A Resource For Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions: Examining The Adaptability of A Concept Inventory For Natural Selection at The Secondary School Level

Metadata of the article that will be visualized in OnlineFirst
Article Title
A Resource for Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions: Examining

the Adaptability of a Concept Inventory for Natural Selection at the
Secondary School Level
Article Sub- Title
Article Copyright Year
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

(This will be the copyright line in the final PDF)
Journal Name
Research in Science Education
Family Name
Particle
Given Name
8
9
Corresponding
Author
Lucero
Margaret M.
Suffix
Organization
Santa Clara University
10
Division
Department of Education
11
Address
500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara 95053, CA, USA
12
e-mail
mlucero@scu.edu
13
Family Name
Petrosino
14
Particle
15
Given Name
16
17
Author
Suffix
Organization
18
Division
19
Address
20
e-mail
21
Received
22
Schedule
23
24
Anthony J.
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX, USA
Revised
Accepted
Abstract
The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) is an example of a

research-based instrument that assesses conceptual understanding in an area
that contains well-documented alternative conceptions. Much of the CINSs
use and original validation has been relegated to undergraduate settings, but
the information learned from student responses on the CINS can also
potentially be a useful resource for teachers at the secondary level. Because of
its structure, the CINS can have a role in eliciting alternative conceptions and
induce deeper conceptual understanding by having student ideas leveraged
during instruction. In a first step toward this goal, the present study further
investigated the CINSs internal properties by having it administered to a
group (n=339) of students among four different biology teachers at a

predominantly Latino, economically disadvantaged high school. In addition,
incidences of the concept inventorys use among the teachers practices were
collected for support of its adaptability at the secondary level. Despite the
teachers initial enthusiasm for the CINSs use as an assessment tool in the
present study, results from a principal components analysis demonstrate
inconsistencies between the original and present validations. Results also
reveal how the teachers think CINS items may be revised for future use among
secondary student populations.
25
Keywords separated
by ' - '
26
Foot note
information
Concept inventory - Alternative conceptions - Evolution education
JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Res Sci Educ
DOI 10.1007/s11165-016-9524-z
1
3
2
4
Margaret M. Lucero 1 & Anthony J. Petrosino 2
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
PR
O
O
F
A Resource for Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions:

Examining the Adaptability of a Concept Inventory
for Natural Selection at the Secondary School Level
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
Abstract The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) is an example of a researchbased instrument that assesses conceptual understanding in an area that contains welldocumented alternative conceptions. Much of the CINSs use and original validation has been
relegated to undergraduate settings, but the information learned from student responses on the
CINS can also potentially be a useful resource for teachers at the secondary level. Because of
its structure, the CINS can have a role in eliciting alternative conceptions and induce deeper
conceptual understanding by having student ideas leveraged during instruction. In a first step
toward this goal, the present study further investigated the CINSs internal properties by
having it administered to a group (n = 339) of students among four different biology teachers
at a predominantly Latino, economically disadvantaged high school. In addition, incidences of
the concept inventorys use among the teachers practices were collected for support of its
adaptability at the secondary level. Despite the teachers initial enthusiasm for the CINSs use
as an assessment tool in the present study, results from a principal components analysis
demonstrate inconsistencies between the original and present validations. Results also reveal
how the teachers think CINS items may be revised for future use among secondary student
populations.
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Keywords Concept inventory . Alternative conceptions . Evolution education
27
28
Among different science domains, concept inventories (CIs) (e.g., see Hestenes et al. 1992;
Klymkowsky et al. 2003; Smith et al. 2008) are research-based instruments designed to
measure student conceptual understanding in areas where students are known (through
rigorous research) to hold common misconceptions (Garvin-Doxas et al. 2007, p. 277). CIs
29
30 Q1
31
32
* Margaret M. Lucero
mlucero@scu.edu
Department of Education, Santa Clara University, 500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Res Sci Educ
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Background on CIs
66
CIs were first developed as an instructional tool in the field of undergraduate physics and had a
significant impact in advancing the field of physics education research. The force concept
inventory (FCI) was the first CI to be developed (Hestenes et al. 1992). The FCI is a 29question assessment that focuses on probing students understanding of Newtonian and nonNewtonian concepts about force. It was designed to measure six conceptual dimensions of the
concept of force that were considered essential for a college level understanding of physics
(i.e., kinematics; kinds of forces; the superposition principle; and Newtons first, second, and
third laws). The FCI was credited with being the vehicle for implementing important reforms
in undergraduate physics education, such as the development of a model of peer instruction
(Mazur 1997). It was also fairly revolutionary in demonstrating that student learning gains
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
are traditionally relegated to undergraduate settings, but they can be a valuable resource for
teachers and other educators in secondary school settings. Within a secondary school context,
the value of CIs can be realized by probing what students know about a topic, as opposed to
other forms of large-scale assessment, like traditional high-stake state tests that do not
necessarily probe for deep conceptual understanding (National Research Council [NRC]
2001). The distracter answer choices found on CIs are composed with students thoughts
and ideas in mind, especially since the item development is guided by students rationale for
specific responses and analyses of written, open-ended answers to related questions
(Richardson 2005). Because each potential answer reveals where student understanding of
the phenomena differs from accepted knowledge (Garvin-Doxas et al. 2007), secondary
educators can potentially use the information they gain about their students to better plan
lessons (e.g., instructional activities and assessments) for conceptual understanding.
One such CI that could potentially be used as an additional resource for formative
assessment that elicits student ideas is the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS)
(Anderson et al. 2002). Like other CIs, the CINS was initially developed within an undergraduate setting in order to aid instructors in identifying alternative conceptions with a concept
that often presents challenges for students to learn. Even though the CINS has been used
mostly in undergraduate settings with published findings from over 75 articles and conference
proceedings, we believe that its adaptability and usefulness in secondary biology classrooms is
an underutilized formative assessment opportunity. In this manuscript, we explore this formative assessment possibility with findings from an empirical study in which we attempted to
adapt the CINS for use in a secondary school setting, specifically with a group of teachers and
students from a large high-minority, low-socioeconomic high school. The secondary setting is
all the more important because improving student understanding of natural selection is a
central portion of any general life science/biology course from middle school through college.
Having effective research-based and classroom-tested assessment tools to monitor student
understanding in this area is essential since most, if not all, students find natural selection a
challenging topic to master. We present a case where four teachers administered the CINS to
their respective students and reported how the CINS was used in their classrooms. The
findings build on previous research regarding the CINSs development (Anderson et al.
2002) and validity and reliability (Anderson et al. 2002; Nehm and Schonfeld 2008), with
the additional voices and concerns about such an instruments use from in-service science
teachers.

Res Sci Educ
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection
107
The CINS consists of three reading passages and 20 closed-response (multiple-choice)

questions with a series of distracters derived from alternative conceptions that have been
researched extensively. For example, many students will equate biological fitness with
strength, speed, intelligence, or longevity, when, in fact, biological fitness incorporates
organisms ability to survive and reproduce. In another example, as opposed to understanding that most populations are normally stable in size except for seasonal fluctuations,
many students will tend to think that all populations grow in size over time or fluctuate
widely and randomly (Anderson et al. 2002). Additional examples have been documented,
including alternative conceptions dealing with how members of a population exhibit
variation (students thinking that all members of a population are nearly identical or
variations do not influence survival) or how traits are inherited (students having the idea
that traits acquired during an organisms lifetime will be inherited by offspring). Other
related alternative conceptions are comprehensively discussed elsewhere (e.g., see Gregory
2009). Each reading passage on the CINS describes a brief background of a particular
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
were greater with interactive pedagogy as compared to more traditional lecture-style methods
(Hake 1998; Freeman et al. 2014). The FCI aided in promoting discussions about pedagogy in
many academic circles. Other CIs, such as the force and motion conceptual evaluation
(Thornton and Sokoloff 1998), were created, but few have had as much widespread influence
and use as the FCI (Smith and Tanner 2010).
For all their potential in offering an additional form of assessment to teachers, CIs still have
issues that warrant consideration. Researchers in physics education, for example, have continually discussed whether or not CIs actually measure the conceptual understanding they are
designed to assess (Smith and Tanner 2010). Among the papers that have discussed this issue
(i.e., Heller and Huffman 1995; Hestenes and Halloun 1995; Huffman and Heller 1995), there
were claims that the FCI was perhaps measuring student intuitions in physics rather than a
deep conceptual understanding of the different conceptual dimensions of the force concept. In
fact, after undergoing a factor analysis, the FCI did not yield a robust mapping of test items
onto each predicted conceptual force dimension (Huffman and Heller 1995). From these
results, Huffman and Heller proposed that the FCI may be measuring student understanding
within contextualized scenarios and not more global conceptual understanding. For example,
students may have more familiarity with questions on the physics of hockey pucks, and this
may explain why these questions group together on a particular component during a factor
analysis as opposed to being grouped according to a deep conceptual understanding of what
these questions were intending to assess.
Other aspects of CIs may potentially limit their usefulness in assessment, including the
vocabulary CI use and the format they employ (Smith and Tanner 2010). Some CIs use of
content-specific jargon may obscure the conceptual understanding that the CIs are supposed to reveal. Smith and Tanner describe one CIs use of the terms positive control and
negative control in a question that probes students understanding of the scientific method.
They argue that without a working knowledge of what these terms mean, students would be
unable to demonstrate their conceptual understanding of the scientific process and experimental design. Hence, a students understanding of experimental design would actually go
unnoticed because of a jargon-filled question, thus potentially resulting in a threat to a CIs
validity and reliability.

Res Sci Educ
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
Theoretical Basis of CIs
155
The premise of CI development and use is based on student ideas. According to Piaget (1983),
student ideas and alternative conceptions are the raw material of classroom learning and they
may be refined, shaped, revised, connected, and built upon by both teachers and students alike.
As opposed to being viewed as obstacles to learning that must be overcome, pre-conceived
student ideas can be viewed as assets. It is worth noting that the framework document for the
Next Generation Science Standards (NRC 2012) has placed emphasis on students ideas to be
used in this manner:
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Some of childrens early intuitions about the world can be used as a foundation to build
remarkable understanding, even in the earliest grades. Indeed, both building on and
refining prior conceptions is important in teaching science at any grade level. (p. 30)
163
164
165
166
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
population of organisms (e.g., the Galapagos finches) and establishes the context for the
series of questions that follow it. Ten concepts or components (biotic potential, population
stability, limited (natural) resources, limited survival, variation within a population, origin
of variation, variation is inherited, differential survival, change in population, and origin
of species) related to natural selection are represented on the CINS (two questions per
concept).
Similar to the FCI, there have been discussions surrounding the CINSs validity and
reliability (see Nehm and Schonfeld 2008, 2010; Anderson et al. 2010). A main concern with
the CINS surrounds findings from Nehm and Schonfelds (2008) principal component analysis
(PCA), which was conducted on a population of biology majors and examined the internal
structure of the CINS by seeing how different questions mapped on different components (or
natural selection concepts in the CINSs case). In contrast to Anderson et al.s (2002) original
PCA sample of community college non-majors, Nehm and Schonfeld did not find strong
support for the different (PCA) components representing distinct evolutionary concepts
(p. 1145). In fact, Nehm and Schonfeld found only one component that included a highly
correlated suite of key concepts (p. 1145). Anderson et al. (2010) acknowledge that more
PCA should be conducted with additional populations to clarify this situation so that
items can be refined as needed (p. 356).
Nehm and Schonfeld (2008, 2010) argue that for all the value the CINSs authors claim
the instrument possesses, it was originally validated on just one population of students and
strongly suggest the CINS needs to be continually explored for its efficacy and
generalizability among students from different racial and ethnic groups, geographic
regions, socioeconomic and language backgrounds, and content preparations. In a
response to Nehm and Schonfeld on this point, Anderson et al. (2010) claimed the CINS
has been appropriate for assessing the knowledge of high school students, biology nonmajors, and biology majors at ethnically diverse institutions (p.356). However, Nehm and
Schonfeld (2010) countered this claim by asserting that none of the findings from such
administrations of the CINS have yet been published or peer reviewed. The current study
aims to fulfill this research gap. In addition, considering no study currently exists that
explores how teachers make use of the instrument, we argue that supplementing the
CINSs validity and reliability with findings that reveal its classroom utility among
secondary science teachers will add another dimension to the practical value of concept
inventories as pedagogical and assessment tools.

Res Sci Educ
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
Rationale for CIs Rather than viewing alternative conceptions as problematic and unproductive, the research presented here adopts the view that these ideas are useful in
different contexts, especially when other novice ideas are involved (Elby 2000; Smith
et al. 1993). These novice ideas may also be flawed, but they may be refined and
developed for mature understanding (diSessa 1994). Given appropriate instruction, these
novice ideas may be productive in the learning process. Science teacher learning about the
role and value of student ideas may be described as a learning progression which has upper
and lower anchors with multiple pathways between them that are possible (Duncan and
Hmelo-Silver 2009; NRC 2007). The lower anchor could represent an acceptance that
students ideas play a role in learning, and the upper anchor may be considered a more
sophisticated view of student ideas as the raw material of learning, with successful
elicitation and incorporation being integral parts of a teachers practice. When considered
as a whole, this progression approach to viewing student ideas could represent a potentially important shift in how teachers think, especially when one enters the teaching
200
201
202 Q2
203
204
205
206
207
208 Q3
209
210
211
212
213
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
Student Ideas of Biological Phenomena Secondary students explanations for biological

phenomena originate from the body of knowledge they possess as young children. In their
article reviewing young childrens nave theory on biology, Hatano and Inagaki (1994) state
that there are three components that constitute a nave biology: (1) knowledge about the living/
non-living and mind/body distinctions, (2) inference for predicting biological behavior by
making use of personification, and (3) a non-intentional causal explanatory framework for
behaviors needed for individual survival and bodily processes (p. 173). This third component
refers to children possessing an intermediate form of causality (i.e., vitalistic causality) to
explain biological phenomena because they cannot yet offer mechanical explanations with
physiological mechanisms. When children reason with a vitalistic causality, they explain that a
biological phenomenon is caused by an organisms internal organ(s) activating its agency in
the form of an unidentified substance, energy, or information. Hatano and Inagaki hypothesize
that vitalistic causality is quite similar to a teleological-functional explanation for biological
processes and most likely originates from childrens use of personification; in that, children try
to understand biological phenomena by attributing human-like characteristics to target objects.
As is the case with nave ideas, childrens nave theory on biology allows them to problem
solve and make sense of the biological phenomena they encounter on a daily basis. In fact,
children immediately access personification and vitalistic causality when they are introduced
to a biological concept and the easy accessibility of the second and third components of this
nave theory continues to hinder the development of evolutionary ideas as children get older.
If students are to learn about evolution and other biological concepts in a meaningful way, a
restructuring of the nave theory is required. As students get older, their use of personification
and vitalistic causality should change toward more scientific explanations as they learn about
inferences based on a complex biological hierarchy and physiological mechanisms (Hatano
and Inagaki 1994). Indeed, various researchers (e.g., Danish et al. 2011; Dickes and Sengupta
2013) have investigated students reasoning through complex biological phenomena and
found conceptual growth along this dimension with elementary students while they were
engaged and participating in ecosystem simulations (i.e., ecosystems with honeybees and
birds-butterflies, respectively). Furthermore, prior research indicates that high school and
college students can also obtain deeper conceptual growth with complex biological phenomena (i.e., population dynamics) when participating in such models and simulations (Wilensky
and Reisman 2006).

Res Sci Educ
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
RQ1: From when it was originally validated on a group of undergraduate students, what
comparisons can be made about the CINSs internal validity when it is now administered
to a group of high school students?
RQ2: As observed through alignment with CINS concepts, to what extent did a group of
biology teachers use the concept inventorys pre-assessment results to guide and inform
instruction on evolution by natural selection?
254
255
256
257
258
259
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
profession with a conception that science knowledge is transferable from one individual to
another (Duncan and Hmelo-Silver 2009).
If used as resources during instruction, alternative conceptions can foster further growth and
development of ideas and ultimately lead to meaningful understanding of scientific concepts
(Elby 2000; diSessa 1994; Scott et al. 2007; Larkin 2012). Alternative conceptions that are
elicited and used for learning are closely tied to different formative assessment efforts of
scientific concepts (Black and Wiliam 1998a, b), but these efforts may also access personal,
environmental, and social resources as well (Cohen et al. 2003), which then may bring about a
metacognitive awareness in students about their alternative ideas (Larkin 2012). In this sense,
students receive opportunities to compare their alternative frameworks with other ideas when
they offer explanations, make arguments, and provide justifications (Beeth and Hewson 1999;
Hennessey 2003; Duckworth 2006).
The importance of being aware of students worldviews, beliefs, and alternative conceptions cannot be underestimated, and many methods, such as journal writing, concept maps,
student questioning, small-group work, word associations, and CIs, have been proposed as
instructional strategies for teachers to use in order to elicit student ideas (Mintzes et al. 2000;
van Zee et al. 2001; Hovardas and Korfiatis 2006; Anderson et al. 2002). Once elicited, the
resources present in students alternative conceptions can then be leveraged for conceptual
understanding (e.g., Rivet and Krajcik 2008) with different instructional strategies.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that CIs utility as a resource is only valuable as instruction
that allows students to construct new representations of complex scientific phenomena (Duschl
et al. 2007; Lehrer et al. 2000; Lehrer and Schauble 2006).
As opposed to other formal varieties of assessment (i.e., high-stake state tests), which often
do not relay valuable information about student alternative conceptions to teachers, CIs have
the potential to stimulate discussions among teachers about student learning because of their
goals in probing conceptual understanding. In using the recently developed Host Pathogen
Interaction Concept Inventory (HPI-CI) among undergraduates, Marbach-Ad et al. (2010)
discovered that the instrument became the best catalyst (p. 415) to get instructors to begin
discussions about student learning. The HPI-CI results brought about internal professional
development opportunities with the various instructors, and Marbach-Ad et al. went on to say
that As a teaching community, we found that the HPI-CI anchored and deepened discussions
of student learningConfronting our expectations of student learning with student responses
challenged us to think and converse in a reflective manner (p. 415). Nevertheless, it is the goal
of the education community that CIs are actually measuring what they intend to measure so
that reliable and accurate information can be effectively discussed and used by teachers.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon education researchers to investigate the various properties of
CIs among different populations.
The present study aligns itself within this vein of research inquiry; in that, it explores the
adaptability of a CI, namely, the CINS, for use at the high school level by answering the
following research questions:
261
Res Sci Educ
260
262
Data collection took place with 339 students enrolled in every biology class (n = 22)
offered in a science department at a large (approximately 1700 students) urban high school
in the southwest USA. Four teachers (100 % of biology teachers in department) participated in the study. The study site serves grades 912 and is located within a predominantly
(81 %) Latino community. At the time of data collection, about 90 % of the study sites
student population was of Latino origin (compared with state average of 50 %), 69 % were
classified as at-risk (state average = 45 %), 14 % demonstrated limited English proficiency
(state average = 17 %), and 87 % were economically disadvantaged (state average = 60 %).
According to the state in which the study site is located, at-risk is defined as someone
who meets any one of 13 different criteria that may place a student at risk of dropping out of
school. These criteria include non-advancement from one grade to the next, previous
expulsion, demonstrating limited English proficiency, being pregnant or a parent, homelessness, failure to maintain a passing average in two or more subject areas, and under the
custody/care of child protective services. In addition, a student is considered economically
disadvantaged if he/she is eligible for free or reduced-price lunch under federal guidelines
(State Education Agency 2015).
According to the study sites state guidelines, a student who demonstrates limited English
proficiency (or is an English language learner) possesses a primary language other than
English and has difficulty performing ordinary class work in English. The students in the
present study who received the English language learner classification may have been
receiving official sheltered or bilingual support in other content areas from the study site but
not in their biology instruction (other than the instructional strategies with which the teacher
participants were familiar).
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
Investigating CINSs Validity in a High School Context
286
In order to investigate the CINSs adaptability for high school use, the original instrument
underwent slight modifications using feedback that was generated when the original version
was administered to a group of approximately 1520 volunteer 11th grade students enrolled in
a general chemistry class at the study site 1 year prior to formal data collection taking place
(Authors 2012). Specifically, the modified version of the original CINS had various vocabulary terms explained (e.g., iridescent = reflective) that may have posed difficulty to high school
students, included illustrations of the animals from each CINS reading passage, and removed
citations. See separate attached appendix for a full copy of the modified version given to
students. A reading passage that provides some background on the Galapagos finches and a
sample question with answer choices from the original CINS are shown below.
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
Scientists have long believed that the 14 species of finches on the Galapagos Islands
evolved from a single species of finch that migrated to the islands one to five million
years ago (Lack 1940). Recent DNA analyses support the conclusion that all of the
Galapagos finches evolved from the warbler finch (Grant, Grant, and Petren 2001;
Petren, Grant, and Grant 1999). Different species live on different islands. For example,
the medium-ground finch and the cactus finch live on one island. The large cactus finch
occupies another island. One of the major changes in the finches is in their beak sizes
and shapes, as shown in this figure.
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
Materials and Methods

Res Sci Educ
307
306
PR
O
O
F
What would happen if a breeding pair of finches was placed on an island under ideal
conditions with no predators and unlimited food so that all individuals survived? Given
enough time
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
Here is the same reading passage and sample question with answer choices from the
modified version in the present study.
318
319
Scientists have long believed that the 14 species of finches on the Galapagos Islands
evolved from a single species of bird that came to the islands one to five million years
ago. Recent DNA studies support the conclusion that all of the Galapagos finches
evolved from the warbler finch. Different species live on different islands. For example,
the medium-ground finch and the cactus finch live on one island. The large cactus finch
lives on another island. One of the major differences between the finches is in their beak
sizes and shapes, as shown in the picture below.
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
(a) The finch population would stay small because birds only have enough babies to replace
themselves.
(b) The finch population would double and then stay relatively stable.
(c) The finch population would increase dramatically.
(d) The finch population would grow slowly and then level off.
330
329
What would happen if a breeding pair of finches was placed on an island under ideal
conditions with no predators and unlimited food so that all individuals survived? Given
enough time
331
332
333
334
335
(a) The finch population would stay small because birds only have enough babies to replace
themselves.
(b) The finch population would double and then stay relatively the same.
(c) The finch population would increase dramatically.
(d) The finch population would grow slowly and then level off.
336
337
338
339
340

Res Sci Educ
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
Investigating Teachers Use of the CINS
378
The teachers who participated in investigating the CINSs adaptability for their classes all
taught biology to >95 % of the study sites freshmen (ninth graders). All four teachers had
varying amounts of experience. Participants are referred to by the pseudonyms teachers A, B,
C, and D. Personal participant data is found in Table 1.
RQ no. 2 used a variety of data sources which mainly included (a) observations of the four
biology teachers in their classrooms during their evolutionary instructional units with their
students and common planning meetings and (b) individual interviews (both before, during,
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
Adjusting the CINSs reading passages and answer choices with the suggested changes
improved its overall readability for the current studys student population of ninth-grade
biology students. The original and modified CINS versions were analyzed for readability
using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level and Flesch Reading Ease tests (Kincaid et al. 1975).
With the Flesch-Kincaid, a score closest to zero indicates easier readability. The exact opposite
is true with the Flesch Reading Ease score (FRES), where a score closest to 100 indicates
easier readability. The original version of the CINS had a Flesch-Kincaid grade level score of
9.7 (indicating that an average ninth-tenth grader could understand its text) and a FRES of 53,
which was slightly beyond the upper limit of what an average 13- to 15-year-old student could
easily understand. The modified CINS had a slightly lower Flesch-Kincaid grade level score
(9.4), and a higher FRES of 56, indicating the text was somewhat more on par with what an
average ninth grader (in his/her second semester) could understand.
The CINS was administered to the biology students as a pre-test approximately three to four
class meetings before the students respective teachers instructional unit on evolution began
(which occurred at the mid-point of the academic years second semester). In order to promote
thoughtful and carefully chosen answers among the students, every teacher used the pre-test as
a form of extra credit on various assignments of the teachers choosing. The teachers made
their students aware of this incentive through an in-class announcement before the pre-test was
administered. Although the students were administered a post-test as well, pre-test information
is reported here because of the precedent established by Anderson et al., in which the original
CINS was administered as an in-class pre-test before any instruction on natural selection
concepts had begun. After each teachers students were initially assessed with the CINS, the
students results were compiled and distributed to each teacher. Each teacher received an
overall breakdown of his/her students results according to each question on the CINS (see
example shown in Fig. 1).
In order to answer RQ no. 1, the modified CINS underwent a PCA with the student
participants (n = 339), who were mostly (>95 %) enrolled as ninth graders. A PCA is a data
reduction procedure that helps to interpret data in a more meaningful form by reducing a
number of variables to a few linear combinations of the data. Each linear combination then
corresponds to a principal component, and taken together, principal components can highlight
similarities and differences in data (Jackson 1991). This technique is particularly useful when
using data with a number of dimensions (as is the case with the CINSs 10 different conceptual
categories). The original CINS, which was validated on a population of undergraduate
community college students (n = 206) not majoring in biology, had also undergone a PCA,
and its results demonstrated strong support for the internal validity of [its] underlying
measurement structure (Anderson et al. 2002, p. 968). The present PCA was conducted using
SPSS statistical software.

Res Sci Educ
Answer problems are grouped according to the natural selection concept they are designed to
address. Answer choices with (*) are correct. All other answer choices are alternative
conceptions students may possess.
PER. 1
N=8
AVG. SCORE
PER. 4
N=14
PER. 5
N=20
PER. 7
N=18
TOTAL
N=81
5.63
6.38
7.36
6.85
7.39
6.81
28.13%
31.9%
36.79%
34.25%
36.94%
34.07%
PER. 1
N=8
PER. 2
N=21
PER. 4
N=14
PER. 7
N=18
TOTAL
N=81
13%
10%
7%
20%
6%
11%
0%
14%
14%
30%
6%
15%
63%
5%
57%
35%
89%
42%
15%
0%
28%
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
#1
Biotic Potential
A
Organisms only replace themselves.
B
Populations level off.
C*
All species have such great potential
fertility that their population size would
increase exponentially if all individuals
that are born would again reproduce
successfully.
PR
O
O
F
AVG. #
CORRECT
ANSWERS
PER. 2
N=21
D
Populations level off.
25%
71%
21%
PER.5
N=20
Fig. 1 Example of student pre-test summary results presented to teacher B
and after their instructional units) with these teachers regarding their personal perspectives on
the CINS, evolution, science teaching, student knowledge, and their classroom strategies for
teaching evolution. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and member checked for
accuracy. While the teachers views on the CINSs classroom utility emerged as themes from
the different interviews, it was still necessary to track each teachers participation during
common planning meetings and instruction during classroom events to gauge how (or if) the
students pre-test performance on each of the CINS concepts influenced the teachers practices.
The teachers officially met once a week for common planning sessions (with the exception
of teacher C who cited personal reasons for not attending any of the meetings). This 45-min
period was built within their schedules and designated as a time for the teachers to share lesson
plans and resources. How this time was used may have had an influence on the instructional
strategies and activities that were used for the evolutionary instructional unit. Therefore, it was
important to take note of any conversations among these teachers that centered on the students
t1:1
Table 1 Teacher participant personal data for current study
t1:2
Teacher
Years of biology
teaching
experience
Highest
degree
earned
Undergraduate major
No. of biology
classes
teaching
No. of
biology
students
t1:3
BS
Zoology
94
t1:4
BS
Biology and land surveying
81
t1:5
BA/BS
Chemistry, biology, and biochemistry
82
t1:6
1 semester
BS
Biology
82
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398

Res Sci Educ
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
Results
434
The primary goal of this study was to explore the CINSs adaptability to a typical high school
setting, which included using a student population that was distinctly different from the
undergraduate community college student population with which the CINS was originally
validated. Whereas the original student population was described as being diverse and
enrolled in a semester-long biology course with a curriculum that was open to instructor
design and flexibility, the current studys students were mostly members of a traditionally
underserved minority group whose mandatory biology education was guided and overseen by
many structured state standards.
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
CINS results and how they may have informed the teachers lesson planning. The first author
attended and observed all of these meetings recording events and topics of conversation in the
form of field notes. Each of these meetings was audio recorded, transcribed, and member
checked for accuracy.
A schedule was used to consistently observe an afternoon class from each teacher during
his/her instructional unit. As a result, the following teachers classes were formally observed
and video recorded by the first author: teacher Ds fifth period, teacher Cs sixth period, teacher
Bs seventh period, and teacher As eighth period. With the exception of teacher Cs pre-AP
biology sixth period class, all observed classes were regular biology classes. All observations
lasted the entire length of each class. Classes were observed and video recorded only when the
teachers were present. Each teachers instructional unit spanned 910 days. All classes were
approximately 4550 min in length and scheduled to meet every day.
RQ no. 2 was analyzed largely by a review of the extent with which each teacher
incorporated CINS concepts into his/her practice and how any information from the CINS
(the instrument itself or student results) was used to plan and/or revise lessons and reflect upon
the instructional unit on evolution. The overall presence of the CINSs concepts in the
teachers classes was measured by reviewing their instructional activities and video transcripts
for these classes. Statistical significance of the concepts presence was determined through a
chi-squared test. Further examination of the concepts presence was made by determining the
number of teacher-student interactions that occurred during random portions (up to 30 %) of
each teachers observed classroom instruction. That is, each time a teacher initiated a formal
question or made a statement that incorporated the use of a CINS concept during these
portions, that particular interaction was counted as a distinct instance in which a CINS concept
was used. In general, teacher or student follow-up questions were not included in the CINS
interactions count because they were still considered to be in the main line of conceptual
thought during the entire interaction. These portions were independently coded by the first
author and a recent doctoral graduate in science education with a coding scheme (see Table 2)
that used the operationalized definitions of the previously mentioned CINS concepts from
Anderson et al. (2002).
Both coders achieved an inter-rater agreement of >95 %, and any differences were resolved
by discussion. For an example of how one such interaction was coded with the coding scheme,
see Fig. 2. Some interactions may have had as many as 10 teacher-student exchanges or as few
as one based on how often the line of thought between concepts changed. Student-student
interactions were not included so as to maintain focus on the teachers use of the CINS as a
classroom tool.

Res Sci Educ
Table 2 Coding scheme for occurrences of CINS concepts during instructional activities and teacher-student
interactions
t2:2
Codes for occurrences

of CINS concepts
Criteria for CINS concepts presence among instructional activities and

teacher-student interactions (from Anderson et al. 2002)
t2:3
t2:4
Differential survival
t2:5
Variation within a population
Activity/interaction involves students learning about

Biological fitness in that those individuals whose surviving characteristics
fit them best to their environment are likely to leave more offspring
than less fit individuals
How individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics
t2:6
Inheritable variation
Traits being inherited from parent to offspring
t2:7
Limited survival
How production of more individuals than the environment can support

leads to a struggle for existence among individuals of a population
t2:8
Natural resources
Natural resources necessary for organisms to live are in limited supply

at any given time
t2:9
Change in a population
How (1) the unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce will
lead to gradual change in a population, as opposed to individual members,
and (2) learned behaviors are not inherited
t2:10
Origin of variation
How random mutations and sexual reproduction produce variations,

and while many are harmful or of no consequence, a few are beneficial
in some environments
t2:11
Origin of species
t2:12
Biotic potential
How an isolated population may change so much over time that it becomes
a new species
Species having great potential fertility in that their population size would
increase exponentially if all individuals that are born would again
reproduce successfully
t2:13
Population stability
Populations being mostly stable in size except for seasonal fluctuations
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
t2:1
Given the current studys overall goal, student results and teacher actions had vital roles in
relaying information. Accordingly, the results section is divided into two major parts. Part one
addresses our first research question and presents the results of the current studys PCA. This
PCA is then compared to Anderson et al.s original PCA and examined for similarities and
differences among the two different study populations. In part two, we focus on our second
research question and present if and how closely teacher instruction was aligned to CINS
concepts as a result of the teachers interpreting their respective students pre-test CINS results.
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
RQ No. 1
450
Theoretically, the CINSs final PCA would have 10 components that explain the variation
among the 20 test items, with each component representing a separate natural selection
concept. Furthermore, each set of two items that are designed to measure a single concept
451
452
453
Teacher A: So over time...say 10...15 generations later...you come back and you look at this population
of birds [Change in a Population (CP)] living on the island, what do their beaks look like?
SS: Big.
Teacher A: Big...why? [Variation in a Population (VP)]
S1: Because of [Student L]...
Teacher A: ...So everybody else that had larger beaks is surviving. [Differential Survival (DS)] So their
genes are going forward and the ones that had genes [Inheritable Variation (IV)] for smaller beaks
[VP]...not going anywhere [IV].
Fig. 2 Example of how coding scheme for occurrences of CINS concepts was used within one of teacher As
interactions on day 1 of her instructional unit

Res Sci Educ
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
RQ No. 2
479
We begin the results for RQ no. 2 by providing an overview of how the current studys
students performed on the CINS before their teachers instructional units on evolution
commenced (see Table 4). As mentioned previously, the CINS assesses 10 different concepts
related to natural selection. On average, the current studys students experienced less difficulty
with questions that assessed biotic potential, variation within a population, and inheritable
variation. Conversely, the students experienced most difficulty with questions that assessed
origin of variation and differential survival. For a concise description of each of these CINS
concepts, please refer to Table 2. The overall pre-test results from the current studys students
became a useful guide to explore which CINS concepts were more or less emphasized by these
teachers during instruction.
After reviewing her students pre-test results, teacher A commented that the results
confirmed what she already knew about her students alternative conceptions. Nevertheless,
she did appreciate the breakdown of her students data and some of the results helped her with
realizing and confirming which evolutionary concepts needed to be stressed throughout her
instructional unit. For example, teacher A described how the concept of biological fitness (or
differential survival, in CINS terminology) was particularly important; Its likewith the
fitness and what does that mean to them and stuffso that was like, Uh-huhkind of
figuredmostly in that way. Its likethose are the particular areas that we need to hit.
(post-instruction interview)
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
should both load on the same component. The present study maintained the same criteria for
determining the final PCA solution as Anderson et al.s original study (2002). The criteria
included (a) having a large proportion of the total matrix variation explained, (b) having a
high number of items with a strong (>.40) loading on at least one component, (c) having a
minimum number of complex items (items with strong loadings on more than one component), and (d) having a component pattern that was theoretically interpretable (p. 966).
In contrast to Anderson et al.s optimal seven-component extraction, the present study
retained the eight-component extraction (due to the number of eigenvalues >1 rule), which
accounted for 55 % of the total variance (Anderson et al.s seven components accounted for
53 % of the total variance). The comparative results from both varimax-rotated component
matrices are found in Table 3.
In Anderson et al.s PCA, all 20 items (questions) loaded >.40 on at least one component.
The present study had 16 items which loaded >.40 on at least one component. No items loaded
>.40 on multiple components in the present study (versus Anderson et al.s question 12 which
loaded on components 3 and 5). Striking differences can be seen when examining the specific
pairs of items. In Anderson et al.s original study, 9 of the 10 pairs of items that represented
the 10 different evolutionary concepts emerged together on the same component (p. 966).
That pattern is not readily seen in the present study, with the exception of questions 4 and 13,
which probed for change in a population. In addition, the present study shows seemingly
unrelated questions emerging on the same component (e.g., questions 11, 12, and 9 all loading
on component 2). The fact that there is contrast between these and Anderson et al.s results
may indicate that the CINS is also detecting the present studys students lack of expertise with
natural selection concepts; in that, the students could be responding to surface features of the
questions, as opposed to deeper conceptual understanding. At the ninth-grade level, this
surface-level response is most likely to be expected.

Res Sci Educ
Table 3 PCA comparison between current study and Anderson et al.s (2002) original study for the CINS
t3:2
Component
t3:3
Item
t3:4
Biotic potential
t3:5
t3:6
t3:7
t3:8
3
12
2
.706
.502
5
15
16
.502
17
.743
t3:28
t3:29
t3:30
t3:31
t3:32
t3:33
.443
.737
.547
Inherited variation
7
t3:27
.756
.569
t3:20
t3:26
.591
.669
t3:21
t3:25
.684
.569
.589
.596
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
t3:24
.455
t3:18
t3:22
t3:23
.667
5
.672
Limited survival
t3:17
t3:19
.714
Natural resources
14
t3:16
.594
.845
t3:12
t3:14
t3:15
3
.624
t3:11
t3:13
1
11
t3:9
t3:10
PR
O
O
F
t3:1
.513
.687
10
18
.769
.472
.562
4
.406
.636
13
.671
.722
Origin of variation
6
19
.501
.659
.725
.667
Origin of species
t3:34
.418
t3:35
20
.593
Anderson et al.s original study (2002) and the present studys loading values are compared. Values for the
present study are in boldface
Teacher B welcomed the CINS as a form of assessment and found it to be more useful in
relaying student understanding as opposed to other forms of assessment, such as results from
the state-mandated tests. She also found value with the student results that were presented to
her after the pre-test administration. Teacher B admitted pleasant surprise with the way her
students answered some of the questions and used some of the results as an additional guide
for planning instructional activities and deciding which concepts really needed to be stressed
and those that did not.
499
500
501
502
503
504
505

Res Sci Educ
t4:1
Table 4 Percentage of student correct responses on CINS pre-test grouped according to each teacher
t4:2
CINS concept
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D Average
No. 1
Biotic potential
69 %
42 %
67 %
57 %
59 %
t4:4
No. 11
Biotic potential
48 %
27 %
54 %
49 %
45 %
t4:5
No. 2
Natural resources
51 %
62 %
53 %
60 %
57 %
t4:6
t4:7
No. 14
No. 3
Natural resources
29 %
71 %
23 %
67 %
33 %
63 %
21 %
58 %
27 %
65 %
t4:8
No. 12
25 %
19 %
31 %
23 %
25 %
t4:9
No. 4
29 %
26 %
22 %
21 %
25 %
t4:10
No. 13
36 %
31 %
25 %
21 %
28 %
t4:11
No. 5
Limited survival
39 %
26 %
40 %
38 %
36 %
t4:12
No. 15
Limited survival
20 %
22 %
28 %
27 %
24 %
t4:13
No. 6
Origin of variation
14 %
11 %
9%
11 %
11 %
t4:14
t4:15
No. 19
No. 7
Origin of variation
44 %
68 %
31 %
62 %
40 %
56 %
26 %
51 %
35 %
59 %
t4:16
No. 17
53 %
46 %
42 %
28 %
42 %
t4:17
No. 8
Origin of species
35 %
46 %
37 %
29 %
37 %
t4:18
No. 20
Origin of species
28 %
25 %
24 %
20 %
24 %
t4:19
No. 9
43 %
38 %
41 %
38 %
40 %
t4:20
No. 16
66 %
49 %
78 %
51 %
61 %
t4:21
No. 10
10 %
17 %
17 %
12 %
14 %
t4:22
t4:23
No. 18
14 %
Average number of student respondents on pre-test 83
15 %
81
19 %
80
15 %
81
16 %
38 %
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
t4:3
What I did like about itis it gave me an idea of what they understood and what I didnt
know that they understood. And I kind of like that because there some stuff that I chose
that they didnt, and I was like, Oh wowThey do understand this a little more than I
thought they had. So that was kind of nice. It kind of helps you with the lesson in the
sense that Im like, Well, I dont really have to go and talk about that because they do
know. So I can kind of just skim through this. (post-instruction interview)
Teacher C stated that he did use the students pre-test results to help guide his instruction
and planning, but justification of his claim is difficult to ascertain as there exists little
evidence. He provided no specific examples as to how the CINS results were affecting his
practice. He mentioned he paid particular attention to the CINS concepts his students found
difficult and made an effort to incorporate and concentrate on these concepts more than he
normally would. However, evidence pertaining to his claim was elusive because of the few
total interactions that exist with his students regarding these concepts (see Table 4). In
addition, there was a lack of instructional activities in which his students were engaged
with these concepts.
The novice (with regards to teaching experience) of the group, teacher D found herself still
being acquainted with the various forms of assessment made available to her. She explored her
different options and found the CINS to be a useful form of assessment; in that, it provided
practical information about how her students understood natural selection concepts, especially
with differential survival. From this information, teacher D occasionally tweaked her
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527

Res Sci Educ
instructional unit in different places to ensure that her students received optimal engagement
with natural selection concepts. Teacher D cited an example.
528
529
cause when I looked at that, I could see what they would be thinking for fitness. So, I
did give more like examples of what fitnesswell, which one do you think is more fit
and then we would do that. I had a mission countdown [warm-up questions], I think, too.
So, I added that. (post-instruction interview)
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
12
10
8
6
4
Tchr A
2
Tchr B
Differential Survival
Variation Within a
Population
Origin of Species
Inheritable Variation
Origin of Variation
Limited Survival
Change in a Population
Population Stability
Natural Resources
Biotic Potential
During Instructional Unit
Total Occurrences of CINS Concepts
PR
O
O
F
As mentioned previously, 10 concepts encompass natural selection on the CINS. Figure 3

displays how often each CINS concept occurred across the instructional activities within each
teachers instructional unit. Overall results did not yield any significance with certain CINS
concepts being more or less emphasized than others. Based on descriptive results, the CINS
concepts of inheritable variation and differential survival received slightly more mention than
other CINS concepts during the teachers instructional units. None of the teachers instructional activities placed an emphasis and built on the concept of population stability.
Tables 5 and 6 provide an overview of the teacher-student evolution-related interactions that
occurred during each teachers instructional unit. While Table 5 gives an overall sense of the
amount and sort of classroom interactions each teacher had during instruction, Table 6 further
categorizes the CINS interactions into those which had a specific focus on CINS concepts. In
addition, the concepts with which each teachers students experienced most and least difficulty
are indicated, thereby enabling trends to be observed and noted between these most and least
difficult concepts for students and the amount of interactions devoted to specific CINS
concepts during instruction.
An avid questioner of her students, teacher A had an approximate 181 interactions with her
students throughout her instructional unit and of those interactions; approximately 51 %
(n = 92) were devoted to CINS concepts (see Table 5). She had her students engage with
almost all (with the exception of two, biotic potential and population stability; see Table 6) of
the CINS concepts in some form or another during her instructional unit. Several of her
instructional activities also coincided with various CINS concepts (see Fig. 3), and some of
these concepts appeared more frequently (e.g., differential survival and inheritable variation)
Tchr C
Tchr D
CINS Concept
Fig. 3 Total number of targeted CINS concepts found within instructional activities across each teachers
evolutionary unit

Res Sci Educ
t5:1
Table 5 Each teachers percentage of interactions with CINS concepts and other evolution-related ideas among
his/her total teacher-student evolutionary interactions
t5:2
Number of total teacher-student

evolution-related interactions
during instructional unit
Teacher-student interactions
with CINS concepts (%)
Other evolution-related
teacher-student interactions
(%)
181
125
51
40
49
60
Teacher A
Teacher B
t5:5
Teacher C
88
56
44
t5:6
Teacher D
128
34
66
PR
O
O
F
t5:3
t5:4
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
than others with the selection of these activities. Not surprisingly, the frequency of these
concepts with her instructional activities matched the frequency of her interactions with her
students.
Using a variety of instructional strategies and questions (especially during her lectures when
her students were taking notes), teacher B had an approximate 125 different interactions with
her students throughout her instructional unit. Of those interactions, approximately 40 %
(n = 50) were devoted to CINS concepts (see Table 5). Overall, results suggest that teacher
B had her students engage with certain CINS concepts (e.g., origin of species and inheritable
variation; see Table 6) more than other concepts during her instructional unit. The same sort of
trend appears with teacher Bs instructional activities as with her interactions. The CINS
concepts of origin of species and inheritable variation appear more frequently with teacher Bs
use of instructional activities (see Fig. 3).
Throughout his instructional unit, teacher C had approximately 88 interactions with his
students on the topic of evolution. Compared with his colleagues, teacher Cs total interactions
occurred less frequently. Of his 88 interactions, about 34 % (n = 30) specifically dealt with
CINS concepts (see Table 5). When his students were engaged with specific instructional
activities (i.e., watching selected videos, creating word clouds, and presenting music videos),
there was minimal teacher-student or student-student interaction with regard to CINS concepts.
With the exception of differential survival and inheritable variation, teacher Cs students were
not able to explore other CINS concepts with the various instructional activities. The concepts
were briefly mentioned with a few isolated teacher-student exchanges (see Table 6). When his
students did receive opportunities to explore more CINS concepts, the opportunities came all
at once in a teacher-centered lecture toward the end of his instructional unit. Recall that by
choice, teacher C did not participate in common planning meetings with his colleagues.
Whether it being due to his lack of participation in these meetings, uneasiness with evolutionary concepts, or by some other mechanism, there were substantially fewer CINS concepts
found with the instructional activities of his evolutionary unit (see Fig. 3) as opposed to his
colleagues.
Quite methodical and purposeful with her strategies and questioning, teacher D had an
approximate 128 interactions with her students throughout her instructional unit and of those
interactions; approximately 56 % (n = 72) were devoted to CINS concepts (see Table 5).
Teacher Ds overall results demonstrate that her students engaged with almost all (with the
exception of two, biotic potential and population stability; see Table 6) of the CINS concepts
in some form or another during her instructional unit. Similar to her manner in determining
how to interact with her students, teacher D was also conscientious with which instructional
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
Inheritable variation (10)
Limited survival (3)
Natural resources (6)
Change in a population (5)
Origin of variation (2)

Origin of species (4)
Biotic potential (9)
Population stability (7)
t6:7
t6:8
t6:9
t6:10
t6:11
t6:12

Differential survival (1)
Variation within a population (9)
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
10 %
10 %
18 %
0%
0%
7%
7%
7%
13 %
13 %
13 %
17 %

PR
O
O
F

0%
0%
4%
3%
4%
8%
13 %
15 %
24 %
Numbers in parentheses next to CINS concepts indicate rank of difficulty for each teachers respective students. Rankings were obtained from mean percentage of student correct
responses on individual pairs of questions corresponding to each CINS concept
0%
0%
8%
3%
10 %
11 %
11 %
12 %
26 %
29 %
t6:6
23 %
t6:5
13 %
34 %
33 %
t6:4
Teacher D
t6:3
Teacher C
Teacher A
t6:2
Teacher B
Table 6 Percentage of teachers A, B, C, and Ds respective teacher-student interactions with specific CINS concepts among his/her CINS interactions during evolutionary instructional
units
t6:1
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D

Res Sci Educ

Res Sci Educ
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
Discussion
613
Overall results from the present study suggest that the CINS has potential for use in secondary
classes, as evidenced by the studys teacher participants enthusiasm for becoming familiar
with an instrument that can identify their students alternative conceptions. However, further
research with additional secondary school populations will be required in order to refine
various assessment items, particularly because of the teachers demonstrated limited approach
and skepticism about the CINSs use as an instructional tool in its current form. We believe that
the core reasons for this approach and skepticism can be traced back to the CINSs internal
structural properties.
The results of the present studys PCA fall short of the strong support that Anderson et al.
(2002) originally demonstrated for the inventory. Consequently, it appears that some of the
concerns about the CINS that were relayed with Nehm and Schonfelds (2008, 2010) findings
apply in the present studys context as well. Specifically, if the eight components on the present
PCA represent distinct evolutionary concepts, then only one component contained a single set
of question pairs that represented one concept (change in a population). This finding is similar
to that of Nehm and Schonfeld (2008), in which there was only one component that included
a highly correlated suite of key concepts (p. 1145). Most other components revealed where
questions intended to measure different concepts were actually similar to each other. For
example, component 1 contained questions 16 (variation within a population) and 17
(inherited variation). A closer examination of these two questions reveals that they are related
to each other in the respect that they both occur toward the end of the assessment and ask about
features or traits of the Canary Islands lizard population (please refer to separate attachment to
this manuscript for full wording of CINS questions and answer choices). While question 16
was intended to ask about the variability of certain traits and question 17 was intended to ask
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
activities her students engaged. Several of her interactions that involved instructional activities
coincided with various CINS concepts (see Fig. 3) and, like teachers A and B, some of these
concepts appeared more frequently (e.g., differential survival, inheritable variation, and
variation within a population) than others with the selection of these activities. The frequency
of these concepts occurring with her instructional activities approximately matched the
frequency of their occurrence with her total CINS concepts classroom interactions.
With this group of teachers, the overall alignment of interactions and instructional activities
with CINS concepts that may have needed the most attention was met with mixed results.
According to student pre-test responses (see Table 4), differential survival was the most
difficult concept for students to grasp. As verified with teacher responses, classroom interactions, and implementation of instructional activities, the majority of these teachers made
instruction surrounding differential survival a priority (see Table 6). Furthermore, the teachers
may have realized that they could spend less time with certain concepts because their students
seemed to have an overall grasp of these concepts (e.g., biotic potential). However, there were
still less conceptually difficult CINS concepts that were prioritized during instruction over
other concepts that were considerably more difficult for students. For example, every teacher
spent significant instructional time with inheritable variation (see Fig. 3 and Table 6), even
though students demonstrated overall competency with this concept; whereas, three of four
teachers placed less instructional priority with origin of variation, a concept with which
students seemed to grapple.

Res Sci Educ
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
about how such traits were passed down from generation to generation, it is entirely reasonable
that a high school student sees these concepts as being very closely related, being that many
traits manifest themselves as physical characteristics and these traits are inherited from parents.
Also, some students may have resorted to guessing for the answers to these questions as these
questions appeared toward the end of the assessment.
The same rationale can be used for questions 2 (natural resources) and 5 (limited survival),
which were both contained in component 3. Both questions had very similar wording in that
they asked about the relationships between the Galapagos finches and their food supply. Many
of the students most likely viewed these particular questions as practically indistinguishable
from each other and may have been reacting to the surface-level features of these questions
rather than any deep conceptual understanding. Follow-up questions with a sample of students
would be required to corroborate this claim, but for the moment, it remains a reasonable
hypothesis. Anderson et al. revealed a similar finding in stating, This is not surprising because
when students understand that there is a competition for resources, they acknowledge that
some individuals die (p. 968).
In a similar vein, the current analysis showed that questions 1 (biotic potential) and 15
(limited survival) were both contained on component 5 (which seems to be related to the
aforementioned component 3). Question 1 was designed to assess a students understanding of
how populations would grow if there were ideal conditions, that is, no predators and unlimited
food. Question 15s scenario of predicting what would happen to a population when the food
supply was limited was the exact opposite in nature. Therefore, students may have viewed
these two questions as being very similar to one another because of the questions inherent
opposing realitieswhen a population has an unlimited food supply, it thrives, and when food
becomes scarce, individuals begin to starve and die.
The other two questions which were found on a single component were questions 6 (origin
of variation) and 18 (differential survival). These two questions were contained in component
8, and it was initially unclear as to why they clustered together. Question 6 asked about how
different finch beak types may have appeared on the Galapagos Islands, whereas question 18
dealt with notions of biological fitness. These questions appear to be assessing two distinct
ideas, but upon closer inspection of specific answer choices, there appears to be a subtle
relationship between these two questions for this population of students. Question 6s answer
choices (i.e., answer choices b and d) contain language that suggests the acquisition of specific
traits through generations, and in a similar manner, question 18s data table also has language
regarding traits and offspring. It is conceivable that the present studys students perceived these
two questions as being related to the acquisition of inherited traits through time.
There were two instances in which three different questions were contained on a single
component. In one case, all three questions were designed to be assessing three separate
natural selection concepts. Questions 9 (variation in a population), 11 (biotic potential), and
12 (population stability) were all contained in component 2. Such an instance never occurred
in the original studys PCA. These three questions all used the context of the Venezuelan
guppies to assess the seemingly different concepts. Questions 11 and 12 are more related to
one another in the sense that, like the situation mentioned above with questions 1 and 15, one
question describes a scenario where there are ideal conditions for a population to grow
(question 11) and the other question describes a more realistic setting where there are predators
that threaten population expansion (question 12). Question 9, which describes the overall
features of the guppy population, is more peripherally related to questions 11 and 12.
Nevertheless, students may have gleaned from question 9s answer choices that the
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683

Res Sci Educ
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
populations characteristics certainly have an influence on certain members survival when

they are faced with predators. As a whole, these three questions were tied to the entire theme of
population dynamics, and the variability of a population is a strong determinant of how a
population fluctuates or remains the same.
The next case which had three questions load strongly on a single component was a bit
different from the previously mentioned case; in that, two of the questions (questions 4 and 13)
represented a pair that was originally designed to assess one conceptchange in a population.
Question 7 (inheritable variation) was the third question that was contained in component 4.
Questions 4 and 13 described scenarios from two different contexts (i.e., Galapagos finches
and Venezuelan guppies) and probed for the main changes that occur in a population over time.
The answer choices of these two questions used genetic-inclined language (e.g., traits,
passed on to their babies, and mutations), and this may explain why the students related
these questions to question 7. Question 7 also dealt with the Galapagos finches and directly
asked what type of variation was being passed on future finch populations. The students may
have reasoned that only genetic variation can be inherited and the main mechanism by which
changes can occur in populations is through inheritance.
There were four questions which were not contained in any component: questions 8 (origin
of species), 10 (differential survival), 14 (natural resources), and 20 (origin of species).
Questions 8 and 20 probed for understanding of origin of species, and this may have been a
case of the students truly having a limited awareness of how different species arise. Indeed,
when teacher C asked his students what their thoughts were about the origins of plants on an
island, many students were unable to offer any explanations, and those that did offer an
explanation claimed some force or something in the soil made the plants appear. Within
the study sites home state, the concept of speciation is not fully realized until high school. In
fact, there is minimal mention of speciation in the elementary and middle grades according to
the state standards. Question 14 dealt with the availability of food for the Canary Islands
lizards. However, when taken and read independently, the question suggests that an understanding of the food supply on the Canary Islands may be required in order to correctly answer
the question. Since the students had never heard of the Canary Islands, they may have believed
that it was impossible to correctly answer the question if one had no familiarity with the food
supply dynamics of the Canary Islands. Lastly, it is unclear why question 10 was not contained
in any component. Question 10 probed understanding of biological fitness and was intended to
detect any alternative conceptions that dealt with strength, size, speed, and agility. Further
exploration into this question and its counterpart (question 18) will be needed in order to see
how these items can be improved for future use.
Since the CINS was such an integral component of the current study, the teachers may have
had a heightened awareness of the concepts involved with natural selection, but this was not
always the case. Granted, the teachers units involved other evolutionary topics, such as
evidence for evolution, sexual selection, and genetic drift, that were not specific to the
CINSs topics, but teachers A and D demonstrated efficiency with natural selection concepts,
with more than half of their total interactions with students from their units dealing with CINS
concepts. Teachers B and C were not as efficient with their frequencies occurring below 50 %.
When examining the occurrence of a CINS concept, especially in the form of written questions
or other tasks, teachers A, B, and Ds students received opportunities to make associations with
these concepts two to three times more than teacher Cs students were able to do so, suggesting
that the three teachers who common planned together maintained a tighter adherence to natural
selection concepts than did the single teacher who planned in isolation.
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730

Res Sci Educ
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
Teacher Comments
745
PR
O
O
F
As mentioned previously, certain CINS concepts received more mention than others by
the teachers, with an increased frequency on differential survival and inheritable variation.
As noted in the Results section, the students pre-test results on CINS questions dealing
with differential survival were of special interest to some of the teachers and the results
may have guided these teachers to frequently mention this concept. These teachers often
used the phrase survival of the fittest to help explain natural selection. Once this phrase
was used, the teachers inevitably followed up with their students by asking them what was
meant by being fit or fitness. Inheritable variation dealt with organisms different
adaptations and how traits were passed from one generation to the next. The topic of
genetics had been taught by all four teachers directly before evolution, and since inheritable variation was closely related to genetics, this concept seemed like a natural segue to
and consistent thread during their evolutionary instructional units. By continually emphasizing inheritable variation, the teachers found this to be an effective way to see how well
their students had learned genetic concepts.
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
Ultimately, the teachers believed that the CINS was a more progressive way to gain insight
into what students are thinking as opposed to other traditional formal assessments with which
they had experience. They could see themselves adopting the CINS in some form or another as
part of their teaching practice, provided that some modifications were made with it, such as
cutting its length in half because the teachers believed the CINS with its reading passages and
20 multiple-choice questions was too long. However, it was difficult for the teachers to
describe the CINSs potential for use as anything else other than a test, quiz, or daily warmup questions. No teacher could describe focusing a lesson around a single reading passage or
its associated questions, but teachers B and C believed that their students could benefit from
having their overall results communicated back to them during the course of the instructional
unit, especially as the students learn each concept. Doing so would allow their students to dig
into the reasons why certain answers were chosen. The students could then relate to and
engage with the CINS more after interpreting the results for either their class or other classes.
Out of the many classroom observations, daily interviews, and common planning meetings
with the teachers, there were very few isolated instances of the teachers mentioning the
students results on the CINS or the CINS itself. This lack of attention may have been
attributed to the presence of other evolutionary topics that had to be included in the teachers
instructional units that were not specifically related to CINS concepts, such as evidence for
evolution. However, another probable theory may come from the variation seen among the
students results. Across each teachers classes, much of the CINS results had varying trends
(see Fig. 1 as an example of varying results for one question). As a result of seeing such
variation, the teachers may not have had a clear sense of how to interpret such varying results
or adjust their instruction. Some of these wide trends may stem from the administration of the
pre-tests; in that, a substantial number of students may have struggled with the CINSs reading
passages and resorted to guessing on some questions. In fact, this claim can be corroborated by
certain teachers recommendations that the CINS be shortened or administered over a period of
several class meetings so that the students could have a more efficient focus in answering the
questions. Also, it was possible that the teachers may have provided key information about any
of the questions to his/her students and resulted in inaccurate measures of student knowledge.
Any of these occurrences may have explained why some of the teachers classes exhibited
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775

Res Sci Educ
776
777
Conclusion
778
In light of Nehm and Schonfelds (2008, 2010) concerns, Anderson et al. (2010) acknowledged that a PCA should be conducted with additional populationsso that items can be
refined as needed (p. 356). In this sprit, the present study examined the internal structure of
the CINS with a different and larger student population with the goal of gauging its usefulness
at the secondary level. As secondary teachers crave for strategies and assessments (like the
CINS) that provide more insight into student thinking, concerns remain if the CI is effectively
measuring what students currently understand. Nehm and Schonfelds argument that the
parallel or dual items for each concept on the CINS are demonstrating inconsistent findings
because of superficial item feature differences and contexts (2010, p. 360) that is supported
by the present studys results. They go on to argue that the CINSs inherent structure (i.e., a
multiple-choice instrument) is at odds with being able to fully diagnose student mental models
of evolutionary thinking. While we acknowledge this argument against forced-choice instruments ( la the CINS from Nehm and Schonfelds perspective), we are not ready to
completely concede the overall potential value of the CINS because we believe that it is
unique among multiple-choice instruments. As opposed to other more traditional forms of
multiple-choice instruments, we respect the CINSs goal of uncovering student ideas about a
difficult and abstract concept in an efficient manner that many secondary teachers can most
likely appreciate. Furthermore, it can potentially be used for a variety of instructional purposesfrom initial identification of alternative ideas to its reading passages and associated
questions serving as the basis of conceptually meaningful small- and whole-group class
discussions.
Within the context of this study, teachers who were all part of the same science department
were introduced to a new approach to elicit student ideas. As opposed to investigating the
CINSs use in isolation with teachers among different campuses, departmental dynamics were
important in this case. The study sites structured professional learning communities among
major academic departments allowed teachers the opportunity to share resources for lessons
and discuss ideas. This structured time in the teachers class schedules enabled three out of the
four teachers to build a sense of community that would make them more open to sharing
lesson ideas and resources, such as how the CINS could be used during instruction or the
student CINS results themselves. Therefore, it was essential to observe teacher interactions
surrounding the CINS at a single campus as a first step in adapting its use at the secondary
level. We believe that the present study makes a valuable contribution in this manner by
extending the use of the instrument to a completely different setting, which must continually
navigate the pressures and constraints of a broad curriculum and high-stake testing and
publicizing the findings for future research directions. Specifically, we believe that future
administrations of the CINS should include follow-up questions and think-alouds about
answers chosen from random samplings of secondary students. Furthermore, additional
support could be lent to the CINSs validity by investigating a rearrangement or reclassification
of its items and comparing the alignment of rearranged/reclassified items with previous results.
Additional issues and support for validation could be raised by investigating answer choices
independently from reading passages and questions for stand-alone rejection or plausibility in
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
wide variation with answer choices, thus resulting in the teachers limited or strategic use of
the information provided by the CINS.

Res Sci Educ
820
821
822
823
824
Acknowledgments We would like to thank the teachers and students of the study site for allowing access and
participating in this study. We also thank the study sites assigned undergraduate tutors from the local university
for their assistance with the on-site organization of data sources. This research was made possible with the major
support of James Barufaldi and the Center for STEM Education at the University of Texas at Austin and
supplemental support from the National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. DRL-0833726 and MSP-0831811). Our
sincere appreciation goes to Angelo Collins and anonymous reviewers for their comments on the drafts of this
manuscript.
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
References
834
PR
O
O
F
a manner similar to Novick and Catleys (2012) examination of the measure of understanding
macroevolution (MUM), a related multiple-choice instrument which was originally developed
by Nadelson and Southerland (2010). Having the CINS as valued resource at the secondary
level is a real and distinct possibility, especially with insight gained from future administrations
with different populations.
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
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, 952978.
Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Smith, M. U. (2010). Support for the CINS as a diagnostic conceptual
inventory: response to Nehm and Schonfeld (2008). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 354357.
Authors (2012)
Beeth, M. E., & Hewson, P. W. (1999). Learning goals in an exemplary science teachers practice: cognitive and
social factors in teaching for conceptual change. Science Education, 83, 738760.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 774.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80, 139148.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119142.
Danish, J. A., Peppier, K., Phelps, D., & Washington, D. (2011). Life in the hive: supporting inquiry into
complexity within the zone of proximal development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5),
454467.
Dickes, A. C., & Sengupta, P. (2013). Learning natural selection in 4th grade with multi-agent-based computational models. Research in Science Education, 43, 921953.
diSessa, A. A. (1994). Speculations on the foundations of knowledge and intelligence. In D. Tirosh (Ed.), Implicit
and explicit knowledge: an educational approach (pp. 154). Norwood: Ablex.
Duckworth, E. R. (2006). The having of wonderful ideas and other essays on teaching and learning (3rd ed.).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Duncan, R. G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Learning progressions: aligning curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 606609.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: learning and
teaching science in grades K-8. Washington: National Academies Press.
Elby, A. (2000). What students learning of representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 481502.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Garvin-Doxas, K., Klymkowsky, M., & Elrod, S. (2007). Building, using, and maximizing the impact of concept
inventories in the biological sciences: report on a National Science Foundation-sponsored conference on the
construction of concept inventories in the biological sciences. CBELife Sciences Education, 6, 277282.
Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 156175.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics
test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 6474.
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1994). Young childrens nave theory of biology. Cognition, 50, 171188.
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872

Res Sci Educ
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
Heller, P., & Huffman, D. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: a reply to Hestenes and Halloun. The
Physics Teacher, 33, 503511.
Hennessey, M. G. (2003). Metacognitive aspects of students reflective discourse: implications for intentional
conceptual change teaching and learning. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual
change (pp. 103132). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: a response to March 1995 critique
by Huffman and Heller. The Physics Teacher, 33, 502506.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141
158.
Hovardas, T., & Korfiatis, K. J. (2006). Word associations as a tool for assessing conceptual change in science
education. Learning and Instruction, 16, 416432.
Huffman, D., & Heller, P. (1995). What does the force concept inventory actually measure? The Physics Teacher,
33, 138143.
Jackson, J. E. (1991). A users guide to principal components. New York: Wiley.
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas
(automated readability index, fog count, and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel
(Research Branch Report 875). Millington: Naval Technical Training Command.
Klymkowsky, M. W., Garvin-Doxas, K., & Zeilik, M. (2003). Bioliteracy and teaching efficacy: what biologists
can learn from physicists. Cell Biology Education, 2, 155161.
Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about misconceptions: preservice secondary science teachers views on the
value and role of student ideas. Science Education, 96, 927959.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: supporting development in learning in
contexts. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology
(6th ed., Vol. 4). Hoboken: Wiley.
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Carpenter, S., & Penner, D. (2000). The inter-related development of inscriptions and
conceptual understanding. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in
mathematics classrooms: perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Marbach-Ad, G., McAdams, K. C., Benson, S., Briken, V., Cathcart, L., Chase, M., & Smith, A. C. (2010). A
model for using a concept inventory as a tool for students assessment and faculty professional development.
CBELife Sciences Education, 9, 408416. doi:10.1187/cbe.10-05-0069.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: a users manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J., & Novak, J. (2000). Assessing science understanding: a human constructivist view.
San Diego: Academic.
Nadelson, L. S., & Southerland, S. A. (2010). Development and preliminary evaluation of the measure of
understanding of macroevolution: introducing the MUM. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 151190.
National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: the science and design of educational
assessment. In J. W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Committee on the Foundations of
Assessment, Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Washington: National Academies
Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts,
and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, Board
on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington: National
Academies Press.
Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2008). Measuring knowledge of natural selection: a comparison of the CINS, an
open-response instrument, and oral interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 11311160.
Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2010). The future of natural selection knowledge measurement: a reply to
Anderson et al. (2010). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 358362.
Novick, L. R., & Catley, K. M. (2012). Assessing students understanding of macroevolution: concerns regarding
the validity of the MUM. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 26792703.
Piaget, J. (1983). Piagets theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1). New York:
Wiley.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 387415.
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: leveraging students prior knowledge and
experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45,
79100.
Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell
& N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 3156). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932

Res Sci Educ
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
Smith, J. I., & Tanner, K. (2010). The problem of revealing how students think: concept inventories and beyond.
CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 15.
State Education Agency (2015). 2014 comprehensive biennial report on (states) public schools (Document No.
GE15 601 04). (Publication information withheld to protect states anonymity).
Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newtons laws: the force and motion
conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American
Journal of Physics, 66, 338352.
van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during
conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159190.
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through
constructing and testing computational theoriesan embodied modeling approach. Cognition and
Instruction, 24(2), 171209.
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
AUTHOR QUERIES
AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIES.
U
N
C
O
R
R
EC
TE
D
PR
O
O
F
Q1. Smith et al. 2008 is cited in text but not given in the reference
list. Please provide details in the list or delete the citation from
the text.
Q2. Smith et al. 1993 is cited in text but not given in the reference
list. Please provide details in the list or delete the citation from
the text.
Q3. NRC 2007 is cited in text but not given in the reference list.
Please provide details in the list or delete the citation from the
text.

A Resource For Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions: Examining The Adaptability of A Concept Inventory For Natural Selection at The Secondary School Level

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Resource For Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions: Examining The Adaptability of A Concept Inventory For Natural Selection at The Secondary School Level

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Metadata of the article that will be visualized in OnlineFirst

A Resource for Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions: Examining

Article Sub- Title

Article Copyright Year

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Research in Science Education

Santa Clara University

500 El Camino Real, Santa Clara 95053, CA, USA

The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) is an example of a

group (n=339) of students among four different biology teachers at a

Concept inventory - Alternative conceptions - Evolution education

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Margaret M. Lucero 1 & Anthony J. Petrosino 2

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

A Resource for Eliciting Student Alternative Conceptions:

Keywords Concept inventory . Alternative conceptions . Evolution education

The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection

The CINS consists of three reading passages and 20 closed-response (multiple-choice)

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Theoretical Basis of CIs

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Student Ideas of Biological Phenomena Secondary students explanations for biological

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Res Sci Educ

Investigating CINSs Validity in a High School Context

Materials and Methods

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Investigating Teachers Use of the CINS

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Fig. 1 Example of student pre-test summary results presented to teacher B

Table 1 Teacher participant personal data for current study

Biology and land surveying

Chemistry, biology, and biochemistry

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Codes for occurrences

Criteria for CINS concepts presence among instructional activities and

Variation within a population

Activity/interaction involves students learning about

Traits being inherited from parent to offspring

How production of more individuals than the environment can support

Natural resources necessary for organisms to live are in limited supply

How random mutations and sexual reproduction produce variations,

Populations being mostly stable in size except for seasonal fluctuations

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Variation within a population

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teacher D Average

Variation within a population

Variation within a population

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

During Instructional Unit

Total Occurrences of CINS Concepts

As mentioned previously, 10 concepts encompass natural selection on the CINS. Figure 3

JrnlID 11165_ArtID 9524_Proof# 1 - 04/04/2016

Number of total teacher-student

Inheritable variation (10)