J. K., & Cha, H. Y. (2006). A cross-sectional study of students' conceptions on evolution and characteristics of conception formation about it in terms of the subjects: Human, animals and plants. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(7), 813-825.
  14. Hair, Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  15. Johnson, R. L., & Peeples, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in college: student acceptance of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 49(2), 93-98.
  16. Jungwirth, E. (1975). The problem of teleology in biology as a problem of biology-teacher education. Journal of Biological Education, 9(6), 243-246.
  17. Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2007). Students' preconceptions about evolution: How accurate is the characterization as "Lamarckian" when considering the history of evolutionary thought? Science & Education, 16(3-5), 393-422.
  18. Kelemen, D. (1999a). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70(3), 241-272.
  19. Kelemen, D. (1999b). Function, goals and intention: children's teleological reasoning about objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 461-468.
  20. Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1074.
  21. Lee, M. S., & Lee, K. J. (2006). Analysis of student conceptions in evolution based on science history. Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(1), 25-39.
  22. Nadelson, L. S., & Southerland, S. A. (2009). Development and preliminary evaluation of the measure of understanding of macroevolution: Introducing the MUM. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(2), 151-190.
  23. Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237-256.
  24. Nersessian, N. (1989). Conceptual change in science and in science education. Synthese, 80, 163-183.
  25. Neumann, I., Neumann, K., & Nehm, R. (2011). Evaluating instrument quality in science education: Rasch-based analyses of a nature of science test. International Journal of Science Education, 33(10), 1373-1405.
  26. Opfer, J. E., Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2012).Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: Knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 744-777.
  27. Osler, M. J. (2001). Whose ends? Teleology in early modern natural philosophy. Osiris, 16, 151-168.
  28. Seoh, K. H. R., Subramaniam, R., & Hoh, Y. K. (2016). How humans evolved according to grade 12 students in Singapore. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 291-323.
  29. Van Driel, J. H., De Vos, W., & Verloop, N. (1998). Relating students' reasoning to the history of science: The case of chemical equilibrium. Research in Science Education, 28(2), 187-198.
  30. Vosniadou, S. & Brewer, W. F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development. Review of Educational Research, 51, 51-67.
  31. Wandersee, J. H. (1985). Can the history of science help science educators anticipate student's misconceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 581-597.
  32. Willard, A. K., & Norenzayan, A. (2013). Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life's purpose. Cognition, 129(2), 379-391.
  33. Wiser, M. & Carey, S. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267-297). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  34. Wright, B.D. & Linacre, J.M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square-fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.