The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment
Abstract
Students in three sections of a high school biology course were taught a unit on evolution and natural selection. Prior to instruction, students were pretested to determine their (a) reflective reasoning skill, (b) strength of religious commitment, (c) prior declarative knowledge of evolution and natural selection, and (d) beliefs in evolution or special creation and related religiously oriented beliefs. Following instruction the measures of declarative knowledge and beliefs were readministered. The study was designed to test (a) the hypothesis that the acquisition of domain‐specific concepts and the modification of nonscientific beliefs largely depends upon reflective reasoning skill, not prior declarative knowledge; and (b) the hypothesis that strength of religious commitment and a belief in special creation hinder the acquisition of scientific beliefs. Although instruction produced no overall shift toward a belief in evolution, as predicted, reflective reasoning skill was significantly related to initial scientific beliefs, and reflective reasoning skill, but not prior declarative knowledge, was significantly related to gains in declarative knowledge. Reflective reasoning skill, however, was not significantly related to changes in beliefs. Also as predicted, strength of religious commitment was negatively correlated with initial belief in evolution and with a change in belief toward evolution. Interrelationships among the study's major variables, as well as educational implications, are discussed.
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
Cited by
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543063001001 · Cited by 1,393
Science Education International
(2019) · Science education international · doi:10.33828/sei · Cited by 1,069
Climate‐Science Communication and the Measurement Problem
Kahan, D. M. (2015) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12244 · Cited by 559
Biology Majors' Knowledge and Misconceptions of Natural Selection
Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/b570311 · Cited by 406
Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution
SHTULMAN, A. (2006) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 · Cited by 362
Metadata
- Authors
- Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 143-166
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2125473568
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 41.75
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/tea.3660290205
- The paper
- Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290205
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.