Anthropomorphizing Science: How Does It Affect the Development of Evolutionary Concepts?

Despite the ubiquitous use of anthropomorphic language to describe biological change in both educational settings and popular science, little is known about how anthropomorphic language influences children’s understanding of evolutionary concepts. In an experimental study, we assessed whether the language used to convey evolutionary concepts influences children’s (5- to 12-year-olds; N = 88) understanding of evolutionary change. Language was manipulated by using three types of narrative, each describing animals’ biological change: (a) need-based narratives, which referenced animals’ basic survival needs; (b) desire-based or anthropomorphic narratives, which referenced animals’ mental states; and (c) scientifically accurate natural selection narratives. Results indicate that the language used to describe evolutionary change influenced children’s endorsement of and use of evolutionary concepts when interpreting that change. Narratives using anthropomorphic language were least likely to facilitate a scientifically accurate interpretation. In contrast, need-based and natural selection language had similar and positive effects, which suggests that need-based reasoning might provide a conceptual scaffold to an evolutionary explanation of biological origins. In sum, the language used to teach evolutionary change impacts conceptual understanding in children and has important pedagogical implications for science education

Optic Nerve Size in Blind and Normal Mice

Measurements of eyes and optic nerves of blind and normal mice were taken at ages ranging from 1-60 days. The mice used were from a Bagg albino strain in which a dominant mutation for blindness had occurred. The size of the optic nerve appears to be dependent upon the development of the eye. Optic nerves from blind eyes are smaller than those from normal eyes, and optic nerves from blind eyes without a lens and with a folded retina are smaller than those from eyes with a lens, even though the lens is vacuolated and the cornea is thickened

Data use for what and for whom?: a close look at the policies and teacher practices that shape data-driven decision making at an elementary school

In this thesis, I present an analysis of how educators practiced data-driven decision making (DDDM) at Greenbrook Elementary, a school that has historically struggled to facilitate equitable learning outcomes for students. The findings from this study suggest DDDM may look quite different in practice than how it is described in the literature. The literature often characterizes DDDM as a practice where teachers are active participants who systematically collect data, interpret these data, formulate action plans, and continuously evaluate and adjust their plans based on further data (Coburn & Turner, 2011; Mandinach, 2012). At Greenbrook, this was not typically what was observed. Teachers were often passive recipients of data and directives on how to interpret and use these data. In this context, I offer an examination of how particular policies and practices mediated teacher data-use. Specifically, I present three essays on practices or policies associated with DDDM at Greenbrook. In the first essay, I describe teachers’ engagement with color-coded students’ performance data. While the color-coding of data are meant to support teachers’ interpretations of data (Love, 2004; Marsh 2012), I argue that at Greenbrook, students’ color-coded data was primarily used to sort students into different educational offerings. In the second essay, I examine aims for data use. Borrowing the concept of “matchmaking” (Oakes & Guiton, 1995), I describe how educators’ data use targeted matching students to pre-determined educational programs. I argue that matchmaking promoted particular data-use conversations and decisions while stifling inquiries into other issues that might have merited attention, like inequities in the learning environment. In the third and final essay, I present an overview of the political mandates that governed teachers’ work at Greenbrook. I argue that teachers had little autonomy to respond to students’ data in meaningful ways

Is there an economic case for investing in nursing care – what does the literature tell us?

Aim To determine the cost effectiveness of increasing nurse staffing or changing the nursing skill mix in adult medical and/or surgical patients? Background Research has demonstrated that nurse staffing levels and skill mix are associated with patient outcomes in acute care settings. If increased nurse staffing levels or richer skill mix can be shown to be cost-effective hospitals may be more likely to consider these aspects when making staffing decisions. Design A systematic review of the literature on economic evaluations of nurse staffing and patient outcomes was conducted to see whether there is consensus that increasing nursing hours/skill mix is a cost-effective way of improving patient outcomes. We used the Cochrane Collaboration systematic review method incorporating economic evidence. Data sources The MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and PsychINFO databases were searched in 2013 for published and unpublished studies in English with no date limits. Review methods The review focused on full economic evaluations where costs of increasing nursing hours or changing the skill mix were included and where consequences included nursing sensitive outcomes. Results Four-cost benefit and five-cost effectiveness analyses were identified. There were no cost-minimization or cost-utility studies identified in the review. A variety of methods to conceptualize and measure costs and consequences were used across the studies making it difficult to compare results. Conclusion This review was unable to determine conclusively whether or not changes in nurse staffing levels and/or skill mix is a cost-effective intervention for improving patient outcomes due to the small number of studies, the mixed results and the inability to compare results across studies

Strategies for Writing a Self-Study and Conducting a Site Review

This presentation will include a discussion of the principle components of a department self-study and provide examples from two departments (English and Fine and Performing Arts). The specific self-study structure we developed is especially beneficial for small university campuses that may need to justify programs or budgetary expenditures

Laser force cytology for rapid quantification of viral infectivity

The quantification of viral infectivity is an integral step at multiple stages in the process of virally producing recombinant protein, studying the mechanism of viral infection, and developing vaccines. Accurate measurements of infectivity allow for consistent infection and expansion, maximum yield, and assurance that time or environmental conditions have not degraded product quality. Traditional methods to assess infectivity, including the end-point dilution assay (TCID50) and viral plaque assay, are slow, labor intensive, and can vary depending upon the skill and experience of the user. Application of Laser Force Cytology (LFC) for the rapid detection and quantification of viral infection will be presented and discussed for several viral systems in the context of improving the development and production of vaccines. LumaCyte’s Radiance™ instrument is an automated cell analyzer and sorter that measures the optical force, size, shape, and deformability and captures images of single cells. By measuring the intrinsic properties of single cells, cellular changes due to viral infection can be rapidly and objectively quantitated. LFC is very sensitive to agents that perturb cellular structures or change biochemical composition. High quality viral infectivity measurements can be made in a fraction of the time, labor, and cost of traditional assays such as plaque or endpoint dilution. For in-process automated bioreactor monitoring, infectivity can be measured by Radiance in near real-time throughout the process, allowing critical feedback control and optimization. The measurement speed and data quality of LFC / Radiance serve to enhance vaccine development, process optimization/scale-up, and manufacturing to ultimately improve the delivery of vaccines to patients

Gender Differences in Interest and Knowledge Acquisition: The United States, Taiwan, and Japan

The relationship between interest and knowledge was investigated in a representative sample of 11th grade students from cultures that differ in the strength of their gender-role stereotypes and their endorsement of effort-based versus interest-based learning. Among 11th graders from the United States ( N = 1052), Taiwan ( N = 1475), and Japan ( N = 1119), boys preferred science, math, and sports, whereas girls preferred language arts, music, and art. General information scores were comparable across the three locations; however, boys consistently outscored girls. Gender and interest in science independently predicted general information scores, whereas gender and interest in math independently predicted mathematics scores. Cultural variations in the strength of the relationship between gender, interest, and scores indicate that specific socialization practices can minimize or exaggerate these gender differences.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45629/1/11199_2004_Article_454958.pd

Evolution challenges. Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution

Abstract and Keywords Scientists frequently attribute public misunderstanding of evolution to religious or political influences. Ineffective undergraduate teaching has also contributed. Faculty often ignored strong pedagogical evidence. Five research conclusions are discussed: The traditional lecture approach is inadequate. Active learning is much more effective. Fundamental reasoning difficulties limit students' understanding. Simple steps help overcome these. Misconceptions typically persist unless directly addressed with a conceptual-change approach. Evolution is a complex set of ideas that cannot be adequately understood without advanced critical thinking. This is infrequently mastered without intentionally designed learning tasks. Understanding evolution is typically insufficient for its acceptance. But acceptance as valid for real-world decisions is important. This requires helping students consider social and affective factors related to evolution. Keywords: misconceptions, conceptual-change, intentional design, evolution acceptance Scientists frequently attribute the public misunderstanding of evolution largely to conservative religious influences or dubious political motivations. Indeed, Mazur (2004 found Christian religiosity to be the strongest correlate of "disbelief" in evolution with low educational attainment and political conservatism also important. How science is taught in undergraduate education is a powerful additional factor that usually has been ignored in analyses of Why Don't Undergraduates Really "Get" Evolution? What Can ... http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/vie... of 27 6/25/13 5:37 PM public misunderstanding of evolution. Rejection and misunderstanding of evolution are not simply the results of some facets of American culture. Rather, they are also the predictable results of traditional, didactic teaching strategies. Postsecondary science teaching often ignores strong evidence on ways to make instruction much more effective (e.g., The first part of this chapter focuses on four broadly applicable results of research on teaching undergraduate science. The latter part turns to strategies that take account of factors that apply more strongly to evolution than to much of the rest of science. Key Result 1: Active Learning Is More Effective Active learning substantially increases achievement when compared with traditional pedagogy in undergraduate science, a conclusion featured in a review in Science The inadequacy of the traditional lecture approach in undergraduate science has been demonstrated most extensively in physics, where active methods roughly doubled average normalized pretest to posttest gains in learning, an effect approximating a two standard deviation difference Thus, one answer to the question "What can faculty do to increase the proportion of students who 'get' evolution?" is to switch further toward structured active learning in lieu of more didactic pedagogies. The implications of this conclusion can be both distressing and elating. This conclusion can be distressing because time already spent on improving lectures would often have been spent much more effectively on improving pedagogy. The conclusion can be elating because changes can be fairly easy and can have large effects. Unfortunately, faculty often have reservations about adopting active learning. These reservations include loss of content coverage, possible loss of control over the class, and possible failure of the activities. Tanner (2009) addressed a number of these. Similarly, several dysfunctional illusions that falsely suggest a lack of rigor for more effective pedagogies probably have slowed their adoption However one chooses to label these reasoning abilities, scores on reasoning tests have often been shown to predict achievement in undergraduate science courses and, sometimes, in precollege science (e.g., These findings have profound implications for understanding and teaching molecular aspects of biology generally, and of evolution specifically, as shown by studies of undergraduate chemistry. For example, Herron (1975) listed startling differences between core ideas in chemistry that the concrete students can and cannot understand without altered pedagogy. These students will be a large fraction of any first-year class. (p.314) Scores on reasoning tests were also related to the acceptance of evolution. Students who scored lower on tests of basic reasoning were less likely to accept evolution on the pretest and were more likely to continue to reject evolution on the posttest than individuals who performed better on the reasoning assessment A major advance for understanding how differences in reasoning play out in learning biology was recently provided by 1. Descriptive predictions could be mastered by most students whatever their scores on reasoning tests. 2. Tasks requiring understanding and testing hypotheses involving perceptible causal agents (e.g., light, moisture) were usually mastered only by students with higher reasoning scores. 3. Tasks using hypotheses involving causal agents that cannot be as directly perceived (e.g., genetic versus environmental causation, chemical communication) were usually mastered only by students with even higher reasoning abilities. Much greater pedagogical support is needed for tasks requiring the use of causal hypotheses, especially those using inferred causal agents. These distinctions are fundamental to students' difficulties in understanding evolution and to the development of effective ways to help them master it. Unfortunately, the underlying reasoning patterns are not changed easily with conventional teaching. Other researchers have made additional suggestions for fostering more complex reasoning. For example, a nice example of the use of hands-on modeling to support more complex thinking in a large molecular biology class was provided by In summary, the answer to the question "What can faculty do to increase the proportion of students who 'get' evolution?" from this second perspective is that faculty often need to pay more attention to students' basic reasoning and to teach in ways that better support (rather than just require) scientific understanding and reasoning. Without such support many students cannot understand what is being taught even when they are trying quite hard to do so. Although these problems and many of the solutions have been clear for decades, they have not been widely adopted. "Because we [as faculty] are at the point that concrete experience … is superfluous, we tend to forget that it was not always so [for us] and in our rush to 'cover the material,' we omit the very kind of experiences that can make our subject meaningful to beginning students" (Herron, 1978, p. 167). Many faculty will be skeptical (as I was) that well-performing students are deficient in understanding the basic concepts that should underlie their successes in class. It may be hard to accept that even "facility in solving standard quantitative problems is not an adequate criterion for functional understanding" (Thornton, 1999). In order to see the limitations of current approaches and the effects of changes we need more sophisticated ways of writing in-class and exam assessments About the Index Search across all sources Show related links Why Don't Undergraduates Really "Get" Evolution? What Can ... http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/vie... of 27 6/25/13 5:37 PM macroevolution is central to an understanding of the strength of the evidence showing that evolution has occurred (Padian, 2010). Further, macroevolution "is perhaps the primary stumbling block" for students, teachers, and other adults who have difficulty accepting evolution (M. U. Smith, 2010b, p. 541). The switch in students' understanding from misconceptions or alternative conceptions to scientifically valid views is termed conceptual change (for evolution: Banet & Ayuso, 2003; Various approaches to teaching evolution have attempted to produce major conceptual change and understanding generally. M. U. Smith (2010b) provided a concise (p.317) overview. Six examples merit special discussion. Although these mostly address microevolution, they could be modified for topics in macroevolution. 1. An Exemplary Conceptual Change Approach. Banet and Ayuso About the Index Search across all sources Show related links Why Don't Undergraduates Really "Get" Evolution? What Can ... http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/vie... of 27 6/25/13 5:37 PM Roscoe, this volume). 5. Participatory Action Research. In a multiyear study, Grant (2008) examined the misconceptions his first-year biology students held about natural selection. "Many students who presented evidence on pre-tests that they harbored substantial misconceptions in fact remained highly resistant to instruction, and often defended their misconceptions using course appropriate terminology, but incorrectly, on the course final exam. In other words, many had hijacked course content in service of their misconceptions" (Grant, 2008, p. 15). He iteratively designed ways to address these in a large class setting. Key changes included repeatedly presenting summaries of in-class surveys of prior knowledge and misconceptions. He also asked students to discuss with their neighbors what evidence and arguments would be needed to foster the replacement of these misconceptions with expert knowledge. He termed this "participatory action research." It required substantial reductions in content and rearrangements of topics. There were large increases over previous years in the grades on the final examination questions on evolution: On a key question assessing natural selection, good answers (8 to10 of 10 points) increased from about 3% of students (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) to 54% (2006)(2007), and very low scores (0-2 points) were eliminated. This approach has considerable promise for improving undergraduate science learning generally. Whole Course Transformation. In what is essentially a deep conceptual change approach, BioQUEST has emphasized computer-facilitated, case-based learning with a focus on problem-posing, problem-solving, and peer persuasion, often addressing topics in evolution In summary, the answer to the question "What can faculty do to increase the proportion of students who 'get' evolution?" from this third perspective is that faculty often need to give even more attention to students' persistent misunderstandings and to teach in ways that better support conceptual change (rather than falsely assuming that telling students the right idea or showing them the data will be sufficient to elicit change). Without explicit, active support for conceptual change, most students will retain their initial misunderstandings. (p.319) Key Result 4: Complex Thinking Is Requisite for Understanding Evolution Many of the difficulties we encounter in getting students to understand evolution are well explained by differences in their approaches to knowledge, specifically to how they expect to understand new topics. These approaches range from "just tell me what to memorize" to expecting us to help them understand the applications, implications, and trade-offs in various contexts. These different approaches are usefully understood as differences in adult cognitive development. There is a substantial body of research on cognitive development in college and its implications for learning and teaching. This approach began with Perry's (1970) study of "intellectual and ethical development" in undergraduates. Perry's work has been cited by hundreds of subsequent studies (partially reviewed by Cognitive development beyond that typically found in undergraduates is a prerequisite for an adequate understanding of evolution. Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, and Demastes About the Index Search across all sources Show related links Why Don't Undergraduates Really "Get" Evolution? What Can ... http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/vie... 6 of 27 6/25/13 5:37 PM they termed absolutism, relativism, and evaluativism. Perry's terms for these three approaches (dualism, multiplicity, and relativism) have been widely used, although some studies have used alternative terminologies. A simplified summary of these major cognitive differences will make clearer the implications for teaching evolution. (p.320) Absolutism (Perry's Dualism) About two-thirds of first-year students and half of sophomores had absolutism as their core approach Relativism (Perry's Multiplicity) When students first encounter meaningful uncertainty in a new area they typically have no idea how it might be resolved. In the face of uncertainty all opinions seem to be equally valid-any answer that one prefers on whatever grounds is fine. Personal experience, personally interpreted, has the preeminent role. This is the approach most of us usually use in picking a flavor of ice cream, but it is a terrible approach to critical thinking About one-third of first-year students and perhaps 80% of seniors were "transitional": they regarded knowledge in some areas as absolute and knowledge in others as uncertain and, hence, arbitrary Burgoyne and Downey (2011) have suggested that we ask students to see absolutism and relativism as two misconceptions: Contextual Knowing (Bendixen and Rule's Evaluativism; Perry's Relativism) The approach where students have learned to make context-framed, criteria-based comparisons has also been termed contextual relativism (e.g., Knefelkamp, 1999) (p.321) and contextual knowing As students become more cognitively sophisticated, they (like many older adults) typically use a mosaic of approaches, perhaps treating some topics in dualism/absolutism and some in multiplicity even while struggling to master contextual knowing in others Beyond Contextual Knowing The limitations of simple contextual knowing are evident when we consider complex problems. The core difficulty is that students who have learned to operate within a series of individual disciplines often have no coherent way to deal with differences that arise when a variety of disciplines apply to a complex problem. They consequently see any choice among combinations of disciplinary For example, even a local environmental issue, such as the appropriateness of a nuclear power plant, requires a consideration of trade-offs across multiple perspectives including science, waste disposal, environmental economics, politics, and environmental racism, to name just a few To deal with such issues constructively, students must learn to consider the benefits and negative consequences illuminated by each perspective. As students learn to make such analyses they begin thinking in a way that Perry termed "Commitment [within contextual relativism]" and Baxter Magolda termed "self-authorship." This approach is exceedingly rare among undergraduates except under transformed curricula Applications to Teaching Evolution "Perhaps the most useful developmental theory to be applied to evolution instruction is that of Perry" (M. U. Smith, 2010b, p. 541; also Nelson, 1986, etc.). Classroom applications that strive to foster cognitive development can profitably focus on key aspects of the three transitions between the four main approaches to understanding. (p.322) These are: initially understanding uncertainty, then using comparisons and criteria to address uncertainty (contextual knowing) and, later, using consequences and values to frame arguments and justify choices. Uncertainty in evolution can be invoked, for example, by listing (or having the class list) currently viable alternative hypotheses, listing ones that were historically viable or by asking for deep understanding of experimental designs (Why is this control included? Are any controls missing? What untested hypotheses might have produced the same results?). Once some important uncertainty has been made clear, the alternative hypotheses or design considerations or other factors need to be compared, and possibly resolved, using appropriate criteria. Unless both the alternatives and the criteria are made explicit, most of the critical thinking will be tacit and therefore incomprehensible-and the students' approaches to thinking will be unaffected. For comparisons of historically grounded alternatives in evolution, such as what sequences should have been expected from the fossil record, an appropriate criterion is the result of a fair test. A fair test is a new set of data that could have confirmed any of the alternatives and that is different from (and not tightly tied to) the data sets on which they were proposed. We can ask: What patterns of change in the fossil record might have been expected of the fossil record when the geological column was first put into its modern order in the 1840s, noting that evolution was not really available except to Darwin. Alternatives included: all kinds at the beginning with just extinction, Lyell's large cycles with great reptiles perhaps returning again (and again), Sedgwick's extinctions and new recreations, vertebrates first and invertebrates by degeneration, and, of course, evolution starting, as Darwin noted, with one or a few very simple kinds. Students will suggest some of these ideas, if asked. The fossil record itself provides a fair test of these alternatives, as most of them were not based on the ordered sequence of rocks in the newly emerging geological column and as any of the alternative patterns could have been found. A number of other criteria are also important. These include accounting for apparently conflicting scientific data and the availability of causal explanations (e.g., However, even when we understand that one alternative is much more probable than another we may choose not to accept it. It is often appropriate to reject hypotheses that are probably true when there are serious risks to accepting the hypothesis and being wrong. Thus, for many considerations of safety in the face of severe consequences we demand not just that safety be very probable but that it be overwhelmingly probable (basic decision theory, below). This requires moving beyond contextual knowing. For students studying evolution, going beyond contextual knowing would require that students understand the force of the evidence in the context of the nature of science generally; understand and know how to weigh the consequences (p.323) from the applications of evolution, both positive and negative; and understand how to fit evolution into larger cultural contexts. It thus becomes crucial for faculty members who teach evolution to help students address its consequences and applications. Faculty also need to consider whether to address the cultural contexts for evolution and, if so, how to do so effectively. About the Index Search across all sources Show related links Why Don't Undergraduates Really "Get" Evolution? What Can ... http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/vie... of 27 6/25/13 5:37 PM If we step back from focusing just on conceptual understanding or scientific reasoning, things become more complicated. Baxter Magolda (e.g., 2004a) noted that students make meaning of their experiences using their own perspectives rather than accepting the instructor's meaning and perspective. Further, the development of more complex ways of understanding is inextricably intertwined with the development of a different and more complex sense of self and of different and of more complex ways of relating to others. "Interviewees who developed complex ways of knowing [after graduation] often could not live those ways of knowing until they had developed complex ways of seeing themselves and their relations with others" (Baxter Magolda, 2004a, p. 39). Let me stress again the importance of making extensive use of structured active learning and not just because it fosters content mastery. Appropriately structured collaborative and cooperative learning also helps foster increased cognitive sophistication and the other changes that are essential to that cognitive development. I found two techniques to be especially powerful in fostering cognitive development: 1. In teaching evolution to seniors, I developed a worksheet based on Perry's descriptions of the cognitive tasks required for deep understanding (Nelson, 2010a), and had students complete the worksheet outside of class. Then, I implemented a whole-period discussion of applications of Perry's principles, a discussion that fostered deep rethinking with peers. 2. In courses ranging from first-year to graduate, I had the students either discuss excerpts from Perry's (1970) book including his summary of the student's experience (Nelson, 2010a) or presented and had them discuss and repeatedly refer back to a graphical synopsis of Perry (as in Nelson, 2010b). Using either approach, I repeatedly asked students how a person would respond to the evolution-creation controversy (and to other issues) from the perspective of an absolutist, versus from multiplicity, versus, in turn, from contextual knowing and, later, from self-authorship In summary, the answer to the question "What can faculty do to increase the proportion of students who 'get' evolution?" from this fourth perspective is that faculty need to design their courses to foster greater cognitive sophisticati