Relationship between Nature of Science Tenets and High School Students’ Acceptance of Evolutionary Theory in Cameroon
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47672/ajep.2409Keywords:
Evolution, Science Nature, Structural Equation Modelling, Conception, CameroonAbstract
Purpose: Low levels of evolution acceptance have been reported among students in several articles using the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) instruments. Amongst possible causes listed in literature are students’’ religious, sociocultural background and educational approach used in teaching. Some studies have revealed that students who have a better understanding of the nature of science (NOS) are more likely to accept evolution, but the relationship between NOS and MATE has not been scientifically established. This article seeks to establish the relationship between NOS and MATE.
Materials and Methods: A cross sectional survey was done using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) techniques to investigate the extent to which NOS tenets enhance biology students’ acceptance of evolution using 482 purposeful and convenient sample size. The validity and reliability of the NOS and MATE instruments were investigated and standardised using Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Thereafter, a hypothesised SEM model was conceptualised and tested.
Findings: The model provided a reasonable good overall fit. Only understanding of three NOS tenets namely: The empirical nature of science; use of observation and inferences in science; and the nature of scientific laws and theories has a strong positive statistically significant direct effect on acceptance of evolution. The tentativeness, subjectivity and objectivity of science, and the use of creativity and imagination in science did not significantly enhance acceptance of evolution.
Implications to Theory, Practice and Policy: This can serve as a candidate theory for further investigation. It could have implication in the development of didactic strategies to overcome misconceptions in evolution.
Downloads
References
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760503
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS.
Aroua, S., Coquide, M., & Abbes, S. (2005). Faut-il former les enseignants à l'épistémologie de la biologie? : Cas de l'évolution biologique. Revue de la Faculté des sciences de Bizerte, 4, 49-55.
Buaraphan, K. (2010). Pre-service and in-service science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. Science Educator, 19(2), 35-47.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.), New York: Routledge. [
Carter, B. E., Wiles, J. R. (2014). Scientific consensus and social controversy: exploring relationships between students’ conceptions of the nature of science, biological evolution, and global climate change. Evol Educ Outreach.; 7:6. doi:10.1186/s12052-014-0006-3
Dagher, Z.R., & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89, 378-391.
Dunk, R. D. P., Petto, A. J., Wiles, J. R., & Campbell, B. C. (2017). A multifactorial analysis of acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 10(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-017-0068-0
Grant, P. R., & Grant B. R. (2002) Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s finches. In: Science 296, pp. 707–711
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Software for structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962)
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Routledge.
Lederman, N. G., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
Metzger, K. J., Montplaisir, D., Haines, D., & Nickodem, K. (2018). Investigating undergraduate health sciences students’ acceptance of evolution using MATE and GAENE. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 11(1), 10. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0084-8
National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science. National Science Teachers Association. https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/nature-science
Nchia, L. N. ., Bouni, A., Jeremie, A. A. ., & Halidou, H. (2024). Cameroonian Pre-service Science Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science and its Determinants. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(2), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.47941/jep.1807
Popper, K. (1998). The rationality of scientific revolutions. In J. A. Kourany (Ed.), Scientific knowledge (pp. 286–300). Wadsworth.
Romine, W. L., Todd, A. N., & Walter, E. M. (2018). A closer look at the items within three measures of evolution acceptance: Analysis of the MATE, I-SEA, and GAENE as a single corpus of items. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 11(1), 17. https://doi.org/speglia
Romine, W. L., Walter, E. M., Bosse, E., & Todd, A. N. (2016). Understanding patterns of evolution acceptance—A new implementation of the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) with Midwestern university students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 642– 671. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21380
Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of science & high school biology teachers: critical relationships. The American Biology Teacher, 62(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450822
Rutledge, M.L., Warden, M. A. (1999). The development and validation of the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution instrument. Sch Sci Math. 99:13–8.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.
Wagler, A., & Wagler, R. (2013). Addressing the lack of measurement invariance for the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 2278–2298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.808779
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Dr. Lawrence Ntam Nchia, Pr. Judith Njomgang Ngansop, Dr. Ernestine Tani Wirngo, Pr. Ayina Bouni
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
