Go to the content. | Move to the navigation | Go to the site search | Go to the menu | Contacts | Accessibility

| Create Account

Toneatti, Laura (2008) Le concezioni sull'origine delle specie in bambini di scuola primaria. [Ph.D. thesis]

Full text disponibile come:

[img]
Preview
Documento PDF
6Mb

Abstract (english)

Italian school children start studying evolution and the origin of species in elementary school during their history classes. Research into this topic is important from both a theoretical and a practical point of view: from a theoretical point of view naive biology is one of the liveliest areas of research in cognitive developmental psychology, while from a practical point of view it may provide suggestions for a school syllabus.

The aim of the present study was twofold: firstly to examine children's thoughts before and after studying evolution at school; secondly to design a biology syllabus for second grade children which would lead to a better understanding of this topic (evolution?) in the third year.

Research carried out among secondary school and university students (see Brumby,1984; Shultman, 2006) has revealed that creationist ideas and misconceptions about evolution are both widespread. Many students, for example, echoing Lamarck's theory, claimed that evolutionary changes are brought about by an organism's need or capacity for adaptation to changes in the environment.
Darwin's theory appears to be difficult to grasp, but researchers disagree over the cause. Some relate this difficulty to environmental factors such as the spreading of creationist ideas, the little knowledge of genetics, the misleading way in which evolution and adaptation are presented in text books and popular science books. Others maintain that intrinsic factors, i.e. tendencies present in the human mind like essentialism, might also be responsible.

The first aim of this study was to assess whether misconceptions in this field derive from misunderstandings regarding concepts which have been taught correctly or from concepts which have been taught implicitly or explicitly (Alter & Nelson, 2002) thus affecting further learning from a very early stage (Berti, 2002; Mason, 2006). In the latter(?) case it would be not only possible but desirable to start teaching the theory of evolution or some propaedeutic concepts in the first years of school. Research carried out among children in the United States (Samarapungavan e Wiers, 1997; Evans, 2000; 2001) shows that creationism is widespread among 7 to 8 year old children, while Lamarckian conceptions start emerging in 10 to 12 year old children. It would seem, then, that misconceptions develop very early.

In order to identify Italian children's conceptions of the origin of species and to analyze in what way they are influenced by formal instruction two studies have been carried out. The first one compared second graders with third graders, while the second one studied third grade children before and after being taught "life on earth before man". Children's answers in both surveys fall into four main explanatory framework: a "creationist" framework ( animals were created by God and they have always stayed the same); a naturalistic’ framework (animals are a product of nature); an "evolutionist" framework (animals started as a natural process and have changed over time to their present form); a "mixed" framework (God created animals and at least some of them have undergone changes). Results show that when evolution is taught "creationist" answers decrease while "evolutionist" and "mixed" ones increase. When children are given no explanations of the mechanisms of evolution they tend to link the changes in animals to the passing of time.

The second aim of this study was to understand whether it is possible to prevent misconceptions through early and correct teaching: two syllabuses have been designed; the second grade syllabus contains fundamental concepts for an understanding of topics related to the origins of species which are taught in third grade. Results show that children can acquire specific and complex knowledge even though at different levels of abstraction.


Statistiche Download - Aggiungi a RefWorks
EPrint type:Ph.D. thesis
Tutor:Berti, Anna Emilia
Ph.D. course:Ciclo 20 > Scuole per il 20simo ciclo > SCIENZE PSICOLOGICHE > PSICOLOGIA DELLO SVILUPPO E DEI PROCESSI DI SOCIALIZZAZIONE
Data di deposito della tesi:29 January 2008
Anno di Pubblicazione:29 January 2008
Key Words:naive biology, children's evolution conception
Settori scientifico-disciplinari MIUR:Area 11 - Scienze storiche, filosofiche, pedagogiche e psicologiche > M-PSI/04 Psicologia dello sviluppo e psicologia dell'educazione
Struttura di riferimento:Dipartimenti > Dipartimento di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e della Socializzazione
Codice ID:693
Depositato il:09 Sep 2008
Simple Metadata
Full Metadata
EndNote Format

Bibliografia

I riferimenti della bibliografia possono essere cercati con Cerca la citazione di AIRE, copiando il titolo dell'articolo (o del libro) e la rivista (se presente) nei campi appositi di "Cerca la Citazione di AIRE".
Le url contenute in alcuni riferimenti sono raggiungibili cliccando sul link alla fine della citazione (Vai!) e tramite Google (Ricerca con Google). Il risultato dipende dalla formattazione della citazione.

1. Alters, B.J., &. Nelson, C. E (2002). Perspective: teaching evolutions in higher education. Evolution, 56 (10), 1891-1901. Cerca con Google

2. 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, 2002, 952-978. Cerca con Google

3. Anderson, O. R., Randle, D., & Covotsos, T. (2001). The role of Ideational Networks in Laboratory Inquiry Learning and Knowledge of Evolution among Seventh Grade Students. Science Education, 85, 410-425. Cerca con Google

4. Angiolini, & Bobbi. (2005). Scopro con Carduino. Minerva Italica. Torino. Cerca con Google

5. Berni, C., & Martoni, L. (2001). Chiaro e tondo. Milano. Arnoldo Mondatori. Cerca con Google

6. Berti, A. E. (2006, settembre). La comprensione dell’evoluzione delle specie da parte di studenti universitari e di scuola secondaria. In L. Mason (Chair), Conoscenze quotidiane, conoscenze scientifiche e apprendimento scolastico Simposio tenuto al XX Congresso Nazionale della Sezione di Psicologia dello Sviluppo. A.I.P. Verona. Cerca con Google

7. Bishop, B.A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), pp.415- 427. Cerca con Google

8. Bransford, J. D. & Donovan, S. M. (2005). Scientific Inquiry and How People Learn. In Susan M. Donovan & Bransford Jhon D. (Eds.) How Student Learn. San Diego, The National Academic Press. Cerca con Google

9. Brumby, M.N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science Education, 68(4), 493-503. Cerca con Google

10. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press. Cerca con Google

11. Catley, K., Lehrer, R., & Reiser, B. (2004). Tracing a prospective Learning Progression for Developing Understanding of Evolution. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement, 2005. National Academic of Science. Cerca con Google

12. Chandler, F. Taplin, S., Bingham, J. (2000). Il Mondo preistorico. Londra. Usborne. Cerca con Google

13. Chi, M. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cerca con Google

14. Chi, M. (2005). Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161– 199. Cerca con Google

15. Chinn, C.A., & Brewer, W.F.(1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implication for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1- 49. Cerca con Google

16. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science and programing. In C.B. Cazden (ed.) Review of research in education, Washington, American Educational Research Association. Cerca con Google

17. Curtis, H. & Barnes, N.S. (1996). Invito alla biologia. Volume unico. Bologna: Zanichelli. Cerca con Google

18. Darwin, C. (1872). The origin of species by means of natural selection, sixth edition. Trad. it. L’origine delle specie, Torino, Boringhieri 1967. Cerca con Google

19. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. New York: W.W Norton. Cerca con Google

20. Diamond, J. ed. (2005). Virus and the whale: exploring evolution in creatures small and large. National Science Teachers Association Press, Arlington, VA. Cerca con Google

21. Diamond, J., & Evans, M. E. (2007), Museums Teach Evolution. Evolution. Evolution, 61(6). 1500- 1506. Cerca con Google

22. Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003). Cognitive Factors Affecting Student Understanding of Geologic Time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, ( 4),. 415-442. Cerca con Google

23. Evans, M.E. (2000a). Beyond Scopes: Why creationism is here to stay. In K. Rosengren,.C. Jhonson, & P. Harris (Eds.), Imagining the impossible: The developmental magical, scientific, and religious thinking in contemporary society. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Cerca con Google

24. Evans, E.M. (2000b). The Emergence of belief about the Origins of Species in School- Age Children. Merril-Palmer Quarterly. 46. (2), .221-254. Cerca con Google

25. Evans, E.M. (2001), Cognitive e contestual factors in the emergence of diverse belief system: Creation versus Evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 217-266. Cerca con Google

26. Evans, E: M., Spiegel, A., Gram, W., Frazier, B.F., Cover, S., Tare, M., & Diamond, J. (2006) A conceptual guide to museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Cerca con Google

27. Ferrari, M., & Chi, M.T.H. (1998). The nature of naive explanations of natural selection, International Journal of Science Education, 10, 1231-1256. Cerca con Google

28. Gamlin L. (1993). Evolution, London: Dorling Kindersley. Trad. It: L’evoluzione: Novara: De Agostini 1994. Cerca con Google

29. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Cerca con Google

30. Gould, S.J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cerca con Google

31. Green, E. D. (1990). The logic of university students’ misunderstanding of natural selection. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 27, 875-885. Cerca con Google

32. Grose, E.C., & Simpson, R.D. (1982). Attitudes of introductory college biology students toward evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19 (1) 15- 24. Cerca con Google

33. Hirschfeld, L. A. (1995). Antropology, psychology, and the meanings of social causality. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.). Causal cognition. A multidisciplinary debate. ( pp 268-302). Oxford: Claredon Press. Cerca con Google

34. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2002). Young Children’s naive thinking about the biological world. Psychology Press. New York. Cerca con Google

35. Jiménez Aleixandre M. P. (1994). Teaching evolution and natural selection: a look at textbooks and teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5),519- 535. Cerca con Google

36. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (1996). Darwinian And Lamarckian models used by students and their representations. In Fisher, K. M. & Kibby, M. (Eds.), Knowledge Acquisition, Organization and Use in Biology (pp. 65-77). New York: Springer Verlag. Cerca con Google

37. Jones, J.M. (2005). Most americans engaged in debate about evolution, creation.Gallup Poll News service, October, 10. Cerca con Google

38. Keil, F.C. (2003). That's life: Coming to understand biology. Human-Development, 46 (6): 369-377. Cerca con Google

39. Kennedy, D., Alberts, B., Moore, J., & Scott, E. (1998). Theaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington: National Academic Press. Cerca con Google

40. Kochler, R., & Bianchi, S. (2000). Progetto Domino. Milano. Fabbri. Cerca con Google

41. Lamarck, J.B. (1809.) Philosopie zoologique (H. Elliot, Trans.). New York: Haffner. (Original work published 1809). Cerca con Google

42. Lawson, A.E., & Worsnop, W.A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skills, prior knowledge, prior belief and religios commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2) 143-166. Cerca con Google

43. Lerner, L.S.(2000). Good and bad science in US schools. Nature, 407, 287-290. Cerca con Google

44. Lucchetta,S., &. Castelli P. (2004). Cantastorie classe III Edizioni Mirò. Chiaravalle Cerca con Google

45. Mason, L. (2006). Psicologia dell’apprendimento e dell’istruzione. Bologna: Il Mulino. Cerca con Google

46. Mayr, E. (1981) La biologie e l’evolution. Paris: Hermann. Trad. It. Biologia ed Evoluzione (1982) Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. Cerca con Google

47. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cerca con Google

48. Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: The science of the living world. Cambridge. MA. Harvard University Press. Cerca con Google

49. Mayr, E. (2004) What makes biology unique? Consideration on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. New York: Cambridge University Press. Trad. it. L’unicità della biologia. Sull’autonomia di una disciplina scientifica, Milano, Cortina 2005. Cerca con Google

50. Miller, J.D., Scott, E.C.,& Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313, 765-766 Cerca con Google

51. Passamore, C. & Stuart, J. 2002. A Modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in High School. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185- 204. Cerca con Google

52. Piaget J. (1926). La représentation du monde chez l’enfant, Paris, Alcan; trad. it. La rappresentazione del mondo nel fanciullo, Torino, Bollati Boringhieri, 1966. Cerca con Google

53. Roseman, E. (2006). Evolution on the Front Line: An Abbreviated Guide for Teaching Evolution, from Prject 2061 at AAAS. Cerca con Google

54. Samarapungavan, A., Wiers, R.W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: a study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science 21(2), 147 –177. Cerca con Google

55. Settlage, J. (1994). Conceptions of natural selection: a snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 449-457. Cerca con Google

56. Shtluman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naive and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 170-194. Cerca con Google

57. Sinatra,G.M., Southerland, S.A., McConoughy,F., & Demastes, J.W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of Biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510-528. Cerca con Google

58. Smith, J. M. (1975). The theory of evolution, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, trad. it. La teoria dell’evoluzione, Roma Newton Compton, 2005. Cerca con Google

59. Strike, K. A., & J. Posner, G. J. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding, in Leo H.T. West e A. Leon Pines (Ed.) Cognitive structure and conceptual change. New York: Academic Press. Cerca con Google

60. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cerca con Google

61. Thurstone L.L., & Chave, E. J. (1930). The measurement of attitude. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Cerca con Google

62. Tidon, R. & Lewontin R. (2004). Teaching evolutionary biology. Genetic and Molecular Biology, 27(1), 124-131. Cerca con Google

63. Vosniadou, S, & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123-183. Cerca con Google

64. Watson, R. (1996). Rethinking readiness for learning. In D.R. Olson & N.Terrance (Eds.), Education and human development. (pp. 148-172). Oxford: Balkwell. Cerca con Google

65. Wellman, H. M. & Gelman, S. A. (1997). Knowledge acquisition in foundational domains. in D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler, (Eds.) Handbook of child psychology, fifth editions, volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language. (pp. 523-473). New York: Wiley. Cerca con Google

66. White,B.Y., & Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modelling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16 (1), 3- 118. Cerca con Google

67. Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children’s biological ideas: Knowledge about ecology, inheritance, and evolution. In S. Glynn & R. Duit (eds), Learning science in the schools: research reforming practice. Mahwah New Jersey: Lawerence Erbaum Associates. Cerca con Google

68. Xanthoudaki; M., Tirelli, B., Cerutti, P., & Calcagnini, S. (2007). Museums for science education: can we make the difference? The case of the EST. Journal of Science Communication, 6 (2), pp. 1-10. Cerca con Google

Download statistics

Solo per lo Staff dell Archivio: Modifica questo record