The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution
Abstract
We examined the intersection of students' understanding and acceptance of evolution and their epistemological beliefs and cognitive dispositions. Based on previous research, we hypothesized there would be a relation between understanding and acceptance. We also hypothesized that students who viewed knowledge as changing and who have a disposition toward open‐minded thinking would be more likely to accept the scientific explanation of human evolution, and that beliefs and dispositions would not be related to acceptance of a topic that is generally perceived as noncontroversial. Ninety‐three undergraduate students enrolled in a nonmajors biology class completed measures of their (a) content knowledge of evolution and photosynthesis and respiration; (b) acceptance of theories of animal evolution, human evolution, and photosynthesis; and (c) epistemological beliefs and cognitive dispositions. Although our findings did reveal a significant relation between knowledge and reported acceptance for photosynthesis, there was no relation between knowledge and acceptance of animal or human evolution. Epistemological beliefs were related to acceptance, but only to the acceptance of human evolution. There was no relation between students' epistemological beliefs and their general acceptance of animal evolution or photosynthesis. Three subscales, Ambiguous Information, Actively Open‐Minded Thinking, and Belief Identification, were significantly correlated with understanding evolutionary theory. We argue these findings underscore the importance of intentional level constructs, such as epistemological beliefs and cognitive dispositions, in the learning of potentially controversial topics. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 40: 510–528, 2003
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207 · Cited by 5,187
Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the NEO personality inventory
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5 · Cited by 3,414
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517 · cited 1×
“, 1999; Stanovich & West, 1997), Dogmatism (Troldahl & Powell, 1965), Categorical Thinking (Epstein & Meier, 1989), Absolutism (Erwin, 1983), Values (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and Need for Cognition (Cacioppo et al., 1996).”
Cited by
Promoting Student Metacognition
Tanner, K. D. (2012) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033 · Cited by 618
Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology
CHINN, C. A., BUCKLAND, L. A., & SAMARAPUNGAVAN, A. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722 · Cited by 524
Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2007) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546780600780796 · Cited by 356
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.3102/0091732x16669319 · Cited by 143
Epistemic metacognition in context: evaluating and learning online information
Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9048-2 · Cited by 139
Metadata
- Authors
- Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-04-17
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 510-528
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2125776191
- Cited by
- 471
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 59.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.