What Do Experts and Novices "see" in Evolutionary Problems?

Evolution: Education and Outreach

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 666-679

  Nehm, Ross H ^a   Ridgway, Judith ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Evolution; Expertise; Misconceptions; Natural selection; Problem solving; Undergraduates

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863815926     PISSN: 19366426     EISSN: 19366434     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12052-011-0369-7     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Bartov H. Can students be taught to distinguish between teleological and casual explanations? J Res Sci Teach. 1978;15:567-72.
2. Bishop B, Anderson C. Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. J Res Sci Teach. 1990;27:415-27.
3. Bowler PJ. The eclipse of Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1983.
4. Camacho M, Good R. Problem solving and chemical equilibrium: successful versus unsuccessful performance. J Res Sci Teach. 1989;26:251-72.
5. Catley KM, Novick LR, Shade CK (2011) Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict. J Res Sci Teach
6. Chi MTH. Laboratory methods for assessing experts' and novices' knowledge. In: Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich P, Hoffman R, editors. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 167-84.
7. Chi MTH, Feltovich PJ, Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Sci. 1981;5(2):121-52.
8. Darwin C. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. New York: D. Appleton; 1859.
9. di Sessa AA. A bird's-eye view of the "pieces" vs. "coherence" controversy. In: Vosniadou S, editor. International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge; 2008. p. 35-60.
10. Duit R (2004) Bibliography: students' and teachers' conceptions and science education database. University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany. http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html. Accessed 1 March 2009.
11. Dunker K. On problem solving. Psychol Monogr. 1945;58(5):270.
12. Gabel DL, Bunce DM. Research on problem solving: chemistry. In: Gabel D, editor. Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan; 1994. p. 301-16.
13. Gould SJ. Full house: the spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York: Harmony Books; 1996.
14. Gould SJ. The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press; 2002.
15. Greeno JG. A theory bite on contextualizing, framing, and positioning: a companion to son and goldstone. Cognition Instruct. 2009;27(3):269-75.
16. Gregory TR. Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach 2009;2:156-175.
17. Hammer D, Elby A, Scherr RE, Redish EF. Resources, framing, and transfer. In: Mestre J, editor. Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Greenwich, CT: Information Age; 2005. p. 89-120.
18. Hardiman PT, Dufresne R, Mestre JP. The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices. Mem Cognition. 1989;17(5):627-38.
19. Hayes JR, Simon HA. Psychological differences among problem isomorphs. Cognitive Theory. 1977;2:21-41.
20. Heyworth RM. Procedural and conceptual knowledge of expert and novice students for the solving of a basic problem in chemistry. Int J Sci Educ. 1999;21(2):195-211.
21. Huxley TH. Method and results: collected essays, vol. I. London: Macmillan; 1898.
22. Jonassen DH. Toward a design theory of problem solving. ETR&D-Educ Tech Res. 2000;48(4):63-85.
23. Kampourakis K, Zogza V. Preliminary evolutionary explanations: a basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Sci & Educ. 2009;18(10):1313-40.
24. Kelemen D, Rosset E. The human function compunction: teleological explanation in adults. Cognition. 2009;111(1):138-43.
25. Kindfield ACH. Confusing chromosome number and structure: a common student error. J Biol Educ. 1991;25:193-200.
26. Kindfield ACH. Biology diagrams: tools to think with. J Learn Sci. 1993;3(1):1-36.
27. Krutetskii VA. The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1976.
28. Kuhn D. Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2005.
29. Larkin JG, McDermott J, Simon DP, Simon HA. Models of competence involving physics problems. Cognitive Sci. 1980;4:317-45.
30. Lewontin RC. Biology as ideology: the doctrine of DNA. Concord, Ontario: House of Anansi Press; 1991.
31. Lombrozo T, Kelemen D, Zaitchik D. Inferring design: evidence of a preference for teleological explanations in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Psychol Sci. 2007;18(11):999.
32. Markman AB. Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999.
33. Marshall SP. Schemas in problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
34. Mayr E. The growth of biological thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982.
35. Mayr E. One long argument: Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1991.
36. Morris DW. Learning from the games animals play: using behavior to assess spatial structure and stochasticity in natural populations. Ann Zool Fenn. 2001;38:37-53.
37. National Research Council (2001) Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment, J.W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser (Eds.), Center for Education. Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
38. National Research Council. How students learn: history, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.
39. Nehm RH. Understanding undergraduates' problem solving processes. J Biol Microbiol Ed. 2010;1(2):119-21.
40. Nehm RH, Budd N. Missing 'links' in bioinformatics education: expanding students' conceptions of bioinformation and evolution using paleobiological databases. Am Bio Teacher. 2006;7(91):1-9.
41. Nehm RH, Ha M. Item feature effects in evolution assessment. J Res Sci Teach. 2011;48(3):237-56.
42. Nehm RH, Haertig H. Human vs. computer diagnosis of students' natural selection knowledge: testing the efficacy of Text Analytic software. J Sci Ed Tech. 2011. doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9282-7.
43. Nehm RH, Reilly L. Biology majors' knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. Bioscience. 2007;57(3):263-72.
44. Nehm RH, Schonfeld IS. Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? J Sci Teac Educ. 2007;18(5):699-723.
45. Nehm RH, Schonfeld IS. Measuring knowledge of natural selection: a comparison of the CINS, an open-response instrument, and an oral interview. J Res Sci Teach. 2008;45(10):1131-60.
46. Nehm RH, Schonfeld IS. The future of natural selection knowledge measurement. A reply to Anderson et al. J Res Sci Teach. 2010;47(3):258-362.
47. Nehm RH, Kim SY, Sheppard K. Academic preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching evolution: biology versus non-biology teachers. Sci Educ. 2009a;93(6):1122-46.
48. Nehm RH, Poole TM, Lyford ME, Hoskins SG, Carruth L, Ewers BE, Colberg PJS. Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses reinforce students' faulty mental models of biology and evolution? Evol Educ Outreach. 2009b;2(3):527-32.
49. Nehm RH, Rector M, Ha M. "Force Talk" in evolutionary explanation: metaphors and misconceptions. Evol Ed Outreach. 2010;3:605-13.
50. Nehm RH, Ha M, Mayfield E. transforming biology assessment with machine learning: automated scoring of written evolutionary explanations. J Sci Ed Technology. 2011. doi: 10.1007/s10956-011-9300-9.
51. Newell A, Simon HA. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1972.
52. Novick LR, Bassok M. Problem solving. In: Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG, editors. Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 321-49.
53. O'Hara RJ. Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Syst Biol. 1988;37(2):142.
54. Polya G. How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method. 2nd ed. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books; 1957.
55. Reif F. Applying cognitive science to education: thinking and learning in scientific and other complex domains. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008.
56. Sabella MS, Redish EF. Knowledge organization and activation in physics problem solving. Am J Phys. 2007;75:1017-29.
57. Shin N, Jonassen D, McGee S. Predictors of well-structured and ill-structured problem solving in an astronomy simulation. J Res Sci Teach. 2003;40(1):6-33.
58. Silver EA. Student perceptions of relatedness among mathematical verbal problems. J Res Math Educ. 1979;10(3):195-210.
59. Sinatra GM, Brem SK, Evans EM. Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evol Educ Outreach. 2008;1(2):189-95.
60. Smith MU (1983) A comparative analysis of the performance of experts and novices while solving selected classical genetics problems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.
61. Southerland SA, Abrams E, Cummins CL, Anzelmo J. Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Sci Educ. 2001;85(4):328-48.
62. Taasoobshirazi G, Glynn SM. College students solving chemistry problems: a theoretical model of expertise. J Res Sci Teach. 2009;46(10):1070-89.