Opportunities to deal with human evolution

Abstract

Since knowledge about evolution—and especially human evolution—is insufficient, we aimed to design three student centered online activities. These activities deal with human evolution and are intended to expose high school biology students and pre-service science teachers to issues concerning human evolution in order to enhance their knowledge of evolution and human evolution whilst also potentially enhancing their acceptance of evolution. The activities deal with lactose tolerance, celiac disease and starch consumption affecting diabetes. Additionally, we describe the principles that guided the design of these three activities: issues connecting to students’ lives; noncontentious topics regarding human evolution; human evolution examples that occurred in the not-too-distant past; unambiguous genetic frame stories including simple genetic mutations that affect known traits; and examples that expose students to basic bioinformatics tools for facing authentic scientific issues dealing with genetic evidence of evolution. Furthermore, we present the results of pre-service science teachers’ experiences with one of the activities, which demonstrate that a significant proportion of these teachers used more evolution key concepts after experiencing the activity. Notably, a significant proportion of these teachers showed an increase in evolution acceptance. In-service teachers who experienced one of the activities recommended the introduction of genetic evidence of human evolution via the activity and did not predict opposition among their students. Thus, we recommend the use of these activities among high school biology students since dealing with a relevant topic that includes clear and straightforward evidence of evolution may lead to better knowledge, a greater acceptance of evolution and human evolution, and the improved negotiation of evolution related socioscientific issues (SSIs).

Full text

This is a repository copy of Are we allowed to tinker with (human) DNA? Addressing
socioscientific issues through philosophical dialogue - the case of genetic engineering..
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/195585/
Version: Published Version
Book Section:
de Schrijver, Jelle, Blancke, Stefaan, Cornelissen, Eef et al. (2 more authors) (2022) Are
we allowed to tinker with (human) DNA? Addressing socioscientific issues through
philosophical dialogue - the case of genetic engineering. In: Learning evolution through
socioscientific issues. UA Editora , pp. 197-216.
https://doi.org/10.48528/4sjc-kj23
eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Reuse
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence
allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the
authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.

Xana Sá-Pinto, Anna Beniermann,
Tom Børsen, Martha Georgiou,
Alex Jeffries, Patrícia Pessoa,
Bruno Sousa, Dana L. Zeidler.
Learning
evolution
through
socioscientific
issues

This publication is based upon work from COST Action
CA17127, Building on scientic literacy in evolution towards
scientically responsible Europeans (EuroScitizen), supported
by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is
a funding agency for research and innovation networks. Our
Actions help connect research initiatives across Europe and
enable scientists to grow their ideas by sharing them with their
peers. This boosts their research, career and innovation.
www.cost.eu
1st EDITION
TITLE: Learning Evolution Through Socioscientic Issues
EDITORS Xana Sá-Pinto, Anna Beniermann, Tom Børsen,
Martha Georgiou, Alex Jeffries, Patrícia Pessoa, Bruno Sousa,
Dana L. Zeidler
ART DIRECTION AND COORDINATION: Roberto Torres,
La Ciència Al Teu Món
DESIGN AND LAYOUT: Albert Travel
PUBLISHER: UA Editora, Universidade de Aveiro
ISBN: 978-972-789-822-0
DOI:
The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies
with the authors. © Authors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License.
SUGGESTED CITATION: Sá-Pinto, X., Beniermann, A., Børsen,
T., Georgiou, M., Jeffries, A., Pessoa, P., Sousa, B., & Zeidler,
D.L. (Eds.). (2022). Learning Evolution Through Socioscientic
Issues. UA Editora.
https://doi.org/10.48528/4sjc-kj23

CONTENTS
LEARNING EVOLUTION THROUGH SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
ISSUES: A FUNCTIONAL SCIENTIFIC LITERACY
PERSPECTIVE
USING SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE APPROACH
TO PROMOTE STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC LITERACY
EVOLUTION EDUCATION THROUGH SSI FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
SSI APPROACH OUT OF SCHOOLS - HOW CAN
THESE APPROACHES BE USED IN SCIENCE
MUSEUMS AND OTHER NON FORMAL EDUCATION
CONTEXTS?
HOW IS EVOLUTION IMPACTING OUR LIVES
EVOLUTION EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
- IMPORTANT THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT HOW TO
TEACH ABOUT EVOLUTION.
OPPORTUNITIES TO DEAL WITH HUMAN
EVOLUTION
EVOLVING COOPERATION AND SUSTAINABILITY
FOR COMMON POOL RESOURCES
CONSIDERING EVOLUTION AS A SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
ISSUE: AN ACTIVITY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
WHY ARE POLLINATORS DECLINING?
THE IMPACTS OF SOLAR RADIATION ON OUR
HEALTH
ARE WE ALLOWED TO TINKER WITH (HUMAN) DNA?
ADDRESSING SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES THROUGH
PHILOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE - THE CASE OF GENETIC
ENGINEERING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
4
17
29
48
71
86
105
127
148
165
182
197

Editorial
Learning evolution
through socioscientic
issues: A functional
scientic literacy
perspective
4

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL
Learning evolution through socioscientic issues:
A functional scientic literacy perspective
Dana L. Zeidler1,
Anna Beniermann2,
Tom Børsen3,
Martha Georgiou4,
Alex Jeffries5,
Patrícia Pessoa6,7
,
Xana Sá-Pinto6 ,
Bruno Sousa8
1University of South Florida, United States
2Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
3Aalborg University, Denmark
4National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
5Milner Center for Evolution, Department of Life Sciences,
University of Bath, UK
6CIDTFF – Research Centre on Didactics and Technology in the
Education of Trainers, University of Aveiro, Portugal
7UTAD – University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal
8Alpoente School Grouping, Portugal
5

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
Evolutionary theory is arguably one of the
most important unifying conceptual and
theoretical frameworks that subsumes
the natural sciences (National Research
Council, 2012). It is the model case of
an interrelated set of amalgamating
observations, inferences, predictions, and
retrodictions that hold explanatory power
to make sense of our living world. Yet,
evolution understanding has been shown to
be low in many countries, even for students
attending biology related study programs at
a university (Kuschmierz et al., 2021).
Scientic understanding of evolution
is not bounded by geopolitical borders,
but it may certainly be impacted by it, for
public understanding of science is both
facilitated and hindered by a plethora of
sociocultural considerations. Sometimes
these considerations may range from the
innocuous, such as misunderstandings,
to the deliberately deceptive, such
as reshaping scientic evidence and
transmuting it to serve religious or political
ends (Jørgensen et al., 2019).
Other factors that impinge on public
understanding of science in general, or
evolutionary theory in particular, require that
scientic and science education professional
communities look inward on the efcacy of
our own teaching practices. In doing so, we
may uncover a pedagogical irony
– that some of our conventional time-worn
traditions of teaching get in the way of
students’ understanding (Zeidler et al., 2011).
It is important to note from the onset,
that while we frame the learning of
evolution through a contextualized lens of
socioscientic issues (SSI; Zeidler, 2014;
Zeidler & Sadler, 2023), we do not take
the position that evolution as a unifying
principle is, in and of itself, an SSI. SSI
are ill-structured problems and dilemmas
that are controversial in nature, with no
clear-cut immediate solutions, require
evidence-based considerations, and are
overlaid with moral and ethical implications
(Zeidler & Sadler, 2023). Evolutionary theory
lacks these dening characteristics. That
evolution has occurred and continues to
transform the organic world through macro
and micro processes is not, in and of itself,
controversial in the scientic community.
However, as it is controversial in some
parts of the society, it can be classied as
Societally Denied Science (Borgerding &
Dagistan, 2018) and a Controversial Science
Issue (CSI; Beniermann et al., 2021).
While particular understandings may be
challenged and become modied when new
evidence comes to light through discoveries
and technological advances (e.g., phyletic
gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium),
it comes to no great surprise to those
with informed views of the Nature of
Science (NOS) because the very nature
of epistemological scientic knowledge
itself is characterized by knowledge that is
durable, yet subject to change, socially and
culturally embedded, necessarily subjective,
tempered by human creativity, empirically-
based, and guided by explanatory power
(Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2023;
Lederman & Lederman, 2014 ).
Once we move outward from the
academy to how we teach concepts related
to evolution theory to students in school
settings, subject matter may become
more controversial because we nd
ourselves brushing up against different
cultural assumptions, religious beliefs, and
ethical norms. It is widely recognized that
understanding evolution is crucial to nding
solutions to the various challenges we face
today (Carroll et al., 2014).
Moreover, this knowledge has impacts in
several elds. In biodiversity conservation,
for example, we can talk about the poor
adaptation of species to climate change
and pollution which causes a reduction
6

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
in biodiversity through species extinction
(Barnosky et al., 2011). In human health,
problems resulting from changes in our diet,
environment and lifestyles (i.e., obesity,
diabetes, cancer, etc.) or, in the case of
diseases, the evolution of new or drug-
resistant pathogens (i.e., infectious diseases)
(World Health Organization, 2014).
If we focus on food security, we can
mention the increase in pesticide resistance
that has been causing a decrease in
agricultural production, compromising
food supplies worldwide (Tabashnik et al.,
2014). All of the aforementioned examples
are related to evolutionary processes, and
an increased application of evolutionary
biology principles to challenges such as
these can improve our ability to respond to
many of the most pressing sustainability
issues (Carroll et al., 2014).
Yet, while all SSI are controversial, not
all controversial issues are SSI (Zeidler
et al., 2019). However, we nd in the
contextualization of evolution within an
SSI framework there lies a multitude of
topics (e.g., competition among individuals,
equitable distribution of resources, social-
ecological systems, global warming, genetic
modication) that are at once, relevant to
students, controversial, ill-structured, require
students to engage in dialogue or argument,
necessitates degrees of ethical or moral
reasoning, and help to build the formation of
virtue and character over time.
Engaging students in such topics is
referred to as the long route to both moral
development and scientic identities
that require a functional perspective of
scientic literacy, developed not in isolated
teachable instances, but in the deliberate
and systematic construction of SSI-type
of inquiry over time (Bencze, et. al., 2019;
Zeidler et al., 2019).
This volume is aimed at enacting a
progressive vision of scientic literacy that
provides teachers and science educators
with tools to conceptualize and apply an
SSI approach to instruction with the aim
of promoting informed understandings of
evolution. It is premised on the assumption
that leveraging the insights of diverse
stakeholders ranging from evolutionary
scientists to science educators, from
museum professionals to media experts,
can contribute to educational solutions to
develop students’ scientic literacy, that are
easier to implement and more effective in
real educational contexts.
The fact that 34 authors and 29 reviewers
from 15 distinct countries collaborated to
produce this book, is a strong indication of
the level of importance that professionals
around the globe assign to this topic. It is
important to note that moral and ethical
issues, which are part and parcel to the SSI
framework, can be informed by evolutionary
topics as those topics do not stop at the
border of any one country any more than
global environmental problems are limited
to the site of their proximal impact.
Furthermore, inasmuch as biological
evolution is related to many global
environmental problems that threaten the
sustainability of our planet, understanding
evolutionary processes may support the
planning and evaluation of long-term
solutions to these problems by enhancing
the ability to understand and assess
multiple possible, probable and desirable
futures, and promoting the application of
precautionary principles in the evaluation
of the consequences of our actions. It
is important to note that anticipatory
competence related to sustainability is
one of the competencies mentioned by
UNESCO (2018) as essential to promoting
sustainability.
There has never been a more pressing
time to solicit the collective input of
scientists and educators from multiple
7

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
locations in different countries. We note,
for example, that recent (rapid) advances in
technology have presented new challenges
to academics in general, and science
instruction in particular. The most dramatic
affront to classroom learning are students
taking photographs of powerpoint slides
that consist of words and images sans any
degree of deep mental processing.
Missing are the kinds of imaginative
and creative childhood experiences
that encourage development of long-
term memory and critical thinking skills
(Duckworth, 2006). SSI can provide the
kind of help needed to rekindle authentic
learning experiences that facilitate the
co-construction of knowledge based upon
consensus building, participation and
understanding that can withstand the
challenge of scrutiny and counter instances
(Zeidler, 2014).
Given that students are inundated
with a torrent of information both reliable
and misleading, the ability to utilize
critical reasoning skills, employ multiple
perspective taking, making decisions about
the welfare of the biological and physical
world in a just manner, represents scientic
literacy in action.
The distal aim of an informed citizenry
can be nothing less than the exercise of
functional scientic literacy. This is, in
all respects, a necessary condition for
the spread of human ourishing. The
competition to evolutionary understanding is
not to be underestimated. Science educators
face a virtual (and literal) wall of ‘meta-
ignorance’ where novices have an undue
overestimation in their condence to resolve
matters outside of their domain of expertise.
This is a result of the Dunning-Kruger
Effect (Dunning et al., 2003), and is best
described as “… a meta-ignorance (or
ignorance of ignorance) [that] arises
because lack of expertise and knowledge
often hides in the realm of the ‘unknown
unknowns’ or is disguised by erroneous
beliefs and background knowledge that
only appear to be sufcient to conclude a
right answer” (Dunning, 2011, p. 248). For
example, it has not gone unnoticed that
those who stake out political ideologies
often do so with little to no grounding in
the assessment or careful consideration of
scientic evidence (Owens et al., 2017).
It is ironic, then, that while the rapid
progression of technology development
has provided opportunities to expand the
boundaries of knowledge, it has also limited
how deeply we connect to that knowledge.
The diminished literacy scores can be
explained through the increased use of cell
phones, iPads and computers for acquiring
knowledge, as textbooks are being replaced
with visual presentations, without sufcient
written explanations that encourage
thoughtful consideration (Carter et al., 2017).
Synaptic connections that are necessary
for imagination and problem solving require
increased reading opportunities. Contrary
to theoretical expectations (Herman, 2013;
Zeidler, et al., 2016), the learning curve has
been skewed away from critical thinking
and problem-solving skills to improved
multi-tasking and utilizing the Internet for
uninterrupted personal communication.
Does this suggest that the intrusion of
“i technology”1 has inhibited the ability of
students to discern relevant, reliable and
valid claims from competing falsehoods?
If so, then students’ brains will tend to
I technology was originally introduced by Steve Jobs
in a keynote talk in 1998 as he introduced the internet
capabilities of an iMAC computer. With the introduction
of other Apple products, such as iPad, iBook, iPod,
iPhone, iOS, etc., i technology has become not only
ubiquitous with Apple branding, but also carries a
generic connotation of individuals being connected with
and to technology at a nger’s length. Kember (2016)
expands this notion in her book, iMedia: The Gendering
of Objects, Environments and Smart Materials.
1.
8

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
graft nearby non-facts to valid information
to create a mutated and highly invasive
species of fact-ction hybrids. That students
demonstrate confusion between knowledge
and belief, where belief represents unproven
but believable hearsay, has been shown in
the research (Zeidler et al., 2002, 2018).
Exacerbating this is the fact that one’s
dominant culture many times serves as a
double-edged sword, serving both as an
ethnocentric lens to solidify group identity
as well as a lter that sifts out dissonant
values that may run counter to one’s core
beliefs (Kahan et al., 2011a, 2011b).
Hence, the topics and content that
science teachers present in class compete
with marketing of products through
inaccurate science. An important implication
is, therefore, that a primary role of the
science teacher includes fostering the
acquisition of knowledge and skills that
would encourage questioning of claims and
authority (Oliveira-Martins et al., 2017).
To that end, the chapters in this book
present SSI-related approaches to counter
some of these sociocultural issues, by diving
deeper into areas of exploring conceptual
understanding of evolution through tapping
sociocultural approaches consistent with
the SSI framework. In doing so, we align
our approach to achieve functional scientic
literacy with that of Roberts & Bybee’s
(2014) Vision II scientic literacy, stressing
how science should be made relevant with
personal and societal issues impacting the
lives of students. Accordingly, topics covered
by this volume also facilitate Vision II, as
found in the following summaries below.
Why is SSI an impactful pedagogical
approach to foster scientic literacy Vision
II and Vision III? What are the differences
between SSI and other educational
approaches that link science and society?
And how can teachers plan educational
instruction that address SSI? In Chapter 2
Emine Sarıkaya and Mustafa Sami Topçu
describe their approach to socioscientic
issues, how it appeared and how it is
different from the science, technology
and society approaches.
They also describe two models to design
educational activities: the most recent
version of the Socioscientic Teaching and
Learning Model proposed by Friedrichsen,
Sadler, Graham and Brown (2016) to
design SSI based instruction and the 5E
Model developed by Bybee that presents
a framework to design science learning
outcomes (Scott et al., 2014). The authors
guide us through these two models and
provide suggestions on how to make these
two models compatible and useful to design
SSI teaching approaches.
In fact, the complex and controversial
problems we face today require education
to empower citizens with scientic literacy
and in particular with competencies in
sustainability that allow them to contribute
to more just and sustainable societies. In
Chapter 3, Patrícia Pessoa, J. Bernardino
Lopes, Alexandre Pinto and Xana Sá-
Pinto address this eld of education
for sustainable development and its
connection to evolution education and
the SSI pedagogical approach. By means
of a systematic literature review they
identied studies comprising these different
approaches to identify which competencies
of sustainability are developed in these
studies. They demonstrate that only a few
studies addressed evolution education and
education for sustainable development by
means of an SSI approach. This highlights
the importance of performing more studies
and developing more activities on how
to promote education for sustainability
by exploring SSI under an evolutionary
perspective.
Furthermore, although evolution is
related with many of today’s sustainability
9

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
problems, for example human health,
biodiversity conservation, or food security,
most of the topics addressed in the papers
analyzed are related to the biotechnology
eld. Lastly, this study also highlights the
importance of fostering participatory work to
promote the development of competencies
in sustainability through collaborative,
meaningful and contextualized learning in
the resolution of real problems.
In Chapter 4 Martha Georgiou, Maria
João Fonseca, Corinne Fortin, Sébastien
Turpin and Camille Roux-Goupille explore
the application of SSI in non-formal
education contexts, especially in museums.
Activities from the Natural History Museum
of Porto, the National Museum of Natural
History of Paris and the Zoological Museum
of Athens are presented as examples.
These activities focus on biodiversity,
one of the aspects of evolution that is
becoming increasingly noticeable and an
essential component of life. They also
reference the integration of SSI activities in
other non-formal education environments
and offer a critical reection on the
contribution of such environments to SSI
education. But how is evolution related to
SSI? In Chapter 5 Alex Jeffries describes
how evolution is relevant to subjects that
impact our daily lives and how these
subjects can be used as hooks to foster
students’ engagement in the classroom.
From the evolutionary perspective
of humanity’s place in nature to the
importance of evolution in predicting
biodiversity changes during climate
change, through to evolutionary insights
about cancer and COVID-19, Jeffries
guides us through the processes and how
understanding of evolution can be used to
make informed choices in our daily lives.
Although evolution is widely recognized
as one of the most valuable scientic
theories, hundreds of studies have
documented a variety of sociocultural,
linguistic, cognitive, and epistemic factors
that inuence the understanding and
acceptance of evolution, making it one
of the most challenging disciplines to
communicate and teach effectively.
In Chapter 6, Ross H. Nehm and Kostas
Kampourakis provide a brief overview of
some of the most signicant topics relevant
to effective teaching and communication
about evolution (worldviews, the nature
of science, the language of evolution,
cognitive biases and misconceptions,
reasoning about evolutionary phenomena,
cases and curriculum, teaching practices,
and assessment and learning), inviting the
readers to use this chapter as an entry point
into the rich literature on evolution education.
These authors suggest focused attention
on all of these topics for effective evolution
education and outreach.
The last chapter of the theoretical part
of the book - Chapter 7 - bridges theory and
practice. In this chapter Merav Siani and
Anat Yarden present three training activities
that could be applied in secondary schools
as well as in teacher training programs. The
activities address three human health issues:
lactose tolerance, celiac disease and starch
consumption affecting diabetes.
The principles that guided the design
of these three activities are described. In
addition, some results are presented after
the implementation of one of the activities
to a group of pre-service teachers. According
to the results, a signicant proportion
of teachers used more key concepts of
evolution after experiencing the activity and
a signicant proportion of them increased
their acceptance of evolution.
In Chapter 8 Susan Hanish, Dustin
Eirdosh and Tammy Morgan deal with
a classic dilemma of how to cooperatively
and sustainably deal with common-
pool resources (a problem also known
10

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
in economics as the ‘tragedy of the
commons’). The problems of navigating
self-interest in a nite resource within
human society are very real-world issues
that range in scale from the individual
through to global challenges such as
sustainability, mitigating climate change
and dealing with pandemics.
Similar resource ‘tragedies’ exist in
the natural world and have evolutionary
mechanisms and implications for the species
involved. Hanish and colleagues provide
an overview of common-pool resource
dilemma theory in both evolutionary and
human natural resource contexts. This
theoretical background is then developed
into a exible set of ve secondary school
teaching lesson plans (with practical advice
to teachers) which help students grasp the
SSI implications of sustainable resource use.
The ve lesson scenarios and sets of
questions allow students to reect on and
discuss both the theory and problems
associated with common-pool dilemmas,
allowing them to develop understanding
of SSI in general, evolution, scientic
practices, the nature of science and
its interface with society, and develop
transversal skills such as analysis, critical
evaluation, epistemic understanding, and
open mindedness. In Chapter 9, Ümran
Betül Cebesoy considers how evolution
itself, as a societally controversial issue for
parts of the society, can be addressed by
means of the SSI framework and proposes
an activity for higher education.
As evolution is often addressed in
negotiating SSI, and argumentation
is a frequent tool in SSI approaches,
this activity applies an approach in
which argumentation plays a key role.
With the goal to increase participants’
understanding of natural selection she
applies an antibiotic resistance context.
The activity comprises three parts, the rst
explores participants’ prior ideas about
evolution and their prior conceptions
about antibiotic resistance. The second
part comprises some specic reading
activities and input concerning antibiotic
resistance and the role of natural selection.
In the last section, a classroom discussion
challenges student’s ideas and fosters their
argumentation competences.
The whole activity targets several
learning objectives concerning SSI
(develop understanding of SSI, decision-
making skills, realize the existence of
different viewpoints, and informed
decisions about natural selection contexts),
evolution (realize natural selection as
one of the mechanisms of evolution,
identify variation, heritability/inheritance,
and reproductive advantage/differential
reproduction as three main concepts of
natural selection, to discuss the role of
these factors in understanding natural
selection, and to recognize the role of
mutations as signicant sources of genetic
variations), scientic practices (construct
explanations, engage in argumentation
and seek evidence, and obtain, evaluate
and communicate information), Nature of
Science (realize that science is based on
empirical evidence), and transversal skills
(analyze issues from multiple perspectives).
In Chapter 10, Rebecca Lewis, Ellen
Bell and Eleanor Kent present us with the
dilemmas that farmers face when deciding
how much to invest in agricultural practices
that are pollinators’ friendly. Through an
engaging game, students learn about
these, by playing the role of farmers,
making decisions and receiving the return
of the crops sold in the end. Some of the
processes of the games are related to
evolutionary processes such as co-evolution
or natural selection driven by disease
resistance and the authors provide ideas
and suggestions on how to explore these
11

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
processes in the classroom.
In Chapter 11, Rita Ponce, Susana Carneiro,
André Rodrigues and Mustafa Sami Topçu,
deal with the correlation between the
geographical distribution of human skin
color and solar radiation intensity as one
of the most remarkable examples of how
natural selection has shaped the evolution
of our species and the divergence between
human populations. In addition, the impact
of solar radiation on human health is
discussed, while highlighting the importance
of communicating its potential negative
effects and how to avoid them.
To this end, the authors present an
educational activity (K9-K12) that calls for
the creation of a dissemination campaign
focusing on the effects of solar radiation.
The goal of the activity is to help students
learn about natural selection, how it causes
population divergence, and how these
are related to evolutionary processes.
Furthermore, students will explore the
concepts of subspecies and races (and how
the latter has no real biological existence).
Ethical and medical issues are also the
axes of a debate organized by students
to communicate health issues related to
evolution and develop scientic practices.
In Chapter 12 - “Are we allowed to
tinker with (human) DNA? Addressing
socioscientic issues through philosophical
dialogue: the case of genetic engineering”
- Jelle De Schrijver, Stefaan Blancke, Eef
Cornelissen, Jan Sermeus and Lynda
Dunlop, argue that education about
socioscientic issues such as genetic
engineering can be challenging. Underlying
tensions can surface when discussing
genetic engineering.
These tensions can be related to (1) the
molecular biology of genetics and genetic
engineering, (2) the evolutionary aspects
of genetic engineering, (3) the nature of
science, and (4) the ethical understanding
of the SSI. The tensions may lead to
confrontation, either between students or
between students and teacher. To address
such tensions, the authors suggest a
pedagogical approach: ‘Philosophical
inquiry’ that entails dialogue where a
teacher (facilitator) helps a group of students
to uncover hidden presuppositions and elicit
an argumentative conversation. Stimuli
such as cases, pictures or quotes provide a
context to help students engage in dialogues
about philosophical questions. At the end
of the chapter, the authors provide tips to
keep in mind when addressing SSI through
philosophical inquiry.
The breadth of the chapters introduced
above suggests that the curriculum of SSI
is an evolving organism of instruction, as
novel issues parallel constantly changing
media headlines and challenge core
students’ beliefs. Not coincidentally, the
current debate regarding fake news has
been a constant challenge of deciphering
authentic science concept knowledge.
It is, therefore, educationally prudent
to provide students with the skills
necessary to engage in informed, moral
decision-making that impacts issues like
sustainable development, dealing with
controversy, understanding the critical need
of biodiversity, and the like (e.g., Oliveira-
Martins et al., 2017; Stevenson et al., 2012;
UNESCO, 2018, 2021).
Because of these opportunities, students
begin to move away from more narrow
epistemological beliefs and begin to widen
their worldview within new perspectives
and issues exhibiting what some might
refer to as horizontal decalage (Gauvain &
Cole, 2009) as they articulate broader and
more inclusive views or moral decisions
based on scientic evidence. As students
begin to engage in evidence-based
reasoning, they also display improved
abilities in sharing their own perspectives
12

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
and understanding the perspectives of
others (Newton & Zeidler, 2020).
Pedagogically, the evolving social milieu
of students is also constantly shifting. As
social issues evolve, how students become
sensitized or engage in those issues also may
change. It is a given that there will always be
a changing moral landscape of students. It is
imperative to be attuned and sensitive to the
Zeitgeist of sociocultural norms2.
In the teaching of SSI, it is important
to understand that any given experience
is interpreted personally, referenced and
understood within the cultural norms of a
unique temporal human condition (Bencze,
et al., in press). It follows then, that as
generations or cohorts of students change
over the years, the intellectual Zeitgeist in
which SSI may be shaped to ‘t’ within a
particular educational context must also be
sensitive to those changes.
Therefore, planned and extemporaneous
questions must be designed and
constructed in a manner that maximizes
student engagement for a given time and
place. Doing so supports references to
Vision II scientic literacy stressing an
understanding of how science is relevant
in personal and societal issues (Roberts &
Bybee, 2014). For the purpose of preparing
students to become scientically literate
citizens, it is educationally prudent to
provide them with the skills necessary
to engage in informed, moral decision
-making that will impact their lives.
These experiences provide opportunities for
students to engage in discourse that develop
their ethical reasoning skills allowing
them to become more sensitive to moral
and ethical issues. Moreover, the nature
and scope of science concept knowledge
requires justied belief. The challenge for
educators is creating a core curriculum
and lesson plans that are engaging and
interesting to students. Fundamental
scientic vocabulary and content instruction
compete with a daily barrage of information
that is delivered to adults and children
through electronic mass media. Using social
issues as context for science instruction has
become essential during the past decade,
as increased use of the Internet and social
media require students to make moral and
personal decisions of a scientic nature.
As commonly accepted scientic
concepts (e.g., climate change, evolution,
stem cell research) are contentious topics in
parts of the society (Beniermann et al., 2021),
SSI instruction provides a safe environment
for learning the scientic as well as ethical
and interdisciplinary vocabulary and content.
Introducing lesson plans through the lens
of personally relevant social issues provide
an authentic and robust framework for
acquiring a better understanding of relevant
concepts and ethical issues.
In learning evolution through SSI,
we need to create a curriculum for
the developing brain that includes the
experiences necessary for improved literacy,
global and individual problem solving,
moral decision-making and intuitive self-
awareness. That the sociocultural milieu
leaves its mark on the developing brain
should not be understated (Harris, 2010).
We are born with high neuroplasticity
– our brains constantly adapt to and are
shaped by the demands of our environment
as well as the intellectual, cultural and
technological tools we bring to bear in
our everyday decision-making ventures
Zeitgeist translates from the German as
“time-spirit.” It is associated with the prevailing
intellectual and moral tenor of a given time
period for a particular group or culture. It is,
therefore, always context and time specic and
a product of sociocultural factors that impact
the collective consciousness, social norms, and
values of people leaving its mark on those who
share that lived experience.
2.
13

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
(Garland & Howard, 2009; Mundkur, 2005).
It has been suggested that while we
become more adept at scanning and
skimming bundles of factoids (both
true and untrue), our ability for deeper
contemplation and reection has been
severely compromised (Carr, 2014).
In this regard, teaching the moving
target of scientic content and context to
students has been a challenge for teachers.
It is not unimaginable that the topic of
evolutionary theory may likely bring about
varied levels of cognitive conict and
dissonance for students, as well as adults.
Generally, people will evoke an array of
mental gymnastics and contortions to avoid
inconsistency between their core beliefs
and ideas that challenge those core beliefs
(Cooper, 2019; Zeidler, 2001).
However, it is that very same
psychological state of cognitive and moral
‘imbalance’ that can be leveraged to compel
students to explore, explain, resolve and
learn in greater detail conceptual challenges
to their epistemological worldviews.
In other words, having to confront
scientic evidence or other’s arguments
that are inconsistent with prior beliefs and
understandings can bring about a level of
uncomfortable cognitive and moral tension,
sometimes called a threshold concept (Land
et al., 2016), necessary to create dissonance,
which is a precursor to its resolution - and to
novel insights and learning.
In cross-cultural SSI research (Zeidler et
al., 2013), we nd that a threshold model
helps to explain the relationship between
students’ socioscientic reasoning and
epistemological sophistication, moving
from proximal, immediate and concrete
justications toward greater consideration
of ‘intangibles’ consisting of distal, delayed
and abstract justications about SSI
decisions (Zeidler, 2016).
We suggest that an educational SSI
framework is a viable pedagogical strategy
allowing science educators to strengthen
their craft and subsequently lead students to
deeper conceptual understanding of thematic,
organizing principles in elds of evolutionary
science, as well as science proper.
14

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2023). Research
on Teaching, Learning, and Assessment of Nature
of Science. In N. G. Lederman, D.L. Zeidler, & J.S.
Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science
Education, Volume III. Routledge. (In Press).
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O.,
Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire,
J. L., Lindsey, E. L., Maguire, K. C., Mersey, B.,
& Ferrer, E. A. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass
extinction already arrived? Nature, 471(7336), 51–57.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678
Bencze, J.L., Pouliot, C., Pedretti, E. Simonneaux, L.,
Simonneaux, J., & Zeidler, D.L. (2020). SAQ, SSI &
STSE education: Defending and extending ‘Science-in-
Context.’ Cultural Studies in Science Education, 15(3),
825-851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09962-7
Beniermann, A., Mecklenburg, L., & Upmeier zu
Belzen, A. (2021). Reasoning on Controversial
Science Issues in Science Education and Science
Communication. Education Sciences, 11(9), 522.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090522
Borgerding, L. A., & Dagistan, M. (2018). Preservice
science teachers’ concerns and approaches for
teaching socioscientic and controversial issues.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(4), 283-306.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1440860
Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to
our brains. W.W. Norton & Company.
Carroll, S. P., Jørgensen, P. S., Kinnison, M. T., Bergstrom,
C. T., Denison, R. F., Gluckman, P., Smith, T. B., Strauss,
S. Y., & Tabashnik, B. E. (2014). Applying evolutionary
biology to address global challenges. Science,
346(6207). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245993
Carter, M.D., Walker, M.M., Hough, M.S., & O’Brien (2017).
Reading rate acceleration: How fast is too fast? Journal
of Literacy and Technology, 18(3), 2-37.
Cooper, J. (2019). Cognitive Dissonance: Where We’ve Been
and Where We’re Going. International Review of Social
Psychology, 32(1), 7. http://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.277
Duckworth, E. (2006). The having of wonderful ideas
and other essays on teaching and learning. Teachers
College Press.
Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On
Being Ignorant of One’s Own Ignorance. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 247–296.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6
Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003).
Why people fail to recognize their own competence.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–87.
REFERENCES
Garland, E.L., & Howard, M.O. (2009). Neuroplasticity,
psychosocial genomics, and the biopsychosocial
paradigm in the 21st Century. Health & Social Work,
34,(3), 191-199.
Gauvain, M., & Cole, M. (2009). Readings on the
Development of Children. 5th ed. Worth.
Herman, B. C. (2013). Convergence of Postman and
Vygotsky’s perspectives regarding contemporary
media’s impact on learning and teaching. In M. P.
Clough, J. K. Olson, & D. S. Niederhausers (Eds.),
The nature of technology: Implications for teaching and
learning (pp. 293–328). Sense Publishers.
Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can
determine human values. Free Press.
Jørgensen, P. S., Folke, C., & Carroll, S. P. (2019). Evolution
in the Anthropocene: Informing governance and policy.
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics,
50(1), 527–546.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman,
D. (2011a). Cultural cognition of scientic
consensus. Journal of risk research, 14(2), 147-174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kahan, D. M., Wittlin, M., Peters, E., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L.,
Braman, D. & Mandel, G. (2011b). The Tragedy of the
Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conict, Rationality
Conict, and Climate Change. Temple University
Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-26; Cultural
Cognition Project Working Paper No. 89; Yale Law &
Economics Research Paper No. 435; Yale Law School,
Public Law Working Paper No. 230. Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1871503.
Kember, S. (2016). iMedia: The gendering of objects,
environments and smart materials. Palgrave
Macmillan Limited.
Kuschmierz, P., Beniermann, A., Bergmann, A., Pinxten,
R., Aivelo, T., Berniak-Wony, J., Bohlin, G., Bugallo-
Rodriguez, A., Cardia, P., Cavadas, B. F., Cebesoy,
U. B., Cvetkovi, D. D., Demarsy, E., Đorevi, M.
S., Drobniak, S. M., Dubchak, L., Dvoáková, R. M.,
Fančovičová, J., Fortin, C., … Graf, D. (2021) European
rst-year university students accept evolution but
lack substantial knowledge about it: a standardized
European cross-country assessment. Evolution:
Education and Outreach, 14(1), 1-22. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12052-021-00158-8
Land, R., Meyer, J.H.F., & Flanagan, M.T. (2016). Threshold
concepts in practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lederman, N.G., & Lederman, J.S. (2014). Research on
teaching the nature of science. . In N. G. Lederman
& S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science
Education, Volume II (pp. 600-620). Routledge.
15
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09962-7
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090522
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1440860
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245993
http://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.277
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1871503.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-021-00158-8

CHAPTER 1 EDITORIAL Learning evolution through
socioscientic issues: A functional
scientic literacy perspective
Mundkur, N. (2005). Neuroplasticity in children.
Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 72, 855–857.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02731115
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12
Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts,
and Core Ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework
for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board
on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
Newton, M., & Zeidler, D.L. (2020). Developing
socioscientic perspective taking. International
Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1302-1319.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1756515
Oliveira-Martins, G., Gomes, C.A.S, Brocardo, J.M.L,
Pedroso, J.V., Carillo, J.L.A., Silva, M.L.U., Encarnação,
M.M.G.A, Horta, M.J.V.C.,Calçada, M.T.C.S, Nery, R.F.V,
& Rodrigues, M.S.C.V (2017). Perl dos Alunos à Saída
da Escolaridade Obrigatória. Ministério da Educação.
Owens, D.C., Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2017).
Controversial issues in the science classroom. Phi
Delta Kappan, 99(4), 45-49.
Roberts, D.A., & Bybee, R.W. (2014). Scientic literacy,
science literacy, and science education. In N. G.
Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Science Education, Volume II (pp. 545-558). Routledge.
Statistics Brain Research Institute. (2017) Statistic
Brain Research Institute, publishing as
Statistic Brain. July 2, 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.statisticbrain.com/attention-span-
statistics/
Stevenson, R.B., Brody, M., Dillon, J. & Wals, A.E.J. (2012).
International Handbook of Research on Environmental
Education. Routledge.
Tabashnik, B. E., Mota-Sanchez, D., Whalon, M. E.,
Hollingworth, R. M., & Carrière, Y. (2014). Dening
terms for proactive management of resistance
to Bt crops and pesticides. Journal of economic
entomology, 107(2), 496-507.
UNESCO. (2018). Issues and Trends in Education for
Sustainable Development. In UNESCO Publishing.
https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/ESD1.pdf
UNESCO (2021). UNESCO urges making
environmental education a core curriculum
component in all countries by 2025.
https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-urges-making-
environmental-education-core-curriculum-component-
all-countries-2025
World Health Organization. (2014). Antimicrobial resistance:
global report on surveillance. World Health Organization,
61(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-014-0374-3
Zeidler, D.L. (2003), The role of moral reasoning on
socioscientic issues and discourse in science
education. Kluwer Academic Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S.
S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to
socioscientic issues. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 50, 251–283.
Zeidler, D.L. (2014). Socioscientic Issues as a Curriculum
Emphasis: Theory, Research and Practice. In N.
G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Science Education, Volume II (pp. 697-
726). Routledge.
Zeidler, D.L. (2016). STEM education: A decit framework
for the 21st century? A sociocultural socioscientic
response. Cultural Studies of Science Education.
11( 1),11-26.
Zeidler, D.L., Applebaum, S.M. & Sadler, T.D. (2011). Enacting
a socioscientic issues classroom: Transformative
transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientic
issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and
research (pp. 277-306). Springer.
Zeidler, D.L., Herman, B.C., Clough, M.P., Olson, J.K.,
Kahn, S., & Newton, M. (2016). Humanitas Emptor:
Reconsidering recent trends and policy in science
teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 25(5), 465-476.
Zeidler, D.L., Herman, B.C., & Sadler, T.D. (2019). New
directions in socioscientic issues research. Disciplinary
and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(11),
1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2023). Exploring and expanding
the frontiers of socioscientic issues: Crossroads and
future directions. In N. G. Lederman, D.L. Zeidler, & J.S.
Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science
Education, Volume III. Routledge. (In Press).
Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W.A., & Simmons, M.L.
(2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of
science and responses to socioscientic dilemmas.
Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.
REFERENCES
16
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02731115
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1756515
https://www.statisticbrain.com/attention-span-
statistics/
https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/ESD1.pdf
https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-urges-
making-environmental-education-core-curriculum-
component-all-countries-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-014-0374-3
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7

Chapter 2
Using socioscientic
issue approach to
promote students’
scientic literacy
17

Using socioscientic issue approach
to promote students’ scientic literacy
Emine Sarıkaya1,
Mustafa Sami Topçu1
1Yıldız Technical University
Abstract: Socioscientic issues (SSIs) can be described as controversial
social issues that are closely related to science and inherently
dualistic complex narratives with no single solution. To better
understand the historical development of SSI research, it is
useful to investigate the period impacting the rise of specic
SSIs. While the science, technology and society education
approach focuses on the effects of science and technology
on society, it does not handle these issues to promote moral
development and epistemological growth. Using SSIs aims
to promote individuals’ moral and epistemological growth as
well as awareness of social and scientic aspects of daily life
issues. Socioscientic reasoning is handled as a term dening
the negotiation process of dilemmatic SSIs. Socioscientic
reasoning level is closely associated with one’s degree of
scientic literacy because it focuses on reasoning in different
SSI contexts. It is also closely related to the Program for
International Student Assessment’s denition of scientic
literacy, which states that scientic literacy relates to the ability
to use scientic knowledge in real-life contexts. Two models
that guide the implementation of SSIs in the classroom, the
SSI TL model and the 5E model, are introduced in this study.
Compatibility between the models in terms of their application
in SSI-based instruction is also discussed.
Informal Reasoning, Socioscientic Reasoning, STS Education, Evolution
KEYWORDS
18
CHAPTER 2

Socioscientic issues (SSIs) are topics
rooted in both science and society (Ramirez
Villarin & Fowler, 2019). Since an SSI is a
narrative that has multiple perspectives
and no clear-cut solution, it requires a
negotiation process to reach an agreement
(Romine et al., 2017).
Fowler and Zeidler (2016) described
SSIs by using the words ‘ill-structured-
controversial’. Cloning, stem cell research,
gene therapy, biodiversity (Fowler & Zeidler,
2016), hydraulic fracturing, climate change
and genetically modied foods (Romine et
al., 2017) are some examples of SSIs.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Definition of SSIs
1.2 Period Impacting the
Rise of SSIs
The SSI approach emerged based
on previous research about science,
technology and society education (Zeidler
et al., 2009). Since the 1970s, there has been
an effort for science education to address
topics possessing a social and technological
background, and to study the effects of this
approach on teaching and learning related
science content (Zeidler et al., 2005). There
is a consensus that placing science content
in a broader context and providing social
and technological discourse supports
meaningful learning (Zeidler et al., 2005).
The science-technology-society
movement is an effort to integrate mutual
inuences among technology, science and
society (Sadler, 2004). In 1982, the National
Science Teachers Association published
the characteristics of a scientically literate
person and emphasized understanding
the intersections of these three areas
(Zeidler et al., 2005). In the 1990s, the
science-technology-society-environment
movement, which argues for also exploring
environmental issues, entered the science
teaching agenda (Topçu, 2017).
However, there had been an agreement
that both educational approaches do
not particularly focus on character
development as well as ethical and moral
values (Topçu et al., 2010).
The argumentation and nature of science,
which are not included within the scopes of
the science-technology-society and science-
technology-society-environment educational
approaches, can be highlighted as additional
weak points (Topçu, 2017).
CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK FOR SSIs
2.1 Scientific Literacy
Fostering scientic literacy is an important
goal for science education (Kolsto,
2001; Yacoubian, 2018). Previously,
comprehending connections between
science, technology and society was
described by the National Science Teacher
Association as a characteristic of a
scientically literate person (Zeidler et al.,
2005). Thus, whilst the idea of the science-
technology-society movement reects
the property of being scientically literate
(Zeidler et al., 2005), it can be said that
scientic literacy formed the basis for SSIs
stemming from the science-technology-
society movement.
Roberts and Bybee (2014) put forward
two fundamental and broad views of
scientic literacy (as cited in Kinslow et al.,
2019). According to Kinslow et al. (2019),
there are two visions of scientic literacy.
Although the denitions of Vision I and II
change according to the people or groups
creating the denitions, Tan (2016) stated
that Vision I is curriculum knowledge and
Vision II is the ability to understand and
19
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SSIS
criticise the impact of science on daily life.
Similar to Tan (2016), Romine et al. (2017)
identied Vision I as content knowledge.
For Vision II, contextual knowledge, which
relates to the ability to use scientic
phenomena in different societal contexts, is
emphasised (Romine et al., 2017).
The scientic literacy view adopted by
the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) also includes the ability
to use scientic knowledge in real-life
contexts (Sadler & Zeidler, 2009). Since
SSIs are used as a learning context, it can
be said that they coincide with the scientic
literacy view put forward by the PISA.
Additionally, in recent years, Vision III's
scientic literacy concept has been dened.
Vision III scientic literacy has emerged in
response to the challenges and needs of the
21st century, such as injustice, growing hate
against certain groups and environmental
crises (Valladares, 2021).
It takes the view of scientic literacy
beyond the contextual use of scientic
information and additionally emphasises
social engagement and citizen impact
(Valladares, 2021). It adopts the perspective
of using knowledge and a set of skills to
reconstruct human relationships worldwide
(Valladares, 2021).
Competencies
SSI’s Contribution
Learning Science
Content Knowledge
(Tan, 2016; Romine
et al., 2017).
Socioscientic narratives
serve as a meaningful
approach for learning
science content
knowledge (Sadler,2009).
Learning science content
and ability to use
scientic knowledge in
real life contexts (Sadler
& Zeidler, 2009).
SSI offers real life contexts
having social and scientic
roots for science learning
and to use it contexts
(Sadler, 2009).
Learning science content,
the ability to use it
contextually and developing
a set of skills for democratic
participation and citizenship
(Valladares, 2021).
SSI framework offers the
opportunity to become
engaged in socio-political
action (Bencze, Pouliot,
Pedretti, Simonneaux,
Simonneaux and Zeidler,
2020) and learning
democratic participation
through decision making
processes (Ottander
& Simon, 2021).
Vision I
Scientic Literacy
Vision II
Scientic Literacy
Vision III
Scientic Literacy
Table 1
Competencies for scientic literacy visions and their relationships with SSIs.
20
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy

Informal reasoning is a signicant concept
that means decision-making processes on
dilemmatic issues. An SSI is dened as
open-ended, multi-dimensional and
dilemmatic (Romine et al., 2017).
When considering the complex
dilemmas arising from the nature of SSIs,
students use informal reasoning to make
decisions and reach agreements (Sadler
& Zeidler, 2004). The cognitive reasoning
process for negotiating contentious
problems (i.e., informal reasoning; Sadler &
Zeidler, 2005) requires one to rely not only
on scientic facts but also on the emotive
features of a problem.
Accordingly, as students negotiate,
discuss, debate and investigate such
complex and contentious issues, they come
to engage in deep discourse and the co-
construction of meaning-making, which
requires blending both the cognitive and
affective processes that contribute to the
resolution of the problem at hand. Notably,
SSIs provide an appropriate platform for the
use of informal reasoning (Sadler, 2004).
2.2 Informal Reasoning
2.3 Socioscientific
Reasoning
SSIs contribute to thinking and decision-
making processes as well as position-taking
(Zeidler et al., 2019). To understand how
these goals are achieved through SSI-
based instruction, the need for a concept
corresponding to this thought process has
been mentioned (Zeidler et al., 2021).
To meet this need, socioscientic
reasoning is dened (Sadler et al.,
2007). Socioscientic reasoning includes
reasoning practices that involve students
being engaged during the negotiation
process of a socioscientic narrative
(Sadler et al., 2007; Zeidler et al., 2021).
Socioscientic reasoning is described as
a concept focusing on these abilities and
practices (Romine et al., 2017).
Moreover, this form of reasoning is
important in terms of both its relation to
scientic literacy and the practices used
in the decision-making process for SSI
negotiation (Kinslow et al., 2019). Different
from informal reasoning, this novel
concept describes the reasoning process
within the scope of SSIs. However, Sadler
(2004) explained informal reasoning
as the thinking process involved in any
complicated and dilemmatic issue.
Romine et al. (2017) investigated
socioscientic reasoning and claimed that
it focuses on content knowledge but also
includes higher-order cognitive skills such as
understanding the complex and multifaceted
nature of an issue. The socioscientic
reasoning concept is described based on a
set of practices that students are expected
to be engaged in within the resolution
process of a complex SSI (Kinslow et al.,
2019). These practices include understanding
the complexity of the issue, analysing
and expressing the SSI from multiple
perspectives, noticing ongoing inquiry of
the topic and being sceptical of existing or
manipulated information (Kinslow et al.,
2019; Sadler et al., 2007).
The rst practice, ‘complexity’, suggests
that students should notice complex
nature of SSIs, which there is no a clear-
cut solution (Cian, 2019; Kinslow et al.,
2019; Sadler et al., 2007). Considering
multiple perspectives, which is the second
practice of socioscientic reasoning, is
described as a reasoning process required
to understand the negative and positive
sides of an SSI decision-making process for
each stakeholder (Cian, 2019; Kinslow et al.,
2019; Sadler et al., 2007). In this dimension
of socioscientic reasoning, potential ways
to negotiate the problematic context should
be evaluated (Sadler et al., 2007).
The third practice can be described
as an awareness of ongoing questioning
(Cian, 2019; Kinslow et al., 2019; Sadler et
al., 2007). Students should set questions in
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SSIS
21
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy

their minds for future inquiries (Kinslow et
al., 2019). Since the solutions reached are
not the only solutions to this issue, they can
be re-evaluated and changed (Cian, 2019).
Students should also notice that since
the stakeholders’ own advantages and
disadvantages may affect their decision-
making processes, this requires students
to be sceptical regarding the produced
arguments (Cian, 2019; Kinslow et al.,
2019; Sadler et al., 2007). The dimension
“being sceptical” means that stakeholders’
stances and the information they provide
can be manipulated based on their needs
or benets (Cian, 2019). Additionally, a fth
dimension is added to the Socioscientic
reasoning (Zeidler et al., 2019), which is
called the affordances and limitations of
science (Zeidler et al., 2019).
This dimension involves being aware of
the contributions of scientic knowledge
and processes to the solution of dilemmatic
SSIs and realising that they also have
limitations (Zeidler et al., 2019).
A USEFUL FRAMEWORK
FOR DEVELOPING
SSI-BASED INSTRUCTION
3.1 Socioscientific
Teaching and Learning
Model (SSI TL Model)
The SSI TL model was described by
Friedrichsen et al. (2016) and can be used as
a guide for instructors to develop SSI-based
instructional processes. The most current
version of this model includes two parts:
instructional design and learning outcomes
(Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
The instructional part is divided into
three sub-parts: focal issue, main body and
Figure 1
Socioscientic teaching and learning model (gure
adapted with modications from Sadler et al., 2017).
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SSIS /
A USEFUL FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING
SSI-BASED INSTRUCTION
culminating activity (Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
In the focal issue part, the SSI is introduced
(Friedrichsen et al., 2016). Students can
explore the determined context as SSI
(Friedrichsen et al., 2016) and notice that it
has scientic and social roots (Topçu, 2017).
The main body part includes activities to
explore and comprehend the intended topic
(Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
The an SSI TL model’s current version
is aligned with the National Generation
Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead
States, 2013) from the USA. The main body
part of the an SSI TL model is coherent with
its three-dimensional policy (Friedrichsen
et al., 2016), which argues that science
education should provide students
opportunities to learn about 1) crosscutting
concepts, 2) disciplinary core ideas and 3)
scientic and engineering practices (NRC,
Encounter Focal Issue
Connections to
Science Ideas
Disciplinary Core Ideas
Crosscuting Concepts
Synthesize Key Ideas
Socioscientic Reasoning Practicces
Science and Engineering Practicces
Other Learning Objectives
Awareness of Issue
Nature of Science
Identity
Societal Ideas
22
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy

A USEFUL FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING
SSI-BASED INSTRUCTION
2012). Disciplinary core ideas are related to
the content knowledge required according
to the NGSS standards (NGSS, 2013).
For life sciences, there are four
disciplinary ideas: a) from molecules to
organisms: structures and processes;
b) ecosystems: interactions, energy and
dynamics; c) heredity: inheritance and
variation of traits; d) biological evolution:
unity and diversity (NRC, 2012, p. 142).
Scientic and engineering practices embrace
methods that are part of the scientic and
engineering enterprise (NRC, 2012).
Eight scientic practices have been
determined by the National Research
Council (2012): i) asking questions (for
science) and dening problems (for
engineering); ii) developing and using
modelling; iii) planning and carrying
out investigations; iv) analysing and
interpreting data; v) using mathematics and
computational thinking; vi) constructing
explanations (for science) and designing
solutions (for engineering); vii) engaging
in arguments based on evidence; viii)
obtaining, evaluating and communicating
information (NRC, 2012, p. 49).
The third dimension of the NGSS,
crosscutting concepts, allows the
combination of scientic and engineering
knowledge across disciplines (NRC,
2012). Seven crosscutting concepts were
described by the National Research Council
(2012). These are ‘patterns’, ‘cause and
effect’, ‘scale, proportion and quantity’,
‘systems and system models’, ‘energy
and matter’, ‘structure and function’ and
‘stability and change’ (NRC, 2012, p. 84).
Based on this vision, the main body
activities should be planned so that
students can learn the disciplinary core
ideas, scientic and engineering practices
and crosscutting concepts and develop
an understanding of the nature of science
(epistemology of science) and the SSI
whilst also developing and their own
identity (Friedrichsen et al., 2016; Sadler et
al., 2017; Topçu, 2017).
The nal step of the SSI TL model is a
culminating activity (Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
This activity should involve dynamics that
allow students to think about and synthesise
the ideas and scientic concepts discussed in
the instructional period (Sadler et al., 2017).
The SSI-based instruction guided by the
SSI TL model has clear instructional goals
(Sadler et al., 2017; Topçu, 2017). Students
are expected to learn about the SSI,
develop content knowledge (disciplinary
core ideas) and/or experience scientic and
engineering practices whilst learning about
the crosscutting concepts (Sadler et al.,
2017; Topçu, 2017).
By using scientic knowledge to
understand a socioscientic context in
SSI-based instruction, students are also
expected to improve their socioscientic
reasoning level (Topçu, 2017). Addressing
and discussing ethical and moral values
contributes to character development
(Levinson, 2008). In a study conducted
by Sadler et al. (2016), the results of an
experimental process were shared and
discussed in the scope of SSI-based
instruction and students shared and
discussed experimental data like a scientic
community (Sadler et al., 2016).
This allowed students to learn that
‘science is collaborative’ (Sadler et al.,
2017, p. 84). This is an example of how
the nature of science can be addressed
in SSI-based instruction.
23
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy

3.1 The 5E Model and the
SSI TL Model
The 5E model was developed by Bybee and
is based on the constructivist education
philosophy (Ergin, 2012; Scott et al., 2014).
It presents a framework that can be used to
guide educators whilst designing science
learning outcomes (Scott et al., 2014).
The 5E model proposes that instructors
develop educational activities with ve
stages, which include engagement,
exploration, explanation, elaboration
and evaluation (Bybee et al., 2006). When
applying this model, teachers take a
supervisory position by monitoring and
supporting students with questions and
materials (Bybee, 2014; Scott et al., 2014).
The 5E model is compatible with the SSI TL
model and assists the SSI-based instructional
process by providing a constructivist point
of view and segmenting the main section
activities (Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
Engagement is the stage in which
students’ curiosity and desire for learning
are evoked (Bybee, 2014; Bybee et al., 2006).
Asking a question, dening the problem
and showing an attractive event are
examples of practices that can be applied
in this step (Bybee, 2014). Both the 5E and
SSI TL models aim to engage students by
introducing the lesson topic to the students
(Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
When students become engaged in the
previous stage, they become ready and
willing to discover the issue at hand (Bybee,
2014). For example, in the instructions
prepared by Sarıkaya (in press), a video
related to the collapsing of bee hives
is watched to explore a socioscientic
narrative: pesticide use in agriculture.
Through some texts related to pesticide
use, a small discussion on the SSI can be
made (Sarıkaya, in press).
Exploration involves activities that allow
students to explore an issue (Bybee et
al., 2006; Ergin, 2012). Exploration should
allow students to conduct experiments,
make observations and formulate concepts
and skills (Scott et al., 2014). The 5E model
encourages the SSI TL model to make
students engaged with the exploration
of scientic topics (Friedrichsen et al.,
2016). Using the example of the previously
described activity, (Sarıkaya, in press),
arguments can be made regarding the
question of ‘whether pesticides should be
used or not’ based on the given texts.
A food chain building game can also
be played to learn the content (Sarıkaya,
in press). In the explanation stage, it is
expected that students will make their
conceptual understandings of their
exploration experiences explicit (Bybee,
2014; Bybee et al., 2006). Students make
inferences based on their experiences from
the exploration stage (Scott et al., 2014).
Explanation allows students to describe a
concept or a scientic idea (Bybee, 2014;
Bybee et al., 2006).
The explanation stage is also a part of
the main body activities that occur in the
SSI TL model (Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
In the explanation stage, teachers may
create opportunities for students to explain
their arguments during an argumentation
activity (e.g., as done by Sarıkaya, in press);
however, students can provide explanations
during the entire instruction period.
The following stage is an elaboration
that aims to transfer the conceptual
understanding and skills to different
contexts (Bybee, 2014; Bybee et al.,
2006). Students are expected to perform
collaborative group work and be immersed
in an interactive learning environment
(Scott et al., 2014). In this environment, they
are expected to express their understanding
and comment on other students’ ideas,
thereby receiving and giving feedback
(Scott et al., 2014).
Making connections between daily
life and the content whilst extending
their knowledge by attaining a deeper
understanding are the goals of this stage
A USEFUL FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING
SSI-BASED INSTRUCTION
24
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy

(Bybee, 2014; Bybee et al., 2006). In the
elaboration stage, students are expected
to achieve a better comprehension of the
scientic topic. To achieve this goal during
this stage, students are offered and led
through different contexts in which they
can apply relevant scientic knowledge
(Friedrichsen et al., 2016). In the activity
developed by Sarıkaya (in press), students
create their food webs and explain energy
ow. In another activity (Sarıkaya, in press),
based on a marine ecosystem example,
they develop their explanations in the
elaboration stage.
Also, the ‘pattern’ is discussed over the
fact that the food chain and energy ow
pattern occur in the same way in aquatic
ecosystems. Thus, students are allowed to
discuss patterns, which represents one of the
crosscutting concepts (Sarıkaya, in press).
So, students make explanations during the
instructional process (Sarıkaya, in press).
The nal step, evaluation, requires designing
activities to measure whether the intended
goals are achieved in the instructional
process (Bybee, 2014; Bybee et al., 2006).
Performance activities, essays or tests
can be used in this step (Ergin, 2012).
Briey, in this stage, teachers evaluate
what students learned from the instruction
(Scott et al., 2014). The culminating activity
part of the SSI TL model corresponds to the
evaluation of the 5E model because both aim
to summarise what students learn during the
instruction (Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
A good example of an evaluation activity
could be to ask students to prepare a
campaign to raise awareness of the effects
of pesticides on food relationships and the
environment, as done by Sarıkaya (in press).
Focal Issue
Culminating Activity
Engagement: Engaging students by introducing the topic
Exploration: Creating a design allowing students to
discover a phenomenon
Explanation: Describing a concept or a scientic idea,
especially based on the experiences attained from the
exploration
Elaboration: Transferring knowledge to different contexts
Evaluation: Assessment of learning outcomes
SSI TL Mdoel 5E Model
Social Connections
Science Ideas
Science Practice
Information Communication
Technologies (ICT)
Figure 2
Compatibility between the 5E model and the SSI TL model (gure adapted with modications from Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
The 5E model strengthens the SSI TL
model by leading it to create activities
from a constructivist perspective, which is
a student-centred one (Friedrichsen et al.,
2016). In particular, using the 5E model as a
supportive instructional framework divides
the main body activities existing in the SSI
TL model into sections, thereby allowing for
A USEFUL FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING
SSI-BASED INSTRUCTION
25
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy

CONCLUSION
SSIs have an open-ended narrative due
to their dilemmatic nature, lack clear-cut
solutions and require decision-making
processes (Topçu, 2017). This point makes
it important for us to understand the
relevant decision-making processes.
Informal reasoning is a cognitive process
that occurs in an individual’s mind during
his/her engagement with SSI (Romine et
al., 2017; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). It can be
said that by dening and using the new
concept of ‘socioscientic reasoning’, the
aim is to make thinking about the practices
used by students in the decision-making
processes of SSI explicit.
SSI-based instruction overlaps with the
aims of Vision II of scientic literacy (Sadler
& Zeidler, 2009). The ability to negotiate
dilemmatic SSIs is one of the dimensions of
scientic literacy (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004).
The socioscientic competencies students
use to resolve SSIs are closely associated
with their scientic literacy level (Romine et
al., 2017; Sadler et al., 2007).
Thus, focusing on socioscientic
competencies may allow us to achieve
scientic literacy aims. Applying SSI-based
instruction is important and its outcomes
overlap with those required to foster
scientic literacy (Sadler & Zeidler, 2009).
SSI-based instruction offers a learning setting
that promotes many learning gains (Topçu,
2017). SSI fosters Vision I scientic literacy
by scaffolding content knowledge, Vision II
scientic literacy by allowing students to use
content knowledge in dilemmatic real-life
contexts (Sadler & Zeidler, 2009) and Vision
III scientic literacy by allowing students to
participate in the decision-making process
promoting democratic participation (Bencze
et al., 2020; Ottander & Simon, 2021). Zeidler
et al. (2019) also supported the signicant
role of SSIs in the development of scientic
literacy and showed how this has been
demonstrated through 20 years of research.
In this chapter, two models—the SSI
teaching and learning model and the
5E model—were introduced to support
instructors in the development of SSI-based
instruction. It was also discussed how these
two models can be used in combination.
These models can serve as frameworks that
lead a teacher to determine how SSI-based
instruction can be applied.
When the contribution of SSIs to the
scientic literacy concept (Bencze et al., 2020;
Ottander & Simon, 2021; Sadler, 2009; Sadler
& Zeidler, 2009; Topçu, 2017) is considered,
the importance of SSI-based education and
the developed models which allow teachers
to use SSI as an instructional tool can be
understood. Also, the SSI TL model clearly
shows the potential learning objectives in a
socioscientic-based practice.
the qualied organisation of an SSI-based
curriculum (Friedrichsen et al., 2016).
26
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy

REFERENCES
Bencze, J. L., Pouliot, C., Pedretti, E., Simonneaux, L.,
Simonneaux, J., & Zeidler, D. L. (2020). SAQ, SSI & STSE
education: Defending and extending ‘science-in context’.
Cultural Studies in Science Education, 1(27), 6-28. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09962-7
Beniermann, A., Mecklenburg, L., & Upmeier zu Belzen,
A. (2021). Reasoning on controversial science issues
in science education and science communication.
Education Sciences, 11(9), 522.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model:
Personal reections and contemporary implications.
Science and Children, 51(8), 10,13.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell,
J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS
5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and
applications. Colorado Springs BSCS.
Çalık, M., Turan, B., & Coll, R. K. (2013). A cross-age study
of elementary student teachers’ scientic habits of
mind concerning socioscientic issues International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
12(2014), 1315–1340.
Cansız, N. (2014). Developing preservice science teachers’
socioscientic reasoning through socioscientic
issues-focused course [Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. https://
etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12617138/index.pdf
Cian, H. (2019). Inuence of student values, knowledge, and
experience ansocioscientic topic on measures of high-
school student socioscientic reasoning (Publication
No. 2338)[Doctoral Dissertation, Clemson University].
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=3342&context=all_dissertations
Ergin, I. (2012). Constructivist approach based 5E model
and usability instructional physics. Journal of Physics
Education, 6(1), 14–20.
Erman, E., & Sari, D. A. P. (2019). Science in a black box: Can
teachers address science from socio-scientic issues?
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1417(1), 1–5.
Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science
Education, 95(1), 168–185.
Fowler, S.R. & Zeidler, D.L. The Inuence of Students’
Acceptance of Evolution on SSI Negotiation. National
Association for Research in Science Teaching. March
2012, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Fowler, S. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of evolution
acceptance inhibits students’ negotiation of
biology-based socioscientic issues. Journal of
Biological Education, 50(4), 407–424.
Friedrichsen, P. J., Sadler, T. D., Graham, K., & Brown, P.
(2016). Design of a socio-scientic issue curriculum unit:
Antibiotic resistance, natural selection, and modeling.
International Journal of Design for Learning, 7(1), 1–18.
Kinslow, A. T., Sadler, T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2019).
Socio-scientic reasoning and environmental
literacy in a eld-based ecology class.
Environmental Education Research, 25(3), 388–410.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504
622.2018.1442418
Kolstø, S. (2001). Scientic literacy for citizenship: Tools for
dealing with the science dimension of controversial
socioscientic issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.
Levinson, R. (2008). Promoting the role of the personal
narrative in teaching controversial socio-scientic
issues. Science & Education, 17(8), 855–871.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12
science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,
and core ideas. The National Academies Press.doi.
org/10.17226/13165.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science
standards: For states, by states.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its
fundamental sense is central to scientic literacy.
Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
Ottander, K., & Simon, Ş. (2021) Learning
democratic participation? Meaning-making
in discussion of socioscientic issues
in science education. International Journal
of Science Education, 43(12), 1895–1925.t
tps:hhh//www.tandfonline.com/doi/
pdf/10.1080/09500693.2021.1946200?needAcces
Ramirez Villarin, L. J., & Fowler, S. R. (2019). Socioscientic
issues to promote content knowledge & socioscientic
reasoning in Puerto Rican high school students. The
American Biology Teacher, 81(5), 328–332.
Relela, M. & Mavuru, L. (2021). Life Sciences teachers’
conceptions about socioscientic issues in the topic
evolution. A paper presented (virtual) at the International
Conference on Education and New Developments
(END) 2021, 26-28 June, Porto, Portugal.
Romine W, L., Sadler, T. D., & Kinslow, A. T. (2017).
Assessment of scientic literacy: Development
and validation of the quantitative assessment of
socioscientic reasoning (QuASSR). Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 274–295.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding
socioscientic issues: A critical review of research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do
students gain by engaging socioscientic inquiry?
Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371– 391.
27
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09962-7
https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12617138/index.pdf
https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=3342&context=all_dissertations
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504
622.2018.1442418
https://doi.org/10.17226/13165.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
pdf/10.1080/09500693.2021.1946200?needAcces

REFERENCES
Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017).
Evolution of a model for socioscientic issue teaching
and learning. International Journal of Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 75–87.
Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011).
Learning science content and s o c i o s c i e n t i f i c
reasoning through classroom explorations of global
climate change (2nd ed.). Springer.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The signicance of
content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding
socioscientic issues: Applying genetics knowledge
to genetic engineering issues. Science Education,
89(1), 71–93.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientic literacy,
PISA, and socioscientic discourse: Assessment for
progressive aims of science education. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921.
Sarıkaya, E. (In press). Effects of the computational
thinking featured socio-scientic issue
curriculum on using CT principles and science
concepts in algorithmic explanations.
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Yıldız Technique].
Scott, T. P., Schroeder, C., Tolson, H., Huang, T-Y., &
Williams, O. M. (2014). A longitudinal study of a 5th
grade science curriculum based on the 5E model.
Science Educator, 23(1), 49–55.
Silva, G. M., Lahr, D. J. G., & Silva, R. L. F. (2021).
The epistemic and pedagogical dimensions of
evolutionary thinking in educational resources
for zoology designed for preservice teacher
education. Journal of Biological Education, 1-14.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00219
266.2021.1877781
Tan, P. (2016). Science education: Dening
the scientic literate person. Simon Fraser University
Educational Review, 9(2016), 1-8.
Topçu, M. S. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi
(2nd ed.). Pegem Yayınları.
Topçu, M. S., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Sadler, T. D. (2010).
Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning
about socioscientic issues: The inuence of issue
context. Journal of Science Teacher Education,
22(2011), 313–332.
Torkar, G., & Sorgo, A. (2020). Evolutionary content
knowledge, religiosity and educational background
of Slovene preschool and primary school pre-service
teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 16(7), 1–13.
Valladares, L. (2021). Scientic literacy and social
transformation. Sci & Educ, 30(2021), 557–587.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-0
Yacoubian, H. A. (2018). Scientic literacy for
democratic decision-making. International
Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 308–327.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500
693.2017.1420266
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions
in socioscientic issues research. Disciplinary
and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 11.
https://doi.org/10.1186/ s43031-019-0008-7
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan,
B. E. (2009). Advancing reective judgment through
socioscientic issues. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 46(1), 74–101.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V.
(2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for
socioscientic issues education. Science Education,
89(3), 357–377.
28
CHAPTER 2 Using socioscientic issue
approach to promote students’
scientic literacy
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00219
266.2021.1877781
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-021-
00205-2
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500
693.2017.1420266
https://doi.org/10.1186/ s43031-019-0008-7

Chapter 3
Evolution education
through SSI
for sustainable
development
29

CHAPTER 3
Patrícia Pessoa1,2,
J. Bernardino Lopes2,1,
Alexandre Pinto3,
Xana Sá-Pinto1
Abstract: Addressing the complex and controversial problems we face
today requires education to empower citizens with competencies
in sustainability that allow them to contribute to more just and
sustainable societies. Many sustainability problems are strongly
linked to evolutionary processes. When complex problems can be
informed by science, these are known as socioscientic issues
(SSI). Educational approaches that explore SSI have been shown
to contribute to the development of functional scientic literacy
and character development. Together, this suggests that evolution
education through the SSI approach may contribute to the
development of key competencies in sustainability. To test this
hypothesis and understand how evolution education has been
explored through SSI approaches, we performed a systematic
literature review to identify the key competencies in sustainability
developed in papers addressing evolution through SSI. Our
results indicate that a few studies have addressed evolution
education through SSI and support the potential of this approach
since all key competencies in sustainability were found in these
studies; however, some of these competencies (e.g., strategic
and anticipatory competencies) were not frequently observed.
Our results also support the interest in this approach to evolution
education since all evolution education dimensions were found.
However, the analysed studies show little diversity in terms of the
explored SSI, with the majority being related to biotechnology.
The implications of these ndings and important highlights for
educational practices and research are discussed.
1CIDTFF – Research Centre on Didactics and Technology
in the Education of Trainers, University of Aveiro
2UTAD – University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
3Polytechnic Institute of Porto - School of Education
Key competencies in sustainability, Sustainable Development, Evolution education,
Socioscientic issues, Literature review.
KEYWORDS
Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
30

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
INTRODUCTION
According to Wiek et al. (2015),
‘sustainability is the collective willingness
and ability of a society to reach or maintain
its viability, vitality, and integrity over
long periods of time, while allowing other
societies to reach or maintain their own
viability, vitality, and integrity’ (p. 241).
We are living in a period of immense
challenges to sustainability that is seriously
affecting the survival of many societies
and putting the planet’s biological support
systems at risk (United Nations, 2015).
Some examples of these challenges include
(but are not restricted to) global health
threats, climate change resulting in the rise
of global temperatures and sea level, ocean
acidication, more frequent and intense
natural disasters, the depletion of natural
resources and impacts on environmental
degradation (e.g., desertication, drought,
land degradation, freshwater scarcity and
biodiversity loss).
All of these challenges are characterised
by high degrees of complexity with no
obvious optimal solution, high damage
potential and strong urgency (Wiek et al.,
2011). To address these challenges, citizens
must be able to make informed choices and
develop innovative and effective solutions.
This requires a large-scale educational
transformation that equips not only
sustainability professionals but also new
generations of any kind of professionals
with these skills (Wiek et al., 2011).
According to Wiek et al. (2011),
education for sustainable development
should allow students to develop
the competencies in sustainability,
which are ‘complexes of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes that enable
successful task performance and problem
solving with respect to real-world
sustainability problems, challenges,
and opportunities’ (p. 204).
These competencies are fundamental
for building a more sustainable and just
society for all and empowering current
and future generations to meet their needs
using a balanced and integrated approach
to the economic, social and environmental
dimensions of sustainable development
(United Nations Educational, Scientic and
Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2018;
Wiek et al., 2011, 2015).
The sustainability competencies are
not restricted by disciplinary boundaries
or specic content knowledge (de Haan,
2006), but rather represent cross-cutting
and transversal learning goals that
are needed to deal with the complex
challenges we face in our daily lives
(UNESCO, 2018; Wiek et al., 2015).
Through a literature review, Wiek et al.
(2011) identied ve key competencies
in sustainability:
Systems thinking competency:
‘Ability to collectively analyze complex
systems across different domains
(society, environment, economy, etc.)
and across different scales (local to
global), thereby considering cascading
effects, inertia, feedback loops and
other systemic features related to
sustainability issues and sustainability
problem-solving frameworks’ (Wiek et
al., 2011, p. 207);
i
Key competencies
in sustainability
Anticipatory competency:
‘Ability to collectively analyze,
evaluate, and craft rich ‘‘pictures’’
of the future related to sustainability
issues and sustainability
problem-solving frameworks’
(Wiek et al., 2011, pp. 208–209);
ii
31

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
In light of these key competencies in
sustainability and because education
for sustainability ‘should enable students
to analyse and solve sustainability
problems, to anticipate and prepare
for future sustainability challenges,
as well as to create and seize opportunities
for sustainability’ (Wiek et al., 2011, p. 204),
we are convinced that the socioscientic
issues (SSI) approach is contributing
to the development of key
competencies in sustainability.
INTRODUCTION
Normative competency:
‘Ability to collectively map, specify,
apply, reconcile, and negotiate
sustainability values, principles, goals,
and targets. This capacity enables,
rst, to collectively assess the (un-)
sustainability of current and/or future
states of social-ecological systems
and, second, to collectively create
and craft sustainability visions for
these systems. This capacity is based
on acquired normative knowledge
including concepts of justice, equity,
social-ecological integrity, and ethics’
(Wiek et al., 2011, p. 209);
iii
Interpersonal competency:
‘Ability to motivate, enable,
and facilitate collaborative and
participatory sustainability
research and problem solving.
This capacity includes advanced
skills in communicating (...),
deliberating and negotiating
(...), collaborating (...), leadership
(...), pluralistic and trans-cultural
thinking (...), and empathy’
(Wiek et al., 2011, p. 211).
v
Strategic competency:
‘Ability to collectively design and
implement interventions, transitions,
and transformative governance
strategies toward sustainability.
This capacity requires an intimate
understanding of strategic concepts
such as intentionality, systemic
inertia, path dependencies,
barriers, carriers, alliances etc.;
knowledge about viability, feasibility,
effectiveness, efciency of systemic
interventions as well as potential of
unintended consequences’ (Wiek et
al., 2011, p. 210);
iv
Socioscientific
Issues approach
Over the last two decades, the SSI
pedagogical approach has been advocated
by several authors as effective for involving
students in learning opportunities
that bridge school experiences with
social contexts, thereby promoting the
development of meaningful learning and
encouraging functional scientic literacy
and character among global citizens (Fowler
& Zeidler, 2016). According to Sadler (2005),
SSI ‘emerge[d] from the interface of science
and society, and they involve societal issues
with conceptual, procedural, or technological
associations with science’ (p. 68).
These issues are complex, ill-structured
and controversial societal topics without
a simple and clear-cut-solution since they
can be informed by various ideas and
perspectives, such as economic, political
and ethical (Fowler & Zeidler, 2016; Sadler
et al., 2017; Zeidler, 2014).
Some examples of SSI are dilemmas
involving biotechnology, environmental
problems, genetics, climate change,
biodiversity loss and antibiotic resistance.
SSI are also understood as a pedagogical
approach that, according to Zeidler and
Sadler (in press):
32

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
Over the past few years, this approach has
been allowing students to become actively
involved in the construction of knowledge
whilst making informed decisions and
analysing, synthesising and evaluating diverse
sources of data and information (Lee et al.,
2013; Peel et al., 2019; Zeidler et al., 2019).
Research studies have shown that
this approach impacts students’ i)
understanding of the nature of science
(Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Khishfe & Lederman,
2006), ii) reasoning (Zeidler et al., 2009)
and, more specically, informal reasoning
(Sadler, 2005), iii) argumentation skills
(Kolstø, 2006; Venville & Dawson, 2010;
Zohar & Nemet, 2001), iv) functional
scientic literacy and character (Zeidler
& Sadler, 2007; Zeidler et al., 2013), v)
moral, ethical and social sensitivity and
reasoning (Clarkeburn, 2002; Lee et al.,
2012, 2013; Fowler et al., 2009; Hogan, 2002;
Peel et al., 2019; Zeidler et al., 2019), vi)
empathy and perspective-taking skills, vii)
sense of socioscientic responsibility and
Use personally relevant,
controversial and ill-structured
problems that require scientic,
evidence-based reasoning to inform
decisions about such topics;
1.
Integrate implicit and/or explicit
ethical components that require
some degree of moral reasoning;
3.
Emphasise the formation of virtue
and character as long-range
pedagogical goals.
4.
Employ the use of scientic topics
with social ramications that
require students to engage in
dialogue, discussion, debate and
argumentation;
2.
INTRODUCTION
viii) understanding of the complexity of
connections inherent within contextualised
science learning (Lee et al., 2013; Peel et al.,
2019; Zeidler et al., 2019).
These studies support the potential of
the SSI approach to developing some of the
skills required for sustainable development.
However, to the best of the authors’
knowledge, no studies have directly
related the SSI educational approach to the
development of the ve key competencies
in sustainability proposed by Wiek et al. (2011).
Evolution education
Many of the current global challenges
that threaten the sustainability of our
planet and future generations are related
to evolutionary processes and require
solutions informed by evolutionary biology
(Carroll et al., 2014).
Some of the challenges included in
the Sustainable Development Goals 2030
Agenda (United Nations, 2015), for which
understanding evolution is critical, include
human health problems such as obesity,
diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disorders
and infectious diseases (i.e. resulting
from changes in our diet, environment
and lifestyles, or, in the case of diseases,
the evolution of new or drug-resistant
pathogens), food security problems caused
by the decrease in agricultural production
(due to increasing resistance to pesticides)
and the reduction of biodiversity caused
by species’ extinction (due to poor
adaptation to climate change and pollution)
(Carroll et al., 2014; Jørgensen et al., 2019;
Matthews et al., 2020). To address these
complex problems, we need citizens that
can understand evolution and use this
knowledge to make informed decisions and
design solutions that consider important
evolutionary processes.
33

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
INTRODUCTION / METHODOLOGY
Although evolution is recognised as a central
unifying principle in biology that is essential
for scientic literacy to address these social
problems, and, consequently, for promoting
sustainable development (Fowler & Zeidler,
2016; National Academy of Sciences, 1998;
National Research Council [NRC], 2007,
2012; Sadler, 2005), many international
studies have shown that most citizens do
not understand and/or accept biological
evolution (Athanasiou & Mavrikaki, 2014;
Kuschmierz et al., 2020; Nehm et al., 2009;
Sickel & Friedrichsen, 2013; To et al., 2017).
Several institutions proposed that
evolution should be explored within
the framework of issues related to
students’ current affairs and everyday
life problems (Associação Portuguesa de
Biologia Evolutiva [APBE], 2012; National
Association of Biology Teachers [NABT],
2008; NRC, 2012; National Science Teaching
Association [NSTA], 2003).
Although some studies have analysed
how students use evolution to reason about
some SSI problems (Fowler & Zeidler, 2016;
Sadler, 2005), to the best of our knowledge,
no studies have reviewed how evolution has
been explored through the SSI approach.
Moreover, to the best of the authors’
knowledge, there is no information available
on how evolution education through an SSI
approach allows for the development of the
key competencies in sustainability. Through
the present study, we aimed to address
this lack of knowledge by answering the
following research questions:
How is evolution explored under
an SSI approach?
How does evolution education
through an SSI approach allow
for the development of key
competencies in sustainability?
?
?
METHODOLOGY
2.1 Systematic literature
review
To answer our research questions, we
conducted a systematic literature review
(Snyder, 2019). The Scopus database was
chosen as a data source since it is one of
the most widespread and multidisciplinary
databases, containing one of the largest
searchable citation and abstract sources of
searchable literature (Falagas et al., 2008).
To search for studies on evolution
education, in addition to variants of
‘evolution’, we used a set of keywords
that were informed by the dimensions of
evolution education identied in previous
studies, strictly related to evolution (the
categories and some subcategories were
dened by Sá-Pinto et al., 2021) and
detailed the evolutionary mechanisms and
human evolution.
This resulted in the following search
terms, which were always used in
combination: ‘evolution’, ‘evolutionary’,
‘history of life’, ‘evidence of evolution’,
‘mechanisms of evolution’, ‘studying
evolution’, ‘natural selection’, ‘sexual
selection’, ‘articial selection’, ‘genetic drift’
and ‘human evolution’.
To search for studies on SSI, we
combined the keywords ‘socioscientic
issues’ and ‘socio-scientic issues’ since both
nomenclatures are used in the literature.
Finally, to look for studies related
to competencies for sustainability, we
used the search terms ‘sustainability’,
‘sustainable’, ‘sustainable development’,
‘education for sustainability’ and
‘competencies for sustainability’.
We performed two distinct searches:
Search 1
To answer the rst research
question, we conducted a search
using the keywords related to
evolution education and SSI.
34

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
METHODOLOGY
Search 2
To answer the second research
question, we conducted a search
using keywords related to the three
topics explored in this study.
Keywords of search 1:
(“socioscientic issues” OR “socio-scientic issues”)
AND (“evolution” OR “evolutionary” OR “history of
life” OR “evidence of evolution” OR “mechanisms
of evolution” OR “studying evolution” OR “natural
selection” OR “articial selection” OR “sexual
selection” OR “genetic drift” OR “human evolution”)
Keywords of search 2:
(“sustainability” OR “sustainable” OR “sustainable
development” OR “education for sustainability” OR
“competences for sustainability”) AND (“socioscientic
issues” OR “socio-scientic issues”) AND (“evolution”
OR “evolutionary” OR “history of life” OR “evidence of
evolution” OR “mechanisms of evolution” OR “studying
evolution” OR “natural selection” OR “articial
selection” OR “sexual selection” OR “genetic drift”
OR “human evolution”)
Exclusion criteria:
- not refer to the term evolution as biological evolution;
-not addressing SSI in the study.
Records
excluded
(N = 1)
Records
excluded
(N = 13)
Qualied papers
(N = 1)
Qualied papers
(N = 10)
Papers included (N = 10)
Duplicates removed (N = 1)
Records identied through
database searching
Title and abstract screneed (N = 25)
N = 2N = 23
Figure 1
Phases of the systematic literature review.
The words were all searched as being
present in the title, abstract or keywords.
No time restrictions w ere made when
conducting the search.
All abstracts of all search results were read,
and all papers that did not refer to biological
evolution or that did not explore SSI despite
referring to them were excluded from the
posterior analyses.
Figure 1 presents all of the paper selection
phases for the two performed searches.
35

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
2.2 Analysis of the papers
All selected papers were subjected to a
content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018). This
method was chosen due to its applicability
to our goal of analysing text data through a
systematic process of coding classication
to identify specic themes (Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005).
To answer the rst research question,
we identied the dimensions of evolution
education that were covered in papers
addressing evolution and SSI. Then, we
identied which SSI were explored in those
papers. To answer the second research
question, we aimed to identify which key
competencies in sustainability were covered
in the same papers.To identify which
dimensions of evolution were explored in
the retrieved papers, we used the FACE
(Framework to Assess the Coverage of
biological Evolution by school curricula)
categories (Sá-Pinto et al., 2021) as the
categories of analysis: i) history of life; ii)
evidence of evolution; iv) mechanisms of
evolution; v) studying evolution.
We excluded ‘nature of science’ and
‘development of scientic practices’ since
these dimensions may be explored under
diverse disciplinary elds (NRC, 2012).
To analyse which SSI were explored in
the retrieved papers, we derived the
categories of analysis inductively based
on the oating reading of the retrieved
Recognize and understand relationships;
Analyse complex systems;
Think about how systems are embedded within different domains and different scales;
Deal with uncertainty.
Understand and evaluate several futures (possible, probable, and desirable);
Create one’s visions of the future;
Apply the principle of precaution;
Assess the consequences of actions;
Deal with risk and change.
Understand and reect on the norms and values that underlie people’s actions;
Negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals and targets (in context of conicts
of interest and concessions).
Collectively develop and implement innovative actions that promote sustainability
(locally and in wider contexts).
Be able to learn from others;
Understand and respect other people’s needs, perspectives and actions (empathy);
Understand, relate to and be sensitive to others (empathic leadership);
Handle group conicts;
Facilitate collaboration and participation in problem solving.
Key competencies
(categories)
Analysis features
Notes: Key competencies dened as Wiek et al. (2011) and further dened with the analysis
features described by Juuti et al. (2021).
Systems-thinking
competency
1.
Anticipatory
competency
2.
Normative
competency
3.
Strategic
competency
4.
Interpersonal
competency
5.
Table 1
Analysis framework for key competencies in sustainability.
METHODOLOGY
36

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
METHODOLOGY / RESULTS
papers (Merriam, 2009). To study how
the retrieved studies addressed the
competencies in sustainability, we used the
key competencies dened by Wiek
et al. (2011) as the categories of analysis.
To further dene these categories, we used
the analysis features described by Juuti
et al. (2021; see Table 1).
All papers were analysed by two
researchers and characterised by the presence
or absence of these categories.The number
and examples of evidence found in each
paper were recorded. Interrater reliability
was estimated as the percentage of the initial
agreement between researchers (McHugh,
2012) in terms of the key competencies in
sustainability found in each paper.
The interrater reliability was greater than
90% for all key competencies analysed,
which is much higher than the 70% threshold
that is considered acceptable for these
analyses (Stembler, 2004, p. 3). Examples
of evidence not equally rated by the two
researchers were discussed and, failing a
consensus, removed from the analyses.
RESULTS
Search 1 returned a total of 23 results.
After reading all of the abstracts, 13
papers from Search 1 were excluded from
posterior analysis for not referring to the
term evolution as biological evolution or for
not addressing SSI. Search 2 returned two
results, one of which was excluded from
further analysis because we noticed that
the term evolution was not used to refer
to biological evolution in the abstract.
The remaining paper (Fried et al., 2020)
was also obtained as a result of Search 1.
Thus, we will hereafter simply mention the
results retrieved in Search 1. All of the papers
included in this study are listed and organised
in chronological order in Appendix A
(available at https://bit.ly/39eETXT ).
Of the ten papers analysed, only seven
described activities occurring in the
classroom environment. Of the remaining
three, one described educational approaches
to the teaching of evolution and their legal
implications (Hermann, 2013), whilst two
explored how students used evolution
knowledge to individually argue about some
SSI (Fowler & Zeidler, 2016; Sadler, 2005).
Of the seven described activities
occurring in classrooms, one explored
pre-service teachers’ ideas, concerns
and approaches for teaching SSI and
societally-denied science (Borgerding &
Dagistan, 2018), whilst three studied SSI
argumentation through group activities in
a high school classroom setting (Anisa et
al., 2020a; Anisa et al., 2020b; Anisa et al.,
2022), two described educational activities
and included evolution as a central idea in
biology that can inform reasoning about
SSI (in high schools: Peel et al., 2019; in
undergraduate education: Yacobucci, 2013)
and one outlined the creation of sustainable
designs in undergraduate education
(Fried et al., 2020).
Our results indicate that eight papers
explored the ‘study of evolution’, seven
papers explored the ‘mechanisms of
evolution’ and the ‘evidence of evolution’
and six papers explored the ‘history of life’
(see Table 2 and examples of the evidence
assigned to each dimension of evolution in
Appendix B available (at
https://bit.ly/3svz13h). ).
All evidence found for the dimension
‘studying evolution’ was related to the
application of evolutionary biology
in everyday life. The evolutionary processes
explored in the papers included natural
selection (four papers), articial selection
(four papers), intrapopulation diversity
generation (i.e., mutations; ve papers)
and trait inheritance (four papers).
37
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7323827
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7389841

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
RESULTS
Table 2
Dimensions of evolution education found in each paper.
Notes: Represents the dimension being found
in the paper.
Represents the dimension not being
found in the paper.
Sadler (2005)
Peel et al. (2019)
Yacobucci (2013)
Hermann (2013)
Fowler &
Zeidler (2016)
Borgerding &
Dagistan (2018)
Papers
Dimensions of evolution education
History
of life
Evidence
of evolution
Mechanisms
of evolution
Studying
evolution
Fried et al. (2020)
Anisa et al. (2020a)
Anisa et al. (2020b)
Anisa et al. (2022)
Concerning the addressed SSI, the topic of
genetically modied organisms was the most
frequently explored (three papers: Anisa et
al., 2020a; Anisa et al., 2020b; Anisa et al.,
2022), followed by cloning (Fowler & Zeidler,
2016; Sadler, 2005), gene therapy (Fowler &
Zeidler, 2016; Sadler, 2005), antibiotic use
(Fowler & Zeidler, 2016; Peel et al., 2019) and
evolution (Hermann, 2013; Yacobucci, 2013)
with the same frequency (two papers each).
Teaching evolution was the least commonly
mentioned SSI (one paper: Borgerding &
Dagistan, 2018). We highlight the fact that
some authors consider evolution itself
to be an SSI, whilst others emphasise
that it is the teaching of evolution that
represents an SSI since the existence of
conicting positions in society on whether
or not evolution should be taught and
the religious objections of students and
38

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
RESULTS
their parents may create conicts in the
classroom (Borgerding & Dagistan, 2018).
Regarding the key competencies in
sustainability, our results indicate that
normative and interpersonal competencies
were commonly found in the analysed
papers, whilst strategic competency was
rarely addressed in these papers (Table 3;
see examples of the evidence assigned to
each of the key competencies in Appendix B
available atht tps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.).
The average number of key competencies
addressed in each paper was 1.8 (see Figure
2) and the mode was one competency
(four papers). In two of the papers that
did not describe a classroom activity, no
competencies were addressed. Moreover,
four competencies were found in two other
papers.
Strategic competency was only found
in the sole paper obtained from Search 2,
which included the three topics addressed in
this study (sustainability, SSI and evolution).
Notably, this competency was the only one
for which we found evidence in this study
(Fried et al., 2020).
Table 3
Number of papers with evidence for each key competency in sustainability and the total number of pieces of evidence found.
Key
competencies
Number
of papers
(N=10)
Total number
of evidence
found
Interrater
reliability
Systems-thinking
competency
5 8 0.921.
Anticipatory
competency
3 3 0.972.
Normative
competency
411 0.903.
Strategic
competency
1 3 0.974.
Interpersonal
competency
515 0.975.
Notes: N represents the total number of papers analysed.
39
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7389841

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
Figure 2
Number of distinct competencies in sustainability education for
which evidence was found in each of the 10 studied papers.
Number of competencies with evidence in each paper
Herman
(2013)
Sadler
(2005)
Fowler & Zeidler
(2016)
Peel et al.
(2019)
Fried et al.
(2020)
Anisa et al.
(2020b)
Borgerding & Dagistan
(2018)
Anisa et al.
(2020a)
Yacobucci
(2013)
Anisa et al.
(2022)
0
1
3
2
4
DISCUSSION
One of the most striking results of our
literature review was the low number of
papers found, especially when searching
for studies that simultaneously mention
education for sustainability, SSI and
evolution education.
These results highlight the knowledge
gap that exists around this topic and the
importance of performing more studies
on how to promote education
for sustainability by exploring SSI
from an evolutionary perspective.
Regarding our rst research question,
despite our overrepresentation of keywords
related to mechanisms of evolution, we
found evidence of all the dimensions
important for evolution education (as
described in Sá-Pinto et al., 2021).
Interestingly, eight papers addressed
‘studying evolution’, which was more
precisely related to the application of
evolutionary biology in everyday life. This
result aligns with Sadler’s (2005) ndings
and recommendation that evolution
RESULTS / DISCUSSION
40

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
DISCUSSION
instruction should include explicit attention
to how evolution can or cannot be used
in the context of social dilemmas since
students’ understanding of evolution
strongly inuence their SSI-related decision
making. Half of the papers presented
evidence of all evolution education
dimensions being explored, which supports
the potential of SSI in evolution education.
Our results also reveal very low diversity
among the SSI that were addressed to
explore evolution. Although evolution
is related to many of today’s complex
sustainability problems (e.g., human health,
biodiversity conservation and food security)
(Carroll et al., 2014), most of the topics
addressed in the analysed papers were
related to the biotechnology eld.
According to Nehm and Rigdway
(2011), students are sensitive to the surface
characteristics of a situation/problem.
Depending on the situation or living
being presented, students may provide
different ideas about evolution. Aligned
with this, Peel et al.’s (2019) study on
antibiotic resistance and natural selection
also found that students either correctly
explained antibiotic resistance or natural
selection and struggled when applying
their understanding of antibiotic resistance
to other contexts. Accordingly, by not
exploring diverse SSI from an evolutionary
perspective, we may fail to support
students in understanding and using
strategies informed by evolution to
address these problems.
A high diversity of SSI explored
to study evolution would benet
students’ understanding and subsequent
generalisation of their concepts to other
contexts (Nehm & Rigdway, 2011) and foster
their ability to use this knowledge to build
long-term solutions for these problems
(Carroll et al., 2014). In this sense, the
educational proposals presented in this
book represent an important contribution
since they greatly increase the diversity of
SSI, including new problems such as those
related to human health and evolution
(Chapters 7 and 11), the management of
common pool resources (Chapter 8), and
the decline of pollinators (Chapter 10).
Regarding our second research question,
despite the low number of available papers
describing educational activities occurring
in classrooms, our results support that
exploring evolution through SSI can
indeed promote the development of key
competencies in sustainability. In fact,
evidence for the pedagogical exploration of
all key competencies in sustainability—as
dened by Wiek et al. (2011)—was found in
the analysed papers; however, some were
more frequently found than others.
The high observed frequency of the
normative and interpersonal competencies
was expected since the SSI approach
requires students to engage in dialogue,
discussions, debates and argumentation
and integrates implicit and/or explicit
ethical components that require some
degree of moral reasoning (Zeidler
& Sadler, in press).
These characteristics enhance
opportunities for students to understand
and reect on the norms and values that
guide people’s actions, thereby providing
opportunities that promote understanding
and respect for other people’s perspectives,
needs and actions. Additionally, the SSI
approach emphasises virtue and character
formation as a long-term pedagogical goal
(Zeidler & Sadler, in press), which
we consider to be strongly aligned
with these competencies.
Notably, strategic competency was
only observed in the activity described by
Fried et al. (2020), which combined the SSI
approach with design-based learning (DBL).
For this competency to be developed,
41

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
students need to collectively design and
implement interventions, strategies and
actions that foster sustainability. In fact,
the combination of SSI with educational
approaches in which students are expected
to develop a product or a solution (e.g.,
DBL, project-based learning or challenge-
based learning) is expected to further
enhance opportunities for the development
of strategic competence.
For some of the key competencies, the
analysed papers described activities that—
despite representing clear opportunities
for developing key competencies in
sustainability—were not considered
evidence of those since the work was
not developed collaboratively, which
is a requirement for most of the key
competencies (Wiek et al., 2011). One
example can be seen in the work of
Fowler and Zeidler (2016), who asked
each participating student to individually
‘identify the potential consequences of each
[scenario] and determine the likelihood that
each would occur before choosing the most
reasonable choice’.
Although this task shows great potential
to develop anticipatory competence, this
requires a collective approach (Wiek et al.,
2011). A similar situation was observed in
the work of Peel et al. (2019), where ‘each
student developed a policy to address
antibiotic resistance at a local, national,
or international level’. Again, although
this activity has great potential to develop
strategic competency, we could not
consider it since it has not been
performed collectively.
These examples highlight the
importance of fostering collaborative work
to achieve and develop key competencies
in sustainability. These observations also
raise the question of how much these
denitions should include the dimension of
collaborative work. Notably, in UNESCO’s
(2018) redenition of Wiek et al.’s (2011)
competencies in sustainability, the need
for a collaborative dimension was removed
from most of these competencies.
However, it included collaboration as
a new and independent key competency
in sustainability, thus reinforcing the
importance of collaborative work.
According to UNESCO (2018), this
competency is dened as ‘the ability to
learn from others; understand and respect
the needs, perspectives and actions of
others (empathy); understand, relate
to and be sensitive to others (empathic
leadership), deal with conicts in a group;
and facilitate collaborative and participatory
problem-solving’ (p. 44).
Additionally, as one of the methods for
education for sustainable development,
the same organisation proposed the
involvement of real-world collaborative
projects, such as a service learning project
and campaigns for various sustainability
topics. This split between collaborative
competency and the other competencies
is also observed in the experience-based
learning framework for developing
sustainability competencies proposed by
Caniglia et al. (2016).
In this study, which focused on
university students, the key competency
of collaborative work has a prominent role
and specic learning objectives. Whether
collaborative work is included in the key
competencies in sustainability or dened
as an independent competency, there
seems to be a general agreement on the
importance of fostering collaboration in
education for sustainable development.
Therefore, we emphasise the relevance of
this for future teaching practices.
Our work has several limitations
that may have precluded us from fully
identifying the potential of exploring SSI
through an evolutionary perspective to
DISCUSSION
42

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
promote sustainability education. A very
small number of studies were identied
in this study, which is likely because the
literature review was performed using an
academic database that is not expected to
cover all the publications about educational
practices written for non-academic
professionals (e.g., formal and
non-formal educators).
This context suggests that future
studies aimed at extending the present
work should cover other databases,
including the resource databases used by
educators. On the other hand, by using
the key competencies in sustainability
dened by Wiek et al. (2011)—which include
a dimension of collaborative work in the
denition of nearly all competencies—
as our framework of analysis, we may
have underestimated their presence and
frequency in the studied papers.
In this study, we have shown that teaching
evolution through the SSI approach
could help foster the development of key
competencies in sustainability.
However, regarding evolution education,
our results reinforce the need to diversify
the SSI explored from an evolutionary
perspective to enable students to achieve
a better understanding of evolution, make
informed choices and develop innovative and
effective solutions for daily life problems.
We also found a lack of scientic studies
that explore how evolution, when explored
through an SSI approach, can contribute
to the development of key competencies
in sustainability since very few papers
simultaneously mentioned education for
sustainability, SSI and evolution education.
These results suggest that this research line
remains under-explored, which supports the
importance of developing future research and
educational activities around these topics.
It is also important to pursue the
development of all key competencies
in sustainability, whilst paying special
attention to those that are less developed
and those that were only found when other
pedagogical approaches were combined
(e.g., anticipatory competency and strategic
competency). In particular, anticipatory
competence can be developed through
discussions and informed predictions of
expected evolutionary outcomes of certain
biological contexts.
This may be achieved by discussing SSI
such as antibiotic use, plagues and disease
outbreak management, species conservation
and food security problems. Moreover,
both this competency and the strategic
competency can be addressed within the
frameworks of project-based learning or
challenge-based learning by proposing and
evaluating solutions for these problems.
Furthermore, this study also revealed the
importance of fostering collaborative work to
promote the development of competencies in
sustainability. Although this aspect may not
be essential for developing all competencies,
it is undoubtedly an essential aspect for fully
achieving sustainability-related goals, which
should be considered in the design of future
educational activities.
The collaborative work can be extended
outside the classroom. For this, we propose
that teachers engage the research community
and other stakeholders external to schools
in their educational activities to promote
collaborative, meaningful and contextualised
learning in the resolution of real problems.
IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS
FOR TEACHING
PRACTICES AND
RESEARCH
DISCUSSION / IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS
FOR TEACHING PRACTICES AND RESEARCH
43

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
On the other hand, we also recognise that
the SSI approach might not be the only
one that allows the development of key
competencies in sustainability.
Thus, future studies are also required
to explore how other approaches can
simultaneously enhance the teaching and
learning of evolution and the development
of relevant competencies.
IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS FOR TEACHING
PRACTICES AND RESEARCH
44

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientic issues in pre-
college science classrooms. In Zeidler, D.L. (Eds), The
role of moral reasoning on socioscientic issues and
discourse in science education (pp. 41–61). Springer.
Anisa, A., Widodo, A., Riandi, R., & Muslim, M. (2020a).
Exploring the rebuttal argument complexity of genetics
in students through socio scientic issues using
scientic writing heuristic (SWH). International Journal
of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(5), 3660–3669.
Anisa, A., Widodo, A., Riandi, R., & Muslim, M. (2020b).
Analyzing socio scientic issues through algorithm.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1469(1), 012084.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1469/1/012084
Anisa, A., Widodo, A., Riandi, R., & Muslim, M. (2022).
Students’ argumentation in science lessons. Science &
Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00320-8
Associação Portuguesa de Biologia Evolutiva. (2012).
APBE. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from
https://apbe.weebly.com/
Athanasiou, K., & Mavrikaki, E. (2014). Conceptual inventory
of natural selection as a tool for measuring Greek
University Students' evolution knowledge: Differences
between novice and advanced students. International
Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1262–1285.
Borgerding, L. A., & Dagistan, M. (2018). Preservice science
teachers’ concerns and approaches for teaching
socioscientic and controversial issues. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 29(4), 283–306.
Caniglia, G., John, B., Kohler, M., Bellina, L., Wiek, A., Rojas,
C., Laubichler, M. D., & Lang, D. (2016). An experience-
based learning framework. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(6), 827–852.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-04-2015-0065
Carroll, S. P., Jørgensen, P. S., Kinnison, M. T., Bergstrom, C. T.,
Denison, R. F., Gluckman, P., Smith, T. B., Strauss, S. Y., &
Tabashnik, B. E. (2014). Applying evolutionary biology to
address global challenges. Science, 346(6207). https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.1245993
Clarkeburn, H. (2002). A test for ethical sensitivity in
science. Journal of Moral Education, 31(4), 439–453.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research
methods in education. Routledge.
De Haan, G. (2006). The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany:
A ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’‐based model for education
for sustainable development. Environmental
Education Research, 12(1), 19–32.
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas,
G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web
of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and
weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.
Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of evolution
acceptance inhibits students’ negotiation of biology-
based socioscientic issues. Journal of Biological
Education, 50(4), 407–424.
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral
sensitivity in the context of socioscientic issues in
high school science students. International Journal of
Science Education, 31(2), 279–296.
Fried, E., Martin, A., Esler, A., Tran, A., & Corwin, L. (2020).
Design-based learning for a sustainable future: Student
outcomes resulting from a biomimicry curriculum in an
evolution course. Evolution: Education and Outreach,
13(1), 1–22.
Friedrichsen, P. J., Sadler, T. D., Graham, K., & Brown, P.
(2016). Design of a socio-scientic issue curriculum unit:
Antibiotic resistance, natural selection, and modeling.
International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1), 1–18.
aaaaa https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i1.19325
Hermann, R. S. (2013). On the legal issues of teaching
evolution in public schools. The American Biology
Teacher, 75(8), 539–543.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while
making an environmental management decision.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Ofcial
Journal of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, 39(4), 341–368.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches
to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health
Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Jørgensen, P. S., Folke, C., & Carroll, S. P. (2019). Evolution
in the Anthropocene: Informing governance and policy.
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics,
50(1), 527–546.
Juuti, K., Andrade, A. I., Araújo e Sá, M. H., Batista, B.,
Carlos, V., Caruana, V., Costa, N., Dauksiené, E.,
François, D., Gonçalves, M., Häkkinen, M., Lavonen,
J., Lebouvier, B., Lopes, B., Loukomies, A., Lourenço,
M., Machado, J., Martins, F., Mendes, A., … Voisin,
C. (2021). Framework for education for sustainability:
enhancing competences in education. UA Editora.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of
science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus
non integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching:
The Ofcial Journal of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted
with a risk‐focused socio‐scientic issue. International Journal
of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to
its methodology. Sage Publications.
REFERENCES
45
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1469/1/012084
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00320-8
https://apbe.weebly.com/
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-04-2015-0065
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245993
https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i1.19325

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
natural selection and antibiotic resistance through
socio-scientic issues-based learning. International
Journal of Science Education, 41(4), 510–532.
Sadler, T. D. (2005). Evolutionary theory as a guide to
socioscientic decision-making. Journal of Biological
Education, 39(2), 68–72.
Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017).
Evolution of a model for socio-scientic issue teaching
and learning. International Journal of Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 75–87.
Sá-Pinto, X., Realdon, G., Torkar, G., Sousa, B., Georgiou,
M., Jeffries, A., Koratis, K., Paolucci, S., Pessoa,
P., Rocha, J., Stasinakis, P. K., Cavadas, B., Crottini,
A., Gnidovec, T., Nogueira, T., Papadopoulou,
P., Piccoli, C., Barstad, J., Dufour, H. D., …
Mavrikaki, E. (2021). Development and validation
of a framework for the assessment of school
curricula on the presence of evolutionary concepts
(face). Evolution: Education and Outreach, 14(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-021-00142-2
Sickel, A. J., & Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Examining the
evolution education literature with a focus on teachers:
Major ndings, goals for teacher preparation, and
directions for future research. Evolution: Education
and Outreach, 6(1), 1–15.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research
methodology: An overview and guidelines.
Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus,
consistency, and measurement approaches
to estimating interrater reliability. Practical
Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9(1),4.
https://doi. org/10.7275/96jp-xz07
To, C., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Hogh, H. (2017). Secondary
school students’ reasoning about evolution. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 247–273.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The
2030 agenda for sustainable development |
department of economic and social affairs. United
Nations. Retrieved September 14, 2022, from
https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization
[UNESCO]. (2018). Issues and Trends in Education for
Sustainable Development. In UNESCO Publishing.
https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/ESD1.pdf
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of
a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’
argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and
conceptual understanding of science. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.
REFERENCES
Kuschmierz, P., Meneganzin, A., Pinxten, R., Pievani, T.,
Cvetković, D., Mavrikaki, E., Graf, D., & Beniermann,
A. (2020). Towards common ground in measuring
acceptance of evolution and knowledge about evolution
across Europe: A systematic review of the state of
research. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 13(1).
llll
Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L.
(2012). Developing character and values for global
citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’
moral reasoning on socioscientic issues. International
Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925–953.
Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., Krajcik, J., Herman,
B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientic issues as
a vehicle for promoting character and values for global
citizens. International Journal of Science Education,
35(12), 2079–2113.
Matthews, B., Jokela, J., Narwani, A., Räsänen, K., Pomati,
F., Altermatt, F., Spaak, P., Robinson, C. T., & Vorburger,
C. (2020). On Biological Evolution and Environmental
Solutions. Science of The T otal Environment, 724, 138194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.1381
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa
statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research. A guide to
design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
National Academy of Sciences (US) Working Group on
Teaching Evolution. (1998). Teaching about evolution
and the nature of science. Joseph Henry Press.
National Association of Biology Teachers. (2008). Welcome
to NABT. National Association of Biology Teachers.
Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://nabt.org/
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12
science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts,
and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association [NSTA].
(2003). The teaching of evolution. NSTA.
Retrieved September 29, 2022, from
https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/
teaching-evolution
Nehm, R. H., & Ridgway, J. (2011). What do experts and
novices “see” in evolutionary problems? Evolution:
Education and Outreach, 4(4), 666–679.
Nehm, R. H., Kim, S. Y., & Sheppard, K. (2009). Academic
preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching
evolution: Biology versus non‐biology teachers. Science
Education, 93(6), 1122–1146.
Peel, A., Zangori, L., Friedrichsen, P., Hayes, E., & Sadler,
T. (2019). Students’ model-based explanations about
46
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00132-w
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138194
https://www.nsta.org/nstas-ofcial-positions/tea-
ching-evolution
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-021-00142-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
https://doi. org/10.7275/96jp-xz07
https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/ESD1.pdf

CHAPTER 3 Evolution education through SSI
for sustainable development
REFERENCES
Wang, H. H., Hong, Z. R., Liu, S. C., & Lin, H. S. (2018). The
impact of socio-scientic issue discussions on student
environmentalism. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1624.
Wiek, A., J. Bernstein, M., W. Foley, R., Cohen, M., Forrest,
N., Kuzdas, C., Kay, B., & Withycombe Keeler, L. (2015).
Operationalising competencies in higher education for
sustainable development. In Barth, M., Michelsen, G.,
Rieckmann, M., Thomas, I., (Eds.), Routledge Handbook
of Higher Education for Sustainable Development (pp.
241–260). essay, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key
competencies in sustainability: A reference framework
for academic program development. Sustainability
Science, 6(2), 203–218.
Yacobucci, M. M. (2013). Integrating critical thinking about
values into an introductory geoscience course. Journal
of Geoscience Education, 61(4), 351–363.
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientic issues as a curriculum
emphasis:Theory, research, and practice. In N. G.
Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on
science education, Volume II (p. 697–726). Routledge.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral
reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and
care. Argumentation in Science Education, 201–216.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_10
Zeidler, D. L., Berkowitz, M. W., & Bennett, K. (2013). Thinking
(scientically) responsibly: The cultivation of character in
a global science education community. Contemporary
Trends and Issues in Science Education, 83–99. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2748-9_7
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019).
New directions in socioscientic issues research.
Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education
Research, 1(1), 1–9.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (in press). Exploring and
expanding the frontiers of socioscientic issues:
Crossroads and future directions. In N. G. Lederman,
D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of
Research on Science Education, Volume III. Routledge.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan,
B. E. (2009). Advancing reective judgment
through socioscientic issues. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (20 01). Fostering students’ knowledge
and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human
genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Patrícia Pessoa and Xana Sá-Pinto, authors
of Chapter 3, are funded by portuguese
national funds (OE), through FCT –
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia , I.P.,
in the scope of the PhD grant I.P.2020.05634
and of the framework contract foreseen
in the numbers 4, 5 and 6 of the article
23, of the Decree-Law 57/2016, of August
29, changed by Law 57/2017, of July 19,
respectively. The work was also funded by
National Funds through FCT – Fundação
para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the
project UIDB/00194/2020.
47
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_10
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2748-9_7
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Chapter 4
SSI approach out of
schools - How can these
approaches be used
in science museums
and other non formal
education contexts?
48

SSI approach out of schools - How can these
approaches be used in science museums and
other non formal education contexts?
Martha Georgiou1,
Maria João Fonseca2,
Corinne Fortin3,
Sébastien Turpin4,
Camille Roux-Goupille5
1Department of Biology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
martgeor@biol.uoa.gr
2 Natural History and Science Museum of the University of Porto
(MHNC-UP), mjfonseca@mhnc.up.pt
3Université Paris-Est Créteil, Laboratoire de didactique André Revuz
Paris-Cité, corinne.fortin@u-pec.fr
4Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Département Homme et
Environnement - Centre d’Écologie et des Sciences de la Conservation,
sebastien.turpin@mnhn.fr
5Université Paris-Est Créteil, Laboratoire de didactique André Revuz
Paris-Cité, croux@u-pec.fr
Abstract: In recent years, educational research has shown that approaching
science within a socioscientic context has multiple benets
for students at the cognitive level and in terms of personality
and skill development. A wealth of research has already been
performed in the context of formal education on this topic;
however, considerably less has been performed in the context
of non-formal education. In this chapter, we seek to provide
examples of socioscientic issues (SSIs) being applied in non-
formal education contexts, especially in museums. Activities from
the Natural History Museum of Porto, the National Museum of
Natural History of Paris and the Zoological Museum of Athens
are presented. The activities focus on one aspect of evolution
that is becoming increasingly noticeable in the lives of modern
people: biodiversity. Biodiversity is not only a biological concept
that people of all ages should be aware of, but an essential
component of life. Reference is also made to the integration of
SSI activities in other non-formal education environments. Finally,
we conclude with a critical reection on the contribution of such
environments to SSI education.
socioscientic issues (SSIs), museum education, biodiversity
KEYWORDS
49
CHAPTER 4

INTRODUCTION
Socioscientic issues (SSIs) are at the heart
of science education (Sadler et al., 2016). For
this reason, many contemporary education
researchers seek to create learning
opportunities through SSIs and examine the
corresponding learning outcomes (Evagorou
et al., 2009; Ke et al., 2021).
In other words, attempts are being made
to engage students through SSIs in real-life
situations whilst using school knowledge
to formulate their opinions, take part in
dialogues and make informed decisions.
Teaching through SSIs is often combined
with the strengthening of argumentation
skills, which is a requirement and an
integral feature of today’s students and
active future citizens (Dawson & Venville,
2010; Georgiou & Mavrikaki, 2013; Georgiou
et al., 2020; Maniatakou et al., 2020).
For the aforementioned reasons, efforts
are being made to integrate SSIs into both
formal and non-formal education. Since
museums are excellent environments
for non-formal education, they offer the
opportunity to develop different SSIs to
enhance learning. Although most museums
have not yet integrated educational
programmes using SSIs into their
capacities, some have already done so.
In this chapter, we will use the concept of
biodiversity directly related to evolution as an
example to present different cases of non-
formal education environments, especially
museums, which have developed activities
around SSIs with biodiversity as their focus.
SSI APPROACHES
TO THE NATURAL
SCIENCES: FOSTERING
ACTION TOWARDS THE
PRESERVATION OF
BIODIVERSITY
Biodiversity loss (and preservation) is a
complex topic that is informed by science
but entails social, ethical and moral
dimensions that make it a relevant and
demanding SSI. Climate change, pollution,
habitat degradation, the introduction of
invasive species and the overexploitation
of natural resources are among the major
drivers of the increasingly rapid decline of
biodiversity (Djoghlaf & Dodds, 2011).
As humans, we are one of the most
inventive species, shaping our environment
to our will—or at least according to our
perceived needs. Although our presence
on Earth is recent from a geological
perspective, we managed to expand
across the entire planet, creating intricate
and diversied networks of cultures and
tailoring our world.
Our existence has been highly eventful
and our global population continues to
grow. We now live longer and healthier lives
than we ever have, despite well-documented
geographic asymmetries. However, the
tting of our ‘Human Planet’—as Lewis and
Maslin (2018) insightfully described—has
come at a great cost. As we domesticate
nature, shufe species all over the world and
use up all available resources in an attempt
to cope with our accelerated consumption
habits, we have cleared green areas,
decimated wildlife, created oceans of waste,
released carbon and other greenhouse gases
to the atmosphere at an embarrassing rate,
and disrupted natural cycles.
All these actions interfere with the
practices and lifestyles of communities
worldwide and add pressure to coupled
systems. The scientic community believes
that the cumulative effects of our actions
have reached a level that matches other
planetary-scale geological events in the
history of our planet, which can support the
denition of a new, human-driven epoch:
the Anthropocene (Lewis & Maslin, 2018;
Steffen et al., 2015).
50
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

The rst step to overturning what can
arguably be depicted as our walk towards
extinction is to acknowledge the effects
of our everyday actions, choices and
demands. From this point on, several
solutions can be envisioned—the most
immediate and potentially most impactful
of which involve expert knowledge and the
intervention of specialised agents.
These solutions include reducing
pollution (particularly carbon emissions),
restoring ecosystems, recovering
habitats and implementing rewilding and
conservation programmes (Dinerstein et
al., 2020; Science Task Force for the UN
Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, 2021).
Nevertheless, it is simultaneously pivotal
to mobilise civil society to actively engage
in change-making instead of simply raising
awareness of its importance. This calls for
focused educational approaches being
promoted in both formal, non-formal and
informal settings.
According to UNESCO1 (United Nations
Educational, Scientic and Cultural
Organization), ‘education is essential
for the sustainable and equitable use of
biodiversity and its conservation’. Only by
promoting ‘the global collective action of
an educated society, including efforts to
promote local and indigenous knowledge of
biodiversity’ and by taking on ‘an inclusive
approach that speaks to and involves
everyone’ will we be able to ensure that
there is a future for the life in our planet.
By now, we are all fairly familiar with
buzzwords such as biodiversity and
sustainability (Special Eurobarometer
481, 2019). But are we truly ready to take
action? Do we have all of the necessary
knowledge and emotional predisposition
to do it? To fully grasp the meaning of
biodiversity and make sense of the threats
it faces, one must master abstract notions
and scientic concepts, such as evolution
1.
and its mechanisms, genetic diversity, time
and chance. Much like what happens with
any other SSI, it is necessary to retrieve
information from various elds and sources
and assess the meaningfulness of possible
implications according to a wide range
of variables stemming from each context
considered (Sadler, 2004).
Ultimately, a social science issue is a
controversial issue that does not have a
single solution but rather many different
angles from which it could be viewed by
assessing the pros and cons in each case
(Sadler, 2004).
Thus, how can we motivate and empower
people of all backgrounds and ages to protect
biodiversity? In particular, what contributions
can we expect from non-formal and informal
learning spaces (e.g., museums and science
centres) in which the nature of the established
interactions is episodic and visitors’ proles
are highly variable? In this chapter, we
present the work of three European museums
on biodiversity and in other out-of-school
contexts through the lens of SSI. To this end,
we present the examples of:
The Natural History and Science
Museum of the University of
Porto (MHNC-UP) and the Hall
of Biodiversity, a science centre
deliberately and fully dedicated to
biodiversity that has been open to
the public since 2017 and in which
museography is used to promote
critical thinking and exploratory
approaches to key SSIs.
1.
SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
51
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?
https://en.unesco.org/themes/
biodiversity/education

The French National Museum of
Natural History, which initiated
the ‘Vigie-Nature’ citizen science
programme with embedded SSIs.
This programme encourages
everyone to participate in the
scientic research process to
acquire new knowledge and act
rationally to protect biodiversity.
2.
The Zoological Museum of Athens
(the oldest and richest zoological
museum in Greece, founded 150
years ago) and its educational
programme ‘Look around the
Museum to nd a friend’, which was
built around a biodiversity-focused
SSI and has been offered since 2019.
3.
Other out-of-school contexts that
could allow learners to approach
biodiversity via an SSI framework.
4.
SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
1. The Natural History and
Science Museum
of the University of Porto:
The Hall of Biodiversity
– A journey through life
Natural history museums have a widely
acknowledged role in documenting
biodiversity, fostering its study and
contributing to its preservation.
The collections they hold are
repositories of data that tell us the story of
how life has been evolving. Yet, whilst the
scientic and academic communities are
well aware of the power of natural history
collections, how can the wider audience
become acquainted with it? How can we
unlock their history, meaning, symbolic,
cultural and environmental worth, and
potential whilst raising awareness about
biodiversity loss and mobilising visitors
to develop a state of consciousness that
makes them appreciate and actively protect
nature and all of its diversity?
There is an increasing number of voices
arguing that one way to achieve this is
to spark or reignite the curiosity that we
naturally have about the world around us
and to embrace emotions as a key variable
affecting the quality of our learning and
cultural experiences (Mazzanti & Sani,
2021; Thomas, 2016). Additionally, studies
on transdisciplinary approaches to science
engagement have demonstrated the
effective role that the arts play in conveying
complex scientic messages with social
and cultural dimensions (Rossi-Linnemann
& Martini, 2019).
It was based on these assumptions that
the Hall of Biodiversity, a unit of the MHNC-
UP that is part of the national network of
the science centre Ciência Viva, located
in the heart of the Botanical Garden of
the University of Porto, was envisioned.
The Hall of Biodiversity was designed by
combining architecture, art and literature
whilst connecting them to biology and
natural history.
Together with the Botanical Garden
and its living collection, it is a place of
inspiration that urges visitors to celebrate
and nourish the diversity of life whilst
becoming acquainted with our natural and
cultural heritage.
In line with the museographic
philosophy that guided its development—
coined by Jorge Wagensberg (Terradas
& Wagensberg, 2006)—its permanent
exhibition brings together real objects,
aphorisms and metaphors, setting the stage
for emotionally-loaded interactions with
the objects themselves, the phenomena
addressed, the explainers present in
the space and the visitors themselves
(Wagensberg, 2005).
52
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
The goal of the exhibition is to enable
visitors to have a memorable experience
and lead them to become more receptive
to any learning that can then take place.
Most importantly, it aims to allow visitors to
develop an informed opinion.2 In the words
of Wagensberg (2015), ‘the relevance of a
museum is not measured by the number of
visitors it receives, but rather by the weight
of the conversation it generates before,
during and after the visit’ (p. 116).
Since the exhibition is structured
around a major SSI, it makes sense to fuel
conversations and reection whenever
possible. No denite answers are ever
provided, with the ultimate goal being to
have visitors leave the museum with more
questions than they had when they entered
it (Wagensberg, 2005, 2015). This also
creates authentic opportunities to address
the nature of science and the way scientic
knowledge is built.
And whilst serious issues are at stake,
a very positive outlook is maintained
throughout each room, exhibit and example
since the aim is to present a call to action
reminding us of how remarkable nature is
whilst simultaneously leading us to consider
what we have to lose if we do not tend to it.
At the Hall of Biodiversity, visitors
can nd a set of 49 exhibition modules
and installations outlined to bear strong
aesthetic features and organised according
to 15 major topics covering all key
aspects of biological and cultural
diversity whilst providing a wide range
of sensory experiences.
The main natural phenomena
underlying the diversity of life as we know
it are showcased, challenging visitors to
experience an often forgotten/overlooked
feeling of amazement towards the beauty
of nature whilst appreciating the intellectual
enjoyment that results from understanding
abstract and complex scientic concepts.
Technology is used instrumentally to avoid
replacing the experience of the sense of place
and diverting attention from the messages
conveyed (Wagensberg, 2015). This includes a
wealth of solutions, ranging from mechanical
models to multimedia and audio-visual
resources. As for the information provided in
each exhibit, it is kept to a minimum whilst
detailing key aspects to prompt cognitive
engagement and interaction.
The language used, whilst scientically
valid and precise, dismisses all sorts of
scientic jargon. The use of museographic
metaphors pervades the communication
established with visitors, confronting them
with unexpected details and challenging
thoughts whilst simultaneously providing
a familiar core of information that
scaffolds the entire process (Simon, 2016;
Wagensberg, 2015).
A very exible storyline combining
literature elements with science (Ferrand
de Almeida et al., 2019a) overcomes
physical interactivity by upgrading it to
cognitive and affective levels and taking
visitors on a journey through life in which
they are the active and central agents.
Although biodiversity can be considered
something external to us as humans, as
well as something that we must protect,
this can still be regarded as exogenous and
something that we must act upon. In the
Hall of Biodiversity, humans’ dual role as
shapers and targets of change is highlighted
throughout the entire exhibition.
The goal is to provide evidence of the
environmental, social and cultural impacts
of our actions whilst especially considering
the importance of promoting feelings of
accountability (Lee et al., 2013). Although a
detailed description of all the exhibits in the
2.
53
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?
https://www.cienciaviva.pt/centroscv/
rede/

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
Hall of Biodiversity is beyond the scope of
this chapter, a selection of a few of the most
emblematic examples is briey depicted in
the following paragraphs.
The journey begins outside the building,
with an open invitation for us to accept
our place in the wondrously diverse tree
of life and acknowledge how we and all of
the living beings with which we share our
planet relate to one another (Figure 1).
Once we enter the building, we nd
ourselves face to face with a giant whale
skeleton, which takes up much of the main
hall (Figure 2).
Figure 1
The ‘Tree of Life’ welcomes us at the entrance of the Hall of
Biodiversity. Credit: Anabela Magalhães.
Straight out of the pages of a novel written
by one of Portugal’s most beloved poets
who used to spend her summer vacation
in this very same house as a child (then her
grandparents’ home), this single museum
object provides a powerful message.
Standing as a beacon of hope, it
simultaneously reminds us of all the harmful
effects that our actions have on the oceans,
ranging from the intensication of natural
resource exploitation to the increased
pollution and degradation of ecosystems.
54
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
Figure 2
The blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) skeleton of the
zoological collection of the Natural History and Science
Museum of the University of Porto. Credit: João Ferrand.
The poet is Sophia de Mello Breyner Andresen
(06.11.1919 – 02.07.2004). To learn more about this story,
Then, as soon as we climb up the helix
staircase, we are asked to answer the
fundamental question: why should we
preserve (bio)diversity? The full range of
arguments that allows us to answer this
question are organised according to four
essential principles:
Aesthetic principle – nature is
beautiful and worth saving simply
because of that.
a)
Ethical principle – if a species got
to the present time, who are we to
stop its existence?
b)
Economic principle – as difcult
as it may be to put a price tag on
biodiversity, the foundation of our
global markets lies in it.
c)
Scientic principle – by destroying
biodiversity, we are dismissing a
wealth of resources with therapeutic
properties that can help us treat
problems we cannot even foresee.
d)
55
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
treat all sorts of illness, whose active
compounds come from nature (Figure 3).
Each display is accompanied by an
interactive module that expands visitor
experience. The opportunities to engage
in inquiry focusing on the countless topics
worthy of debate and discussion that stem
from interaction with these exhibits is endless.
The main SSI being addressed—
biodiversity loss—unfolds in its multiple
dimensions, each of which triggers a debate
around specic SSIs. The most frequently
covered topics include the respect for
and appreciation of diversity, the balance
between human activities and wildlife
preservation, the process of domestication
and its ecological and economic impacts,
human evolution and mobility, the
introduction of invasive species, public
health and pharmaceutical research, and
traditional and local vs. mass production
practices, among many others.
Each of these principles is illustrated by what
Wagensberg (2009) dened as a hypercubic
display of sudden understanding—a novel
way of organising objects, according to
specic criteria that allow the conveyance of
a museographic metaphor. By making the
invisible visible, it turns complex scientic
notions that scientists often cannot explain
using facts and reasoning into intelligible
and relatable realities (Ferrand de Almeida et
al., 2019b; Wagensberg, 2009).
These four displays include the
following: a collection of eggs of all
colours, sizes and shapes, organised
according to gradients based on these
three features; a collection of all the dog
breeds in the world, emerging from a
single wolf (i.e., the species at the origin of
their domestication); a collection of plant
seeds pinned down to their place of origin
on a globe representing Earth; a collection
of all the pills we now have available to
Figure 3
A collection of eggs organised
by size, shape and colour in a
hypercubic display of sudden
understanding. Credit: João
Ferrand.
56
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
The adventure continues as we are presented
with the main mechanisms of evolution
and selection (natural, sexual and articial
selection) as well as the various possible
ways in which an organism can vary (e.g.,
in its genetic prole, size, shape, colour,
perception, survival techniques and genetic
conguration). To address one of the most
relevant and central phenomena in evolution,
the Hall of Biodiversity revisits the textbook
example of the phenotypic variation of the
peppered moth (Biston betularia) in the UK
during the industrial revolution.
An illustrated life-size interactive panel
depicting birch wood and the resident
population of B. betularia leads us to travel
back in history and witness the effects of air
pollution on these animals. This aesthetically
loaded exhibit leaves us thinking about how
a simple change in environmental conditions
at a given time and place (in this case,
introduced by human hands) can dictate the
destiny of a population. Thus, it is very easy
to start considering the following question:
what does it mean to be the ttest?
In turn, articial selection—a recurring
topic within the Hall of Biodiversity—nds
its ultimate spotlight in a 3 x 4 m display
harbouring an impressive ‘maize curtain’
(Figure 4). In this display, the various
stages of maize domestication are visually
demonstrated using real cobs. We begin
with a column of wild cobs (teosinte), which
is followed by a remarkably diverse column
of cobs of all colours, sizes and shapes,
representing cultivars that we can still nd
in Central and South America.
Then, a much less diverse column of
cobs of local Portuguese cultivars follows.
Finally, we reach a column of clones: cobs
of transgenic varieties that are all identical,
perfectly adapted to a specic environment
and utterly incapable of adaptation.
By observing this display, we are
immediately able to understand how this
plant has been shaped through agricultural
practices to meet our needs at specic
periods throughout history. This is done
by rst using traditional techniques
and attempting to unravel all possible
combinations leading to the most luscious
diversity possible.
Then, by moving on to more focused
techniques (and eventually genetic
engineering) driven by an intent to improve
the crops produced, maize was made more
efcient and homogenous whilst sacricing
diversity along the way. This seemingly
simple yet very powerful metaphor ends up
challenging us to reect on the economic,
cultural, social and environmental impacts
of technology, including all of their highly
controversial dimensions.
Figure 4
Articial selection: The domestication of maize.
Credit: João Ferrand.
57
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
Evoking the history of natural history
collections reproduced in the Hall of
Biodiversity is a cabinet of curiosities.
Here, a dense and neatly organised matrix
of objects, pictures, illustrations and maps
representing the origin of natural history
museums is brought together with a
visual outline of some of the most relevant
geological, ecological and cultural routes
projected onto a giant globe emulating
our planet that takes up the centre of the
room (Figure 7). This sudden voyage from
past to future stimulates reection about
our natural curiosity toward the unknown
and stresses the sense of responsibility
that we must bear when interacting with
nature and other cultures.
Finally, coming full circle, human
diversity—one of our most valuable traits—
is rejoiced by recalling what makes us
special and unique, both as individuals
and as a species, from both biological and
cultural standpoints. Our cultural evolution,
expressed in language, music, arts, literature
and many other activities, has been prompted
by our ability to move and communicate.
The action unfolds in two adjacent
rooms. In the rst room, we are challenged
to look for patterns that disrupt the
continuum in which the variation in our
traits is distributed. Here, we can nd the
human pantone, a sample of artist Angélica
Dass’ Humanae Project4.
In the second room, literature brings
us an ode to our status as global citizens
that are fully capable and naturally eager
to interact with different cultures whilst
promoting awareness of the interchange
that arises from these conversations and
that it enhances our ability to make sense of
reality and the world around us.
However, the story does not end here.
In addition to its permanent exhibition, the
Hall of Biodiversity supports very dynamic
and transdisciplinary temporary exhibitions,
as well as cultural and educational
programmes. Notably, the latter always
favour active learning approaches. Although
these focus on a wide range of themes
and topics, the preservation of biodiversity
and sustainable development are always
present, either explicitly or implicitly. The
Hall of Biodiversity’s educational programme
includes activities specically intended for
the school community (all instructional
levels as well as pre- and in-service teacher
training), which facilitates a deepening of the
work around certain contents in the context
of medium- to long-term projects.
In line with this goal of achieving a long-
lasting audience engagement, even the
programmes targeting audience segments
other than the school community are
structured to ensure recurrence.
These programmes are cross-sectional,
involving all units of the MHNC-UP and
its various teams (educational services,
communication and collections), as well as
external partners in various elds.
4.
2. From citizen science
to the socioscientific
empowerment of
students: The impetus
of the French National
Museum of Natural
History
Protecting biodiversity requires social
choices based on sustainable ecosystem
management. For effective action, it is
necessary to protect not only current
biodiversity but also the evolutionary
process at its origin. In other words, it is
58
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?
https://angelicadass.com/
photography/humanae/

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
important to know that humanity is part
of biodiversity and that it can contribute
to its evolution. In Europe, natural history
museums play an important role in the
implementation of citizen science within
the European Citizen Science Association
(Sforzi et al., 2018). Thus, data collected
by volunteer citizens can be analysed by
scientists to produce indicators that help
describe the impact of human activities
on biodiversity (e.g., climate change,
urbanisation, pollution) and can also open
educational perspectives on SSIs.
In 2006, the French National Museum
of Natural History (Muséum national
d’histoire naturelle - MNHN) created a
citizen science project called ‘Vigie-Nature’
(Couvet et al., 2008) to inventory the
biodiversity of the French territory. For this
purpose, scientic protocols designed by
the museum’s researchers that could easily
be implemented by citizens provide data
on various species. In 2012, ‘Vigie-Nature’
created a variation for schools called
‘Vigie-Nature École’ (VNE).
This project is based on the voluntary
participation of primary, middle or high
school teachers and students who wish
to raise awareness of biodiversity loss
through their contribution to a real research
project. Ten protocols are available for
implementation in schools, thereby
allowing the monitoring of a wide variety
of groups (e.g., birds, snails, wild plants,
pollinating insects, etc.). With these
protocols, students can directly observe
the species living in their immediate
environment. During the 2021–2022
academic year, 460 school classes from
elementary to high school (10,898 students)
contributed to the project. In total, since the
launch of this project, the students have
carried out 12,672 observation sessions that
allowed them to count more than 43,000
birds and 10,500 snails. The data collected
by school classes are sent to the museum
researchers via the VNE website and
analysed by them to obtain indicators of the
biodiversity levels in French territory. Thus,
VNE is a citizen science project that Bonney
(2009) described as ‘public participation
in scientic research’ (PPSR) by collecting
data on a large spatial and temporal scale
within the French territory. The indicators
of biodiversity level and the other results
are sent to participants in the form of
newsletters explaining the results. Students
can also meet the researchers during
conferences, where they can ask questions
about their observations.
In relation to the French biology
curriculum, VNE is used for students to
mobilise scientic practices and knowledge
(Bosdeveix et al., 2018; Conversy et al., 2019)
but also to address the SSI (Sadler et al.,
2016) concerning the anthropogenic impact
on the loss or maintenance of biodiversity.
For example, some teachers can go
beyond data collection and involve their
students in the preservation of local
biodiversity. To do this, the teacher can
rely on the results of VNE data collection
in connection with scientic knowledge
in ecology whilst also relyingon socio-
environmental considerations related to
the social implications of biodiversity
protection (Mueller et al., 2011). By
combining these two educational
approaches, students can participate in
decision-making to promote concrete
actions to protect biodiversity
(Philipps et al., 2020).
Here, we present an ecology-focused SSI
involving a decision-making process related
to the conservation of biodiversity in a local
context: urban bird habitat destruction in
connection with the VNE citizen science
tool. The ‘Garden Birds’ protocol illustrates
this connection between the citizen science
VNE project and the SSI of bird biodiversity
59
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
loss in urban areas. The rst step is to
identify and count the birds in a schoolyard,
public park or garden around the school.
The protocol is simple, yet accurate
and effective. Bird observations can be
performed with binoculars and/or using
bird feeders. Observations must be done
in 15-minute intervals (if the observation
time is not the same, the data cannot be
compared). In this protocol, participants
count the maximum number of individuals
of each species seen simultaneously.
The observation can be conducted at the
same site, but at different dates and times to
understand when and why birds visit the site.
To assist teachers and students in identifying
the observed birds, an identication key
(Figure 5) is provided. For each bird, one
or more symbols show some specic
characteristics of the observed species.
There is also an application called
‘BirdLab’7
, which can easily be downloaded
to phones or tablets. Through BirdLab,
researchers are interested in the
interactions between birds at feeders.
To analyse this, participants will have to
replicate the activity of different species at
the feeders in real time for 5 minutes via a
simple ‘drag & drop’ action.
Observations should be made on two
identical feeders with the same amount of
food, separated by 1 to 2 metres. Automatic
geolocation allows the type of environment
(e.g., urban, peri-urban, rural) to be
determined. For example, by participating,
students can realise that blackbirds come
Figure 5
Example of a determination key to aid in the identication of
bird species. © Vigie-Nature – MNHN.
60
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
and go to the feeders many times, whilst
other birds prefer to stay longer5 (Figure 6).
In the second step, VNE can engage
students in a decision-making process to
protect biodiversity at the local level based
on the data collected.
For example, students can compare the
biodiversity (abundance and diversity) of
birds in a wasteland and a mowed lawn
(Figure 7) through the analysis of collected
data and realise that there are four species
in the wasteland and only two on the
mowed lawn.
Figure 6
Example of BirdLab tool: Graph of the relative frequency of
the 14 most present species (compared to the great tit). The
blue and great tits are the most frequently observed feeders.
© Sébastien TURPIN – MNHN.
Figure 7
Results of the collected data (abundance and diversity of
bird species) in two environments (wasteland and mowed
lawn). © Sébastien TURPIN - MNHN.
5.
In this situation, students mobilise both the
results obtained in the two environments
and the local SSI of biodiversity loss in
urban areas.
Hence, they suggested that some
areas in gardens and public parks should
not be mowed to promote the growth of
plants that produce the seeds consumed
by birds. This proposal can be formulated
as a recommendation from the students
to the school, neighbourhood and even
city authorities. This seemingly simple
suggestion is not popular because it is not
self-evident. Indeed, not mowing the lawn
is often taken by the public and authorities
as a sign of neglected areas by garden
owners or by the gardening services of the
city's public parks.
Therefore, it is up to the students who
participated in the VNE citizen science
project to provide the data they collected
to municipal authorities and the local
population in order to demonstrate the
ecological interest in leaving areas of the
city uncultivated to combat biodiversity
61
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?
https://www.birdlab.fr

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
loss. Therefore, based on the scientic data
generated by the students' participation
in the ‘VNE’ project, a collective informed
decision-making dynamic in favour of bird
biodiversity conservation can be developed
through engagement in the corresponding
SSI. Thus, students can implement positive
human activities by empowering their
immediate environment because they
are actively engaged in citizen action and
contribute to the transformation of gardening
practices in the city. Moreover, it is well
known that SSIs consist of excellent contexts
for argumentation development (Duschl &
Osborne, 2002; Zeidler & Nichols, 2009).
In conclusion, based on this simple
result, students can use and generate
resources to think about actions to protect
biodiversity. They are both members of a
school community and members of the
scientic community of the VNE citizen
science project.
Thus, in addition to its scientic
objectives of assessing biodiversity, this
project can also produce a social impact
based not on common opinions but rather
on scientic data. It also represents an
opportunity to work with students on the link
between ecology, evolution, climate change
and the role of natural selection and genetic
drift in the process of species extinction.
Therefore, Vigie-Nature and VNE are
citizen networks that promote scientic
ecology as well as the SSI of biodiversity
conservation in order to change our
individual and collective attitudes in a social
context and highlight the contribution of
museums towards this end.
3. The Zoological Museum
of the Biology Department
of the University of
Athens: In search of
biodiversity
As mentioned earlier, biodiversity is not
just a biological concept that people of all
ages should be aware of, but an essential
component of life. Thus, Greece's largest
zoology museum could not leave out this
scientic dimension, which also has a
social impact. For this purpose, the design
of educational programmes that could
function either as a complement to the
main science curriculum of the school
(and specically biology) or independently
has recently started in the Museum of
Zoology of the Department of Biology of the
University of Athens.
Here, we present the programme
entitled ‘Look around the Museum to nd
a friend’, which was designed around
the topic of biodiversity for secondary
school students (Deroungeri, 2022)—and
more specically for the rst years of
secondary education (K7–K8; 13–14 years
old)—in the context of the SSIs on the
topic of biodiversity. It was based on the
presentation of different (endemic and
non-endemic) animal species living in
Greece in a playful and fun manner for the
students whilst also being designed with
clear objectives (e.g., name endangered
animal species in Greece, distinguish
animals according to their category of
danger, compare different categories of
animals and relate them to their causes of
endangerment, etc.).
Thus, by the time students leave the
museum, they have gained knowledge
and have not merely toured the museum's
premises. The ultimate goal for the students
was to make sure they would be able to decide
on a hypothetical deforestation scenario.
The following is a summary of both the
objectives of the project and the methodology
implemented, as well as some initial
62
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
impressions from student groups who visited
the museum and followed the biodiversity
project. However, the presentation and
analysis of the learning outcomes are outside
the scope of this chapter.
‘Look around the museum to nd a friend’
As previously explained, the design
of the programme places biodiversity
at its heart. It highlights the place of
humans among other living organisms,
emphasising that human beings are just
one of them. Simultaneously, knowledge
about biodiversity is not only an ecological
constant, but a way of understanding why
it is important for every living organism
(in this case, especially humans) to respect
nature and all that it contains.
Due to Greece’s particular topography,
variety of habitats resulting from the land
areas, and the numerous and very different
islands, biodiversity is particularly rich.
Like other countries, Greece has endemic
and non-endemic species that can be
classied into different risk categories. The
causes of risk can be pointed out, including
anthropogenic effects.
Thus, a key aim of this project is to
familiarise students with the risk categories
of species as dened by the IUCN
(International Union for Conservation of
Nature). Non-endangered, endangered,
critically endangered and vulnerable species
were chosen for this project so that students
can come in contact with and observe how
these terms differ and what cases of each risk
category can be found in Greece.
Moreover, another objective of the
project is for students to identify the causes
that lead to the extinction of endangered
species and how this can be reduced or
eliminated. After all, based on the IUCN
categorisation mentioned above, it is known
that not all endangered species disappear
despite their decreasing numbers.
Thus, it is important to understand
how each of these cases may occur.
Apart from the IUCN categorisation, an
important objective was to correlate the
conservation (or not) of species (as a
key dimension of biodiversity) with the
impact of anthropogenic activities. In
this way, the project aimed to foster an
attitude of respect for the environment
and an awareness of the consequences
of students’ present actions on future
situations. Furthermore, as previously
mentioned, the SSI that the programme
concluded with sought to have the
students decide on a human intervention
in the natural environment (deforestation)
whilst considering as many parameters as
possible. This activity is described below.
To implement this project,
accompanying materials were designed
for students. Tour guides, quick response
barcodes (QR codes) and an information
recording form were designed. More
specically, the museum space was
divided into four routes, each of which was
assigned a tour guide. Each tour guide took
the form of a small book of puzzles.
By solving a puzzle, the students were
taken to a point in the museum (different for
each puzzle) where a QR code was waiting
for them. Once scanned with the help of
tablets (which were given to the students on
arrival at the museum), the QR code reveals
information about the animal under study. In
other words, each QR code provided more
information about the animal in the puzzle
that the students had solved.
They would then have to solve the next
puzzle to reach the next animal exhibit in
a similar manner. Thus, all the information
collected by the students was recorded in
certain columns on the information recording
form (animal name, habitat, threat, etc.).
Therefore, each group of students was asked
to ll in all the columns on the form based on
the exhibits on the trail until they had lled in
63
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
the information for all the animals.
At the end of this process, a short
discussion with a member of the museum
staff followed for the students to summarise
their ndings and be assigned the nal
activity (i.e., the completion of a ‘comic
strip’ on the subject of deforestation). In
fact, the students were given two pictures
(Figures 9 and 10), which constituted a short
story. The protagonists of the story were the
animals of the forest, which had
to decide how and whether to act if they
had to face a human intervention in their
natural environment.
Therefore, the students had to complete
the animals’ dialogues. Through these
dialogues, they should come to a decision
regarding this particular SSI. The dialogues
that students develop can demonstrate
whether they realise that there is a threat
of extinction and for which animals (i.e.,
based on the animal images depicting
all IUCN categories). Their nal decision
can also show whether they were able to
reach a decision through a multifaceted
consideration of the issue. This would
be aided by the information they had
previously collected as well as the nal
summary that had been made.
Although the learning outcomes are not
the subject of this chapter, it is important
to mention that at the end of the entire
process, the students completed a short
questionnaire to express their impressions
of the project and evaluate any knowledge
they may have gained. It was found that the
majority of the evaluation questions were
answered correctly.
More striking, however, were the results
of the answers relating to the students’
impressions. They reported no difculties in
following the programme, with 95% stating
that they would not have preferred any
other way of engaging with the programme
(e.g., a traditional tour). In fact, several
noted that they liked having to ‘put their
minds to work’ rather than just walking
through the museum.
Additionally, the same percentage of
students reported that they would like to
Figure 9
Life in the forest and the arrival of the ‘stranger’ (rst part of
the short story).
Figure 10
The council of forest animals meets to make decisions
(second part of the short story).
64
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

SSI APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL SCIENCES:
FOSTERING ACTION TOWARDS
THE PRESERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY
attend similar programmes again in the
future. It was also particularly encouraging
that students even responded positively to
metacognitive questions. For example, they
noted that this programme helped them learn
about biodiversity and the risks it faces.
Overall, students seemed to enjoy this
way of approaching biological concepts.
Moreover, the design and integration of
the programme in an SSI context gave a
boost to learning about biodiversity issues
through the possibilities and opportunities
that a museum can offer.
4. SSIs in other
out-of-school contexts
Museums are unquestionably powerful
environments that can be used to engage
with SSIs. Also, in addition to the specic
content, activities and projects they
promote, to some extent, this potential
results from the situational interest that can
be prompted by them.
Research has shown that place-based
education can provide relevant outcomes
due to the authenticity of the settings in
which interactions occur (Wattchow, 2021).
This feature is common to other
out-of-school contexts, such as natural parks,
botanical gardens (which are often perceived
and presented as living museums), zoos and
aquariums, which have also been shown
to create fruitful opportunities to tackle
pressing societal issues with a scientic
and technological underpinning (Dean,
2022; Papoulias, 2022; Reyes, 2020). These
contexts appear to be particularly suitable
for addressing environmental issues given
the (more or less) direct contact with nature
that can be fostered.
Researchers have argued that
experiencing the natural world in more
or less controlled settings—namely by
exploring places with which one is familiar
and that are readily available—allows people
to understand the complexity of variables
at play when discussing real environmental
challenges, especially those related to
biodiversity preservation and sustainability
(Austin, 2021; Herman et al., 2019).
By becoming immersed in nature,
one can embrace the complex network of
elements upon which the delicate balance
of natural phenomena is based, instead
of having to deal with them as abstract
concepts (Austin, 2021). This arguably
makes it easier to fully grasp the main
dimensions that typically characterise SSIs.
A recent research study (Herman et al.,
2020) on students’ emotive reasoning about
an environmental SSI whilst visiting the
Greater Yellowstone Area has demonstrated
that place-based SSI instruction can scaffold
their emotional and affective responses
towards an issue and the agents involved
and affected by it, which can act as triggers
to pro-social and pro-environmental
behaviours. Additionally, the bioblitz—an
increasingly popular tool in environmental
(and especially biodiversity) education—has
been proven to support the development
of practical and conceptual learning of
nature-related scientic concepts in a
more authentic, immersive way, with
students reporting an increased sense of
appreciation of nature and an improved
readiness to act in favour of environmental
preservation (Gass et al., 2021).
The potential of these other
out-of-school contexts can be further
boosted by exploring active learning
strategies that have been trialled and tested
in museums, science centres and schools.
65
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

DISCUSSION - CONCLUSION
There are various ways to address different
SSIs in museums and science centres
through either exhibitions or activities. The
examples presented herein represent only
some of the available solutions; however,
they embrace this commitment from
the core. Overall, the advantages of an
educational approach using SSIs are well
known (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009). Moreover,
the combination of using SSI-based
educational approaches within non-formal
education environments could offer even
more opportunities for students and future
citizens to engage with a wide range of
topics, including biodiversity.
More than standing as a serious
ecological issue, the preservation of
biodiversity demands a concerted effort by
multiple actors in social, cultural, economic,
political and scientic elds. Based on the
most recent scientic data, an estimated 2.4
million species face the risk of extinction
within a timeframe of years due to human
activities (Raven, 2020).
At a time when our knowledge of and
impact on the world is as deep as it has ever
been—and when we control technology like
never before—all efforts must be placed
on disrupting the destruction of nature and
building a future we can be proud of. Each
of us, as individuals and as a community,
has a role to play in this regard, whether by
taking immediate and direct action or by
creating the conditions required to foster
positive change. Hence, it is obvious why
these three museum activities have been
developed with the common denominator
of presenting biodiversity as a socioscientic
issue and not only as an exclusively scientic
issue. At the interface between the scientic
and social worlds, these activities contribute
to rethinking the educational contribution
of museums. They offer the possibility to
go beyond the informative and popularising
perspective of scientic knowledge by
initiating a critical perspective through a
strong interaction between the activity and the
student. Furthermore, to some extent, it could
even be said that it is a matter of offering the
pupil a 'thought experiment' in which he or she
becomes an actor in a decision-making process
involving both scientic knowledge and values.
Far from the expert’s perspective
of imposing from the top down and
prescribing the 'right decision' to be made,
these three examples emphasise the
students' ability to express arguments. But
the most important point is undoubtedly
their contribution to 'doing science in
society'. Indeed, it is not about telling
evolutionary and ecological stories as
a grand science tale about the dangers
threatening biodiversity. Instead, it is
about proposing activities that go beyond
raising awareness or improving one’s
understanding of scientic products.
Indeed, the three descriptions of
activities in the museums of Porto, Paris
and Athens include a different proposal for
approaching biodiversity through SSIs. In
the rst case, a novel approach based on
a museographic philosophy that brings
together art and science by harnessing
the universal power of aesthetics whilst
favouring emotions, affective engagement
and ultimately intellectual enjoyment has
been trialled and tested by the experts of
Porto's museum.
In the second case, a modern citizen
science project (i.e., VNE) in combination
with an SSI demonstrated how students
could engage in results-gathering processes
by acting as young scientists that are
willing to contribute to the research of
mature scientists and ultimately want to
make suggestions for improving their local
communities in the context of conservation
and biodiversity enhancement. In the latter
case, through a tour of the Zoological
Museum of Athens, an idea was given for
how to integrate fun and adventure in the
management of a biodiversity-focused SSI.
66
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

DISCUSSION - CONCLUSION
Through puzzles and ‘comics’, students
were ultimately asked to make decisions.
Notably, they left the museum not only
excited after an atypical visit but also
gained knowledge after real engagement
with the SSI.
These three activities reect new
educational orientations based more explicitly
on a commitment to science education for
citizens. This is a major challenge that implies
new responsibilities for ‘scientic action in
society’ and invites students to participate
in democratic decision-making processes,
particularly concerning the protection and
conservation of biodiversity in the face of
global changes caused by the anthropogenic
activities that threaten it (climate change,
urbanisation, pollution, etc.).
Nevertheless, the loss of biodiversity is
among the most pressing environmental
and societal challenges at both local and
global scales. It concerns every single one
of us in each stage of our lives and has
been at the forefront of the United Nations
agendas for sustainable development (Roe
et al., 2019). Whilst being explicitly covered
in the 15th Sustainable Development Goal
to ‘protect, restore and promote sustainable
use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably
manage forests, combat desertication, and
halt and reverse land degradation and halt
biodiversity loss’—it unquestionably stands
as an underlying concern when endeavouring
to attain most of the other 16 SGDs.
Consequently, in complementarity with
formal education, these museum activities
and other similar outdoor proposals (e.g.,
in zoos, botanical gardens, exhibitions and
festivals) could soon become an inevitable
step more than an optional step since
they contribute to the development of
critical thinking and real empowerment for
the protection of biodiversity in both the
individual and collective dimensions.
67
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

Austin, S. (2021). Education about, through and for
the environment. In A. M. Kavanagh, F. Waldron,
& B. Mallon (Eds.), Teaching for social justice
and sustainable development across the primary
curriculum (pp. 54–68). Routledge. ISBN: 1000360237,
9781000360233.
Bosdeveix, R., Crépin-Obert, P., Fortin, C., Leininger-
Frézal, C., Regad, L., & Turpin, S. (2018). Étude des
pratiques enseignantes déclarées concernant le
program de sciences citoyennes Vigie-Nature École.
RDST. Recherches en Didactique des Sciences et des
Technologies, 18, 79–102. https://doi.org/10.4000/
rdst.2041
Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips,
T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science:
A developing tool for expanding science knowledge
and scientic literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977–984.
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9
Brulle R. J., & Norgaardb, K. M. (2019). Avoiding
cultural trauma: Climate change and social
inertia. Environmental Politics, 28(5), 886–908.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1562138
Conversy, P., Dozières, A., & Turpin, S. (2019). Du
naturaliste expert à l’élève: Enjeux de la diversication
des objectifs d’un program de sciences participatives
en France. Éducation Relative à l’Environnement.
Regards-Recherches-Réexions, 15(1), 261–283.
https://doi.org/10.4000/ere.4440
Couvet, D., Jiguet, F., Julliard, R., Levrel, H., & Teyssedre,
A. (2008). Enhancing citizen contributions to
biodiversity science and public policy. Interdisciplinary
Science Reviews, 33(1), 95–103. https://doi.
org/10.1179/030801808X260031
Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies
for developing students’ argumentation skills about
socioscientic issues in high school genetics.
Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148.
Dear, S. N. (2021). National park interpretation and place-
based education: An integrative literature review.
Journal of Experiential Education, 44(4), 363–377.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825920979
Dean, D. C. (2022). Are ashes all that is left? Grace
Jantzen’s aesthetics and the beauty of biodiversity.
Religions, 13(5), 407.
Deroungeri, ML (2022) Non formal education in the
museum: educational programme on conservation
biology based on the use of innovetive exploration
and evaluation tools. Master thesis. (in greek)
Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A. R., Vynne, C., Lee, A. T. L., Pharand-
Deschênes, F., França, M., Fernando, S., Birch, T.,
Burkart, K., Asner, G. P., & Olson, D. (2020). A “global
REFERENCES
safety net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize
Earth’s climate. Science Advances, 6(36), eabb2824.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa https://doi.org/10.1126
Djoghlaf, A., & Dodds, F. (2011). Biodiversity and ecosystem
insecurity: A planet in peril. Earthscan. ISBN: 978-1-
84971-220-0
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and
promoting argumentation discourse in science
education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
Evagorou, M., Koratis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou,
C. (2009). An investigation of the potential of
interactive simulations for developing system thinking
skills in elementary school: A case study with fth‐
graders and sixth‐graders. International Journal of
Science Education, 31(5), 655–674.
Ferrand de Almeida, N., Valentim, N., Mendonça, L.,
Mendonça, R., & Fonseca, M. J. (2019a). Sophia’s
whale and the hypercubic showcase of sudden
understanding. In C. Rossi-Linnemann, & G. Martini
(Eds.), Art in science museums. Routledge.
Ferrand de Almeida, N., Valentim, N., Mendonça, L.,
Mendonça, R., & Fonseca, M. J. (2019b). The power
of art-infused science museum design. The Hall of
Biodiversity, Porto (Portugal). In C. Rossi-Linnemann &
G. Martini (Eds.), Art in science museums. Routledge.
Gass. S., Mui, A., Manning, P., Cray, H., & Gibson, L. (2021).
Exploring the value of a BioBlitz as a biodiversity
education tool in a post-secondary environment.
Environmental Education Research, 27(10), 1538–1556,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1960953
Georgiou, M., & Mavrikaki, E. (2014). Greek students’
ability in argumentation and informal reasoning about
socioscientic issues related to biotechnology. In C. P.
Constantinou, N. Papadouris & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.),
E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference:
Science Education Research For Evidence-based
Teaching and Coherence in Learning. Part 7, (pp.1158-
1166) Nicosia, Cyprus: European Science Education
Research Association. ISBN: 978-9963-700-77-6
Georgiou, M., Mavrikaki, E., Halkia, K., & Papassideri, I. (2020).
Investigating the impact of the duration of engagement
in socioscientic issues in developing Greek students’
argumentation and informal reasoning skills. American
Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 16–23.
Herman, B. C., Owens, D. C., Oertli, R. T., Zangori, L. A.,
& Newton, M. H. (2019). Exploring the complexity of
students’ scientic explanations and associated nature
of science views within a place-based socioscientic
issue context. Science & Education, 28(3), 329–366.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00034-4
68
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?
https://doi.org/10.4000/rdst.2041
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1562138
https://doi.org/10.4000/ere.4440
https://doi.org/10.1179/030801808X260031
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825920979
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb2824
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1960953
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00034-4

Reyes, V. J. (2020). Family Interpretations of Conservation
Messaging in an Aquarium [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Texas State University.
Roe, D., Seddon, N., & Elliot, N. (2019). Biodiversity
loss is a development issue. International
Institute for Environment and Development.
ISBN 978-1-78431-688-4. Available online at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep29062
Rossi-Linnemann, C., & Martini, G. (Eds.). (2019).
Art in science museums. Routledge. DOI:
10.4324/9780429491597
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding
socioscientic issues: A critical review of research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning
science content through socio-scientic issues-based
instruction: A multi-level assessment study. International
Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622–1635
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481
Science Task Force for the UN Decade on Ecosystem
Restoration. (2021). Science-based ecosystem
restoration for the 2020s and beyond. IUCN. Available
online at:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/content/
documents/iucn_think_piece_updated_060921.
Sforzi, A., Tweddle, J., Vogel, J., Lois, G., Wägele, W.,
Lakeman-Fraser, P., & Vohland, K. (2018). Citizen
science and the role of natural history museums. In
Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel,
J. & Bonn, A. 2018. Citizen Science: Innovation in Open
Science, Society and Policy. (pp.429-444) UCL Press.
https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339aaa
Simon, N. (2016). The art of relevance. Museum 2.0.
Special Eurobarometer 481. (2019). Attitudes
of Europeans towards Biodiversity Report.
European Commission. Available online at:
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2194
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney,
O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the
Anthropocene: The great acceleration. The
Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98.
Terradas, A., & Wagensberg, J. (2006). Cosmocaixa:
The total museum: Through conversation between
architects and museologists. Sacyr Sal.
Thomas, N. (2016). The return of curiosity: What museums
are good for in the 21st century. Reaktion Books Ltd.
Wagensberg, J. (2005). Wagensberg, J. (2005). The” total”
museum, a tool for social change. História, Ciências,
Saúde-Manguinhos, 12, 309-321.
REFERENCES
Herman, B. C., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. (2020).
Students’ emotive reasoning through place-based
environmental socioscientic issues. Research in
Science Education, 50(5), 2081–2109. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11165-018-9764-1
Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2021).
Developing and using multiple models to promote
scientic literacy in the context of socio-scientic
issues. Science & Education, 30(3), 589–607. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00206-1
Lee, H., Kyunghee, C., Kim, S., Jungsook, Y., Krajcik, J. S.,
Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientic
issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values
as global citizens. International Journal of Science
Education, 35(12), 2079–2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09500693.2012.749546
Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2018). The human planet:
Earth at the dawn of the Anthropocene. Penguin
Random House. ISBN: 978–0–241–28088–1
Maniatakou, A., Papassideri, I., & Georgiou, M. (2020).
Role-play activities as a framework for developing
argumentation skills on biological issues in secondary
education. American Journal of Educational Research,
8(1), 7–15.
Mazzanti, P., & Sani, M. (Eds.). (2021). Emotions
and learning in museums. NEMO - Network
of European Museum Organisations. ISBN:
978-3-9822232-1-6. Available online at:
https://www.ne-mo.org/news/article/nemo/nemo-
report-on-emotions-and-learning-in-museums.html
Mueller, M. P., Tippins, D., & Bryan, L. A. (2011). The future
of citizen science. Democracy and Education, 20(1), 2.
https://doi.org/10.1890/110294
Panu, P. (2020). Anxiety and the ecological crisis:
An analysis of eco-anxiety and climate anxiety.
Sustainability 2020, 12(19), 7836. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su12197836
Papoulias, K. P. (2022). A rising tide: Climate change
programming for teens in aquariums and zoos
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. San Francisco
State University.
Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., Lewenstein, B. V., &
Bonney, R. (2019). Engagement in science
through citizen science: Moving beyond data
collection. Science Education, 103(3), 665–690.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21501
Raven, P. H. (2020). Biological extinction and climate
change. In W. K. Al-Delaimy, V. Ramanathan, & M.
Sánchez Sorondo (Eds.), Health of people, health of
planet and our responsibility. (pp.11-20) Springer. DOI:
10.1007/978-3-030-31125-4
69
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00206-1
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
https://www.ne-mo.org/news/article/nemo/nemo-
report-on-emotions-and-learning-in-museums.html
https://doi.org/10.1890/110294
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197836
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21501
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep29062
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481
https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/les/content/
documents/iucn_think_piece_updated_060921.pdf
https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2194
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702005000400015
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9764-1

Wagensberg, J. (2009). The hypercubic showcase of sudden
understanding (opinion). Museum Practice, 47, 11.
Wagensberg, J. (2015). La revolución de linguaje
museográco. THEMA, La revue des Musées de la
Civilisation, 2, 118–127.
Wattchow, B. (2021). Place-responsiveness in outdoor
environmental education. In G. Thomas, J. Dyment, &
H. Prince (Eds.), Outdoor environmental education in
higher education. International explorations in outdoor
and environmental education (Vol. 9). (pp. 101-110)
Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-75980-3_9.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientic
issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
REFERENCES
70
CHAPTER 4 SSI approach out of schools - How
can these approaches be used
in science museums and other
non formal education contexts?

Chapter 5
How is evolution
impacting our lives
71

How is evolution impacting our lives
Alex Jeffries11Department of Life Sciences, Milner Centre for Evolution, University of
Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
Abstract: Teaching evolution can be challenging because it often appears
to lack context or real-world relevance. Therefore, a problem in
evolution education is identifying and maintaining interest in the
subject that can facilitate and enhance engagement with the
teaching. There is a wide range of potential ‘hooks’ for evolution
education and this chapter presents a few of these in an
attempt to provide inspiration. Starting somewhat speculatively
is a discussion on how having a proper understanding of
phylogenetics may provide an ethical perspective on humanity’s
place in nature. This is followed by a discussion of how
evolutionary research is helping us to predict biodiversity changes
occurring as a result of climate change. Evolutionary medicine is
then discussed using cancer and new methods of treatment as
its focus. Finally, a discussion of the evolutionary underpinnings
of COVID-19 is presented within the context of an individual’s
responsibility to society.
ethics, phylogeny, climate change, biodiversity, cancer, COVID-19
KEYWORDS
72
CHAPTER 5

1. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT
TO EXPLORE EVOLUTION
IN REAL CONTEXTS?
All educators know, if only through
personal experience, that students are best
engaged when they have an interest in a
subject (see Silvia, 2006 and Silvia, 2008
for reviews of the psychology of interest).
“When interested, students persist longer in
learning tasks, spend more time studying,
read more deeply, remember more of what
they read, and get better grades in their
classes” (Silvia, 2008). Interest is often
elicited and/or maintained when one has a
frame of reference for a subject (i.e., how it
ts into a wider context).
Additionally, subjects that have direct
relevance to students, or are tangibly
relatable to students’ everyday lives,
are likely to engender more interest
(Silvia, 2006). Although curiosity is also a
generative force for interest, it is fragile
and often stymied by the subjective
arbitrariness and constraints of school
curriculums and the pressures of
assessment (Silvia, 2006, 2008).
Notably, problem solving is tightly linked
to interest and curiosity.
Humans appear to be naturally drawn
toward problems as a source of interest as
long as the problems appear to be tractable
(Silvia, 2006). If a topic can be posed as a
problem to be solved or involves problem
solving, this often adds to a student’s
motivation to learn and underpins
‘problem-based learning’ pedagogic
approaches (Harackiewicz et al., 2016).
Therefore, it is natural that in an
attempt to maximise student engagement,
teachers can place signicant effort into
nding ‘selling points’ or ‘hooks’ for topics
by providing comprehendible examples,
drawing out the context, posing relevant
problems, making appeals to curiosity, etc.
This is a deep and broad topic of research
for cognitive psychology, pedagogy
and andragogy in general (for a very
approachable review, see Willingham, 2009).
Unfortunately, for many, evolution is a
topic that can appear distant from everyday
life and is thus considered abstract and
incomprehensible, even boring. Appeals
to curiosity and novelty can be used by
educators to capture the attention of
students. Palaeontology is a natural and
effective entry into evolution because of the
novelty of unfamiliar organisms.
This often relies heavily on dinosaurs
(Salmi et al., 2016) due to their unusual
appearances, whilst also leaning on
violence in the hope of getting students’
attention (with Tyrannosaurus rex and
Velociraptor featuring prominently in this
regard). Additionally, since fossils are
difcult objects to interpret and imagine
as living creatures, there is often a heavy
reliance on speculative artistic portrayals,
which is something that computer
animation has excelled at.
On this scale, human evolution, which
includes our extinct sister species such as
Neanderthals and Denisovans (Callaway,
2016), is another topic that students
often relate to for obvious reasons.
However, there are limitations in placing
palaeontology, and therefore evolution,
into context since the objects of study are
both guratively and literally distant from
students’ lives.
Moreover, the timescales involved
are typically in the millions or hundreds
of thousands of years and thus beyond
intuitive grasp (Cately & Novick, 2009),
giving the subject a somewhat esoteric and
irrelevant feel. As a gateway to evolution,
this may backre if students get the
impression that the subject is all about
long-dead things that only make gory
appearances in lms.
73
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

1. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO EXPLORE
EVOLUTION IN REAL CONTEXTS? /
2. EVOLUTION AND ETHICS
What is needed are examples, contexts
and problems for evolution that are more
easily relatable to students. Something in
the ‘here and now’ that can be recognised
as relevant or useful to the individual. The
problem of nding such ‘hooks’ is far from
solved, partly because interest is highly
subjective and idiosyncratic, which makes
it difcult to nd clear universal examples
or principles (Borgerding & Kaya, 2022;
Jördens & Hamman, 2019).
A further challenge is that, although
evolution is the underlying cause or
explanatory principle of biological entities
and phenomena, this linkage often lies
hidden below the surface, is subtle to
appreciate and is not necessarily required
for a functional understanding of the subject.
The title of Theodosius Dobzhansky’s
inuential essay, “Nothing in biology makes
sense except in the light of evolution”, is
often put forward by those who are already
knowledgeable about the area as a kind of
argument for studying evolution.
However, it is rarely the case that
knowledge and understanding of a
biological system necessarily require an
evolutionary perspective. For example, one
can quite effectively learn anatomy without
ever knowing anything about the evolution
of the homologous forms.
Therefore, the challenge for the educator
is to nd and present examples of evolution
from different perspectives, which places
it into contexts where it impacts our lives
today in the hope that this garners sufcient
interest in pupils and allows them to better
engage with the topic.
2. EVOLUTION AND
ETHICS
Based on the preceding discussion, it
may seem odd to begin with the topic of
evolution and ethics. However, consider
that the concepts of ethics, morality,
justice and fairness, among others, are
often strong preoccupations for people,
especially school-aged children and
adolescents, even if they are not aware of
the semantics or lack developed knowledge
of the concepts (Malti et al., 2021). How
evolution intersects with and informs ethics
is a wide-ranging area with a long history of
thought dating back to Darwin (for reviews,
see Oldroyd, 1983; Ruse & Richards, 2017).
Evolutionary theory has been used as
an explanatory principle for a wide range
of human behaviour, from how market
economies work to how men and women
relate to each other and family dynamics.
Such explanations have typically been
summarised as ‘social Darwinism’ or
‘Darwinian psychology’.
As one would expect, these
philosophical, sociological and
psychological investigations are often
highly controversial and contentious.
This is mainly because they stem from
observational studies out of necessity. It is
impossible, or at least extremely difcult, to
design robust interventional experiments
to investigate these hypotheses in the same
manner that one could for a biological
system in the laboratory.
Rather than go down the rabbit hole of
social Darwinism, one less controversial
example of evolutionary theory intersecting
with ethics deals with the philosophical
perspective on humanity’s place in
the natural world. We are increasingly
becoming aware of and formally taught
about climate change, habitat and
ecosystem encroachment, and threats to
biodiversity, among other challenges.
As inheritors of the world, there is a keen
self-interest among people in these topics,
74
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

which greatly helps with engagement in
studying them. Therefore, giving youth a
sense of perspective about their place in
the natural world is a vitally important topic
that is likely to resonate favourably since
they generally want to do their best as
global citizens (e.g., Kuo & Jordan, 2019).
Calls to change our perspective on
humanity’s place and role in the natural
world are increasing (e.g., Hulme, 2020).
Changing the perspective of humans
as the evolutionary ‘top of the pile’
(anthropocentrism) by correcting a common
misinterpretation of evolution could partly
help to address our hubris.
Evolutionary adaptation is often
incorrectly portrayed as a linear progression
of creatures from ancestral ‘primitive’ forms
through to more ‘advanced’ forms. Most
will have seen evolution memes based on a
series of images (typically presented from
left to right) of increasingly upright gures,
starting with an ape and ending with a
modern-looking human.
Occasionally, a humorous version
of this image adds a nal human gure
hunched over a computer, suggesting
‘regression’ to a more primitive form.
Unfortunately, these images are completely
incorrect in their portrayal of evolutionary
change since they present it as a linear
chain of events and as a progression in
terms of primitive to advanced. A linear
progression is also common in many other
portrayals of evolution and is sometimes
even made by biological scientists
(Schramm & Schmiemann, 2019).
Instead, the path of evolutionary
adaptation and diversication follows
a branching tree-like pattern technically
called a phylogenetic tree or simply a
phylogeny. This hierarchical structuring
of evolutionary history is one of the
fundamental understandings that has come
from the study of evolution (Gregory, 2008).
Although the concept predated Darwin, he
brought it into a coherent concept and that
was instantly appreciated for its explanatory
power (Ragan, 2009). The phylogenetic
tree has survived the test of time, being
greatly corroborated via multiple sources of
evidence in the molecular biology era
(Page & Holmes, 1998).
Despite being a relatively simple
and elegant concept, a phylogenetic
tree has subtle depth when it comes to
interpretation (Gregory, 2008; Schramm &
Schmiemann, 2019). Again, a misleading
bias often seeps in when a tree is presented
on the page. Very often, especially for
simplied trees used in education, a
phylogeny is organised from apparently
more primitive forms on the left-hand side
of a page/screen through to apparently
more advanced forms on the right-hand
side of the page/screen.
This subtlety in presentation
subconsciously embeds the idea that
ancestral ‘primitive’ forms evolve into
more ‘advanced’ forms and that there is a
progressive hierarchy to organisms, with
something being ‘on top’ or at the ‘end’.
The ‘top dog’ is usually a human (or at
least an animal or multicellular organism),
which reinforces an anthropocentric bias
(Baum et al., 2005; Baum & Smith, 2012;
Sandvik, 2009). So pernicious is this biased
presentation and incorrect interpretation,
even amongst many scientists, that the Tree
Thinking ‘organisation’ (tree-thinking.org)
was formed in an attempt to educate and
counter it (Baum et al., 2005; Meisel, 2010).
For those who wish to go into depth
textbook by Baum and Smith (2012)
provides an excellent and extensive
overview of phylogenetics whilst
emphasising proper ‘tree thinking’. A
phylogeny can be likened to a hanging
mobile that turns about in the breeze. Whilst
all of the threads retain the same linkages,
2. EVOLUTION AND ETHICS
75
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

2. EVOLUTION AND ETHICS
the elements of the mobile can move about
each other to present multiple different
appearances. Thus, a phylogeny with
humans in the middle or at the left- or right-
hand side can be equivalent and perfectly
valid representations of evolutionary
relatedness (for examples, see the gures
in Baum et al., 2005).
Evolutionary knowledge and the correct
interpretation of phylogenetic trees are
important for students to learn so that they
can appreciate that there is no ‘top dog’
in the natural world. All extant organisms
are equally ranked, with every individual,
including yourself, having an independent
unbroken line of descent extending as
far back as approximately 4 billion years
(Javaux, 2019; Krishnamurthy, 2020).
From this evolutionary perspective,
humans have no more ‘right’ to or place in
the natural world than any other organism.
This should be a humbling perspective and
may help future generations take a more
balanced approach to the natural world and
their place in it.
3. BIODIVERSITY
CHANGE
As discussed in 2. above, some of the most
pressing global concerns today include
climate, habitat and ecosystem change and
the many and various impacts that these
forms of change will have on our lives
through their effects on the biosphere. As
average regional and global temperatures
rise, there is a knock-on effect in the
landscape that can signicantly impact
biodiversity from the individual to whole-
ecosystem scales and from microscopic
unicellular organisms through to the largest
multicellular ones. If the environment
changes too rapidly without sufcient time
for organisms to adapt or move to more
suitable environments, there is a real risk of
extinctions occurring (Carroll et al., 2014).
Sufcient extinction events, or even
the extinction of certain keystone species
alone, may result in large-scale ecosystem
collapse and unpredictable, but most
likely negative, implications for humanity
(Ceballos et al., 2015). The periodic report on
global biodiversity and ecosystem services
published by the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (https://ipbes.
net) provides depressingly voluminous
information on the scale and accelerating
rate of extinctions. Thus, there should
be no argument that this is a pressing
problem for all.
Assessing biodiversity for the benet
of basic knowledge and as a means of
monitoring the impacts of climate and
other habitat changes has become a
staple of evolutionary research (Lankau
et al., 2010). The power of biodiversity
monitoring has been greatly increased
with the development of genetic
‘barcoding’ methods, which have been
greatly expanded using next-generation
sequencing technologies to become
‘metabarcoding’ methods (Taberlet
et al., 2012). The greatly increased
specicity and sensitivity of molecular
methods have assisted taxonomists and
phylogeneticists in gaining far more
nuanced understandings of biodiversity’s
composition, to monitor it in real-time,
and enhanced evolutionary knowledge in
general (Waldvogel et al., 2020).
For instance, by using environmental
polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
techniques, we now appreciate that
microbial biodiversity is far greater than
we can culture in the laboratory. These
unculturable microbes have become known
as the unexplored ‘microbial dark matter’,
76
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

and likely constitutes 99% of microbial
species (Jiao et al., 2020). Whilst this
untapped biodiversity holds great potential
for biotechnological applications (Alam et
al., 2021), it remains uncertain how it will
respond to climate change.
In this domain, there has been a paradigm
of gradualism in evolution that originated
with Darwin, who was inspired by Lyell’s book
on geology, which itself was instrumental
in establishing the age of the planet and its
rate of change (i.e., the geological scale). In
many respects, the gradualism of evolution
has been accepted and not challenged
robustly until recent times. Interestingly, the
textbook example of the natural selection of
the peppered moth as a result of changing
pollution in the landscape demonstrates the
relatively rapid adaptation of phenotypes
(Cook & Saccheri, 2013).
More recently, further examples of
species adapting in sync with ecological
changes have been observed (Hairston
et al., 2005; Hoffmann & Flatt, 2022; Holt,
1990), including the iconic Darwin’s nches
(Lamichhaney et al., 2018). Although
sustained incremental evolutionary
changes over long time periods are likely
to be the normal tempo of evolution,
instances of rapid change may be
underestimated and could offer a more
nuanced understanding of biological
evolution as a whole (Bonnet et al., 2022).
The rate and pattern of species
adaptation in response to climate
change has become an important area
of evolutionary research because it may
help us assess the risks to biodiversity
dynamics and anticipate preventative and/
or mitigating strategies. Although recent
research has shown that natural selection
and adaptation in some instances may
occur much quicker than previously thought,
just how widespread this phenomenon is
remains unclear. Therefore, research from
the palaeontological deep past (e.g., Benton,
2009; Cohen et al., 2022; Tang et al., 2018)
through to the present and immediate future
(e.g., Thuiller et al., 2011) and from local to
global scales remains ongoing.
This type of research is providing us
with a greater understanding of how
biodiversity might respond to climate
change. Although it is tempting to hope that
biodiversity will ‘survive’ in one form or
another due to rapid adaptation, and with-it
humanity’s fortunes, the jury remains out
on whether this will be sufcient.
4. CANCER
One of the most rapidly growing areas in
which evolution is having a direct impact
on society is evolutionary medicine,
which is now approaching a coherent
discipline of study in its own right (Perry,
2021). Increasingly, our understanding of
the causes and progression of both non-
communicable and infectious diseases,
together with their prevention and
treatments, is being signicantly informed
by evolutionary knowledge.
Direct links can be made between
disease and evolution because these
systems are the result of evolutionary
processes. Alternatively, such linkage
may be indirect or analogous where an
evolutionary perspective is used as a
conceptual framework for studying and
treating a disease.
Evolutionary medicine uses both
approaches and is rich in opportunities to
generate students’ interest in evolution
since both disease and medicine can have
a direct personal appeal. Additionally, there
are many practical problems and challenges
to be solved with the promise of improving
healthcare. The process through which
2. EVOLUTION AND ETHICS / 4. CANCER
77
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

normal cells are transformed into cancerous
cells (oncogenesis) has been characterised
and organised by scientists using a set of
‘hallmarks’ (Hanahan & Weinberg, 2011).
The overarching hallmark is that cancerous
cells lose control over their cell cycle and
proliferation leading to unchecked growth.
This occurs through the accumulation
of mutations in the DNA of cells that make
up organs and ‘drive’ them towards cancer
(Stratton, 2011). Cancer cells ignore the
normal signals that control replication and
division and thus divide when they should
not. Furthermore, they ignore the signals
that should stop replication. Additionally,
normally when something goes wrong with
a cell, there are systems that eliminate it
(i.e., programmed cell death, also known as
apoptosis). These self-elimination systems are
largely ignored by cancerous cells. The result
of uncontrolled cell division leads to the
formation of large clumps of cells (tumours)
within tissues that can then disrupt the
normal functioning of the relevant organs.
Moreover, cancer cells can break off from
a tumour and spread throughout the body
to numerous distal sites (metastasis) where
they form more tumours, which is another
hallmark of cancer. Since tumour cells
originate from the host itself, the normal
immune responses that protect our bodies
from foreign invaders nd it difcult to
recognise the cancer cells as foreign; thus,
unchecked proliferation continues. As the
disease progresses, there is an increasing
risk of organ failure and death as a result.
Cancer is necessarily a phenomenon of
multicellular organisms but does not affect
all organisms equally. An evolutionary
perspective has been used to investigate
cancer prevalence among different animals
in the hope that insights from this can
inform treatments in humans (Merlo et al.,
2006). From a non-evolutionary perspective,
one would predict that the larger and
longer-lived an organism is, the more likely
it will be to develop cancer simply as a
probabilistic inevitability of the number of
cells it is composed of.
Although this is true for individuals
within a species (e.g., Albanes, 1998), it
was discovered that there is almost no
correlation between body size or longevity
and cancer susceptibility when comparing
different species of animals (i.e., what has
been called Peto’s paradox (Caulin & Maley,
2011)). This paradox has been explained
using an evolutionary perspective. If the
above prediction were true, large animals
would likely develop cancer frequently and
could even die from it before they could
grow to reproductive age. This would be a
negative, or even toxic, tness effect on the
lineage and would thus be selected against.
Therefore, if natural selection is the
explanation for Peto’s paradox, one
would expect that larger and longer-
lived organisms would contain evolved
mechanisms for either preventing
cancer from developing in the rst place
or effective mechanisms for dealing
with cancers once they do arise. Such
mechanisms should provide useful insights
for human oncology (Kattner et al., 2021).
This evolutionary perspective on cancer
is starting to provide tantalising insights.
For instance, there appears to be a positive
correlation between the number of tumour
suppressor genes and the size of animals.
Tumour suppressors normally function
in the cell in ways that help prevent
oncogenesis; for instance, they are often
DNA repair proteins.
Therefore, when a tumour suppressor
gene is mutated and becomes dysfunctional,
its protective function is compromised,
leading to a higher probability of
oncogenesis. Having multiple copies of
these genes provides redundancy against
mutation (Lynch & Conery, 2000), which
4. CANCER
78
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

appears to convey increased protection
against cancer. Redundancy through the use
of multiple gene copies is a concept known
as evolutionary or mutational robustness
and is an evolved strategy of many
organisms (Masel & Siegal, 2009).
Apparent genetic redundancy
correlating with body size and longevity
has been observed with the pivotal tumour
suppressor gene, TP53. The protein product
of this gene, p53, helps control DNA
repair, cell cycle regulation and apoptosis
(Lindström et al., 2022).
Large organisms, such as elephants,
have higher numbers of the TP53 gene
when compared to humans, which may
explain why they do not have elevated
cancer rates as their size would suggest
(Nuwer, 2022). This insight, among others,
has led to increased research on the role
of p53 and its potential as a therapeutic
target for cancer. Some organisms appear
to be curious exceptions to Peto’s paradox.
The most celebrated example is the naked
mole rat (Heterocephalus glaber), which
is the longest living of the rodents (up
to a 30-year lifespan) and appears to not
suffer from cancer, neurodegenerative
diseases and a wide range of other illnesses
(Pamenter & Cheng, 2022).
Due to these features, they have rapidly
become a popular model system for
researchers (and benet from the ‘appeal’
of their unusual appearance for teaching
purposes!). Since the use of this novel
model organism is in its infancy, it remains
to be seen what useful discoveries will come
from them. However, their unexpected
ability to resist oxidative stress has already
been suggested as a potentially useful
research direction (Saldmann et al., 2019).
Evolutionary theory can also have a
signicant impact on our understanding
of biological systems that are not, strictly
speaking, the normal or familiar units of
evolution (i.e., individuals, populations of
individuals, species, etc.). The progression
of cancer in the body on a cellular scale
has similarities to evolution because
the oncogenic mutations are passed on
to descendant cells. Furthermore, the
phenotypic characteristics of a cancer
cell are determined by the particular set
of mutations in the genome (i.e., the
genotype) (Stratton, 2011).
Although this has been complicated by
the discovery of epigenetic modications
(Kanwal & Gupta, 2012), the picture of
heritable variations remains the same.
Lastly, the fate of descendant cells is
dependent on how well they survive and
pass on their mutations (tness). Therefore,
a process with striking similarities to the
natural selection of whole organisms is
thought to occur within tumours.
Therefore, cancer cells can be viewed
as distinct genetic lineages with complex
histories of nested sub-populations within
a tumour, akin to a phylogeny (Stadler et
al., 2021). This evolutionary insight into
cancer has led to a more sophisticated
understanding of its progression and the
distinctiveness of particular tumour types.
Cancer cells are no longer thought of as
a uniform whole from start to nish, but
rather as nested lineages that accumulate
different sets of mutations and thus
characteristics as cancer progresses.
One of the main cancer treatments
involves the use of anticancer drugs
(chemotherapy). These medicines typically
disrupt cell replication and or division
and thereby aim to prevent the unchecked
growth of tumours and/or prevent
metastasis. Therefore, chemotherapy
represents a threat to the cancer cell
lineage, and as in a normal evolutionary
process, this selection pressure weeds out
the less t, often resulting in the selection
of new mutants that can resist the particular
4. CANCER
79
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

4. CANCER / 5. COVID-19 AND INFORMED
CITIZENSHIP
drug(s) in question (Hanahan & Weinberg,
2011). Cancer cells are aided in this by
having hypermutable genomes leading
to high genomic heterogeneity within a
tumour (Stratton, 2011).
In addition to this, the lifespan of a
tumour in terms of cell division (analogous
to whole organism generations) is
equivalent to hundreds of thousands of
years or the span of a whole species, which
allows plenty of opportunities for novelties
to arise and be selected for (Fortunato et
al., 2017; Johnson, 2021; Merlo et al., 2006).
Furthermore, a small but important sub-
population (less than 2%) of tumour cells
are cancer stem cells, which were unknown
until 1994. These cells have characteristics
that allow them to survive chemotherapy
and then renew cancer growth (cancer
relapse) once chemotherapy has been
discontinued (Nguyen et al., 2012).
An evolutionary perspective on
cancer progression has led to innovative
chemotherapy strategies that attempt to
balance the selective pressure on cancer
cells and prevent drug resistance from
evolving (Aktipis, 2020). Rather than the
traditional approach of attempting to kill all
cancer cells as quickly as possible, adaptive
therapy aims, somewhat counterintuitively,
to manage the cancer by preventing the
selection of more aggressive or
drug-resistant cell types (Labrie et al., 2022).
Oncology is just one example where
evolutionary understanding is making
a direct impact on day-to-day medical
practice and will only increase in its effects
as time goes on.
5. COVID-19 AND
INFORMED CITIZENSHIP
Cancer is a good example of a
non-communicable disease whose origins,
progression and treatment are being widely
and productively investigated through the
lens of evolutionary biology. Arguably more
worthy of an evolutionary perspective is
the wide range of infectious diseases. An
evolutionary perspective is directly relevant
to clinicians, allowing them to readily
understand the origins, progression and
treatments of infectious diseases.
However, with infectious agents, which
are passed from one individual to another
by denition, there is an added dimension
of personal responsibility for the public
at large. In addition to the desire to avoid
being infected ourselves, we should also
be interested in preventing the spread of
infections from ourselves to others. This
is the domain of good citizenship, which
relates to how individuals behave for the
greater good of the human population.
As of the writing of this chapter,
the COVID-19 pandemic caused by
the coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, is still
progressing globally. This pandemic will
certainly go down in history as a major
one due to the loss of life and the general
harm it has caused. It has also been a
truly unprecedented pandemic in terms of
the global response and rapidly available
breadth, depth and volume of information
(and misinformation) about the disease,
as well as its prevention and treatment.
A signicant problem for the public has
been understanding the science behind the
pandemic, which has directly informed the
medical and public health interventions
implemented by various governments
(Strydhorst & Landrum, 2022).
At the very centre of public health
strategies has been the evolution of
this virus, though that is not always
immediately apparent. Therefore, a better
understanding of evolutionary processes by
80
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

the public could arguably have resulted in
better individual responses to the various
public health interventions.
Once SARS-CoV-2 infected enough
people and was declared a pandemic,
the challenges related to controlling it, let
alone the hope of eliminating it, increased
exponentially. Of particular concern was
predicting how the virus might evolve, take
on different phenotypic characteristics and
potentially escape our public health efforts
and/or become a more damaging disease
(Callaway, 2020). This is a quintessential
evolutionary phenomenon in which a
reproducing organism is placed under
strong selective pressure.
A viral lineage will only continue if
it can arrive upon a phenotype through
mutations that makes it more t (i.e.,
capable of maintaining or even increasing
its number of offspring by propagating
itself). Without the generation of mutations,
there is no hope of a variant arising that
can either escape the immune system
(primed through either natural infection or
vaccination) or become more transmissible,
no matter which mechanisms effect this.
A key to evolving is mutation and key
to that is the replication of the genome.
Accordingly, places or situations in which
there are uncontrolled outbreaks of
disease are ideal for the emergence of new
mutations, some of which can be more
dangerous than previous variants.
From the start of the COVID-19
pandemic, virologists and epidemiologists
closely monitored the rate and diversity
of mutations of the virus in as many
dimensions as possible, an enterprise
that was taken up to varying degrees in
different countries but overall represents
the greatest molecular surveillance effort in
history (Oude Munnink, 2021). As predicted
by evolutionary theory, it did not take long
before viral variants arose (‘variants of
concern’), which had signicantly different
disease characteristics and impacts on
health interventions. Many commentators
argued that virulence would eventually
decrease and thus called for the moderation
of public health efforts. However, the
argument that a pathogen will inevitably
evolve into a less virulent form is a
persisting hypothesis for which no evidence
has been conclusively found thus far (Bull
& Lauring, 2014). The only clear example
where the natural evolution of virulence
has been studied over time is the myxoma
virus, which causes myxomatosis in rabbits
(Alves et al., 2019; Kerr et al., 2017).
The path of this virus’s evolution
over many years shows that virulence
is maintained and does not diminish.
The fact that we are still living with many
serious diseases that originated long ago
in the past is also indirect evidence that
pathogens do not inevitably become less
virulent (Bull & Lauring, 2014).
Most viruses, and particularly viruses
with RNA genomes, have high mutation
rates during genomic replication (Domingo
et al., 2021a). Therefore, every replication
of the viral genome is an opportunity for a
new mutation to arise. Within an individual
cell and the host as a whole, a truly vast
number of viral sequence variants typically
arises; cumulatively called a quasispecies
(Domingo et al., 2021b). Considering the
vast number of genome replications that
will occur within each infected host, it is
likely that all possible sequence variants
of SARS-CoV-2 have arisen multiple times
during the pandemic. Therefore, it is only
a question of probability that eventually
one will spread to sufcient new hosts and
become a new variant that spreads through
the population.
Due to the probabilistic and evolutionary
inevitabilities of variation and selection,
the only way to prevent new variants from
5. COVID-19 AND INFORMED CITIZENSHIP
81
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

arising is to prevent replication. Although
completely preventing replication is not
possible (we currently do not have a
sterilising vaccine), limiting it as much
as possible through vaccination and
appropriate behaviour (masking, social
distancing, etc.) would limit the chances
of variants arising and thus becomes an
ethical imperative for each individual.
Appreciating this evolutionary context
would arguably result in informed
decisions about personal behaviour being
easier to make. The moral of this story
is that although diseases are inevitable,
pandemics need not be inevitable in the age
of vaccinations and other modern public
health interventions.
6. CONCLUSION
The breadth, depth and volume of our
understanding of evolution and its domains
of inuence are so large as to completely
defy summarisation in a single book
chapter. Evolutionary processes, outcomes
and knowledge impact our lives in a
virtually uncountable number of ways.
Mostly, the systems impacted are evolved
biological entities themselves; however,
others are not and may benet from
evolutionary principles through analogy.
For instance, evolutionary algorithms,
in which computer programs go through
cycles of ‘mutation’ and ‘selection’, are
an important methodology in computer
science (for an overview, see Sloss &
Gustafson, 2016). Another example
is phylogenetic methods being used
in linguistics and literary analysis to
investigate how languages and texts have
‘evolved’ (e.g., Barbrook et al., 1998). Some
impacts of evolution are far more obvious
and comprehensible than others, thereby
serving as good inspiration for educators
and learners. Other impacts are subtle and
lie hidden from casual consideration.
The challenge for the teacher is to
identify engaging contexts and real-world
examples for the topics being taught that
will work best for their particular students.
For further inspiration and broader
coverage of this topic, see Oldroyd (1983),
Losos and Lenski (2016) and Johnson (2021).
5. COVID-19 AND INFORMED CITIZENSHIP /
6. CONCLUSION
82
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?

Callaway, E. (2020). The coronavirus is mutating – does
it matter? Nature, 585(7824), 174–177. https://doi.
org/10.1038/d41586-020-02544-6
Carroll, S. P., Jørgensen, P. S., Kinnison, M. T., Bergstrom,
C. T., Denison, R. F., Gluckman, P., Smith, T. B.,
Strauss, S. Y., & Tabashnik, B. E. (2014). Applying
evolutionary biology to address global challenges.
Science, 346(6207), 1245993. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1245993
Catley, K. M., & Novick, L. R. (2009). Digging deep: Exploring
college students' knowledge of macroevolutionary time.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 311–332.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20273
Caulin, A. F., & Maley, C. C. (2011). Peto’s Paradox:
Evolution’s prescription for cancer prevention. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution, 26(4), 175–182. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.002
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle,
R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern
human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass
extinction. Science Advances, 1(5), e1400253. https://
doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253
Cohen, A. S., Du, A., Rowan, J., Yost, C. L., Billingsley, A.
L., Campisano, C. J., Brown, E. T., Deino, A. L., Feibel,
C. S., Grant, K., Kingston, J. D., Lupien, R. L., Muiruri,
V., Owen, R. B., Reed, K. E., Russell, J., & Stockhecke,
M. (2022). Plio-Pleistocene environmental variability
in Africa and its implications for mammalian evolution.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 119(16), e2107393119.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107393119
Cook, L. M., & Saccheri, I. J. (2013). The peppered moth
and industrial melanism: Evolution of a natural
selection case study. Heredity, 110(3), 207–212.
https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2012.92
Domingo, E., García-Crespo, C., Lobo-Vega, R., & Perales,
C. (2021a). Mutation rates, mutation frequencies,
and proofreading-repair activities in RNA virus
genetics. Viruses, 13(9), 1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/
v13091882
Domingo, E., García-Crespo, C., & Perales,
C. (2021b). Historical perspective on the
discovery of the quasispecies concept.
Annual Review of Virology, 8(1), 51–72.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
virology-091919-105900
Fortunato, A., Boddy, A., Mallo, D., Aktipis, A., Maley, C. C., &
Pepper, J. W. (2017). Natural selection in cancer biology:
From molecular snowakes to trait hallmarks. Cold
Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine, 7(2), a029652.
https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a029652
Aktipis, C. A. (2020). The cheating cell: How evolution helps us
understand and treat cancer. Princeton University Press.
Alam, K., Abbasi, M. N., Hao, J., Zhang, Y., & Li, A.
(2021). Strategies for natural products discovery from
uncultured microorganisms. Molecules, 26(10), 2977.
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26102977
Albanes, D. (1998). Height, early energy intake, and cancer.
Evidence mounts for the relation of energy intake to
adult malignancies. BMJ, 317(7169), 1331–1332.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7169.1331
Alves, J. M., Carneiro, M., Cheng, J. Y., Lemos de Matos,
A., Rahman, M. M., Loog, L., Campos, P. F., Wales,
N., Eriksson, A., Manica, A., Strive, T., Graham, S. C.,
Afonso, S., Bell, D. J., Belmont, L., Day, J. P., Fuller, S. J.,
Marchandeau, S., Palmer, W. J., Queney, G., … Jiggins,
F. M. (2019). Parallel adaptation of rabbit populations to
myxoma virus. Science, 363(6433), 1319–1326. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.aau7285
Barbrook, A. C., Howe, C. J., Blake, N., & Robinson P. (1998).
The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature, 394. 839.
https://doi.org/10.1038/29667
Baum, D. A., Smith, S. D., & Donovan, S. S. (2005). Evolution.
The tree-thinking challenge. Science, 310(5750), 979–980.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1117727
Baum, D. A., & Smith, S. D. (2012). Tree thinking: An
introduction to phylogenetic biology. Roberts and Co.
Benton, M. J. (2009). The Red Queen and the Court Jester:
Species diversity and the role of biotic and abiotic
factors through time. Science, 323(5915), 728–732.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157719
Bonnet, T., Morrissey, M. B., de Villemereuil, P., Alberts, S.
C., Arcese, P., Bailey, L. D., Boutin, S., Brekke, P., Brent,
L., Camenisch, G., Charmantier, A., Clutton-Brock, T. H.,
Cockburn, A., Coltman, D. W., Courtiol, A., Davidian,
E., Evans, S. R., Ewen, J. G., Festa-Bianchet, M., de
Franceschi, C., … Kruuk, L. (2022). Genetic variance in
tness indicates rapid contemporary adaptive evolution
in wild animals. Science, 376(6596), 1012–1016. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0853
Borgerding, L. A., & Kaya, F. (2022). Is knowledge of
evolution useful? A mixed methods examination
of college biology students’ views. International
Journal of Science Education, 44(2), 271–296.
https://10.1080/09500693.2021.2024913
Bull, J. J., & Lauring, A. S. (2014). Theory and empiricism in
virulence evolution. PLOS Pathogens, 10(10), e1004387.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004387
Callaway, E. (2016). Evidence mounts for interbreeding
bonanza in ancient human species. Nature, https://doi.
org/10.1038/nature.2016.19394
7. REFERENCES
83
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26102977
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7169.1331
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau7285
https://doi.org/10.1038/29667
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1117727
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1157719
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0853
https://10.1080/09500693.2021.2024913
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004387
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004387
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02544-6
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245993
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20273
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.002
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107393119
https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2012.92
https://doi.org/10.3390/v13091882
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-091919-105900
https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a029652

Gregory, T. R. (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees.
Evolution Education and Outreach, 1, 121–137. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x
Hairston, N., Ellner, S., Geber, M., Yoshida, T., & Fox, J. (2005).
Rapid evolution and the convergence of ecological and
evolutionary time. Ecology Letters, 8(10), 1114–1127.
Hanahan, D., & Weinberg, R. A. (2011). Hallmarks of
cancer: The next generation. Cell, 144(5), 646–674.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
Harackiewicz, J. M., Smith, J. L., & Priniski, S. J. (2016).
Interest matters: The importance of promoting
interest in education. Policy Insights from the
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220–227. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2372732216655542
Hoffmann, A. H., & Flatt, T. (2022). The rapid tempo of
adaptation. Science, 375(6586), 1226–1227. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.abo1817
Holt, R. D. (1990). The microevolutionary consequences of
climate change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 5(9), 311–
315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(90)90088-U
Hulme, P. E. (2020). One Biosecurity: A unied concept
to integrate human, animal, plant, and environmental
health. Emerging Topics in Life Sciences, 4(5), 539–
549. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20200067
Javaux, E. J. (2019). Challenges in evidencing the earliest
traces of life. Nature, 572(7770), 451–460. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41586-019-1436-4
Jiao, J. Y., Liu, L., Hua, Z. S., Fang, B. Z., Zhou, E. M., Salam,
N., Hedlund, B. P., & Li, W. J. (2020). Microbial dark
matter coming to light: Challenges and opportunities.
National Science Review, 8(3), nwaa280. https://doi.
org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa280
Johnson, N. A. (2021). Darwin's reach: 21st century
applications of evolutionary biology. CRC Press.
Jördens, J., & Hammann, M. (2019) Driven by topics:
High school students’ interest in evolutionary biology.
Research in Science Education 51, 599–616. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9809-5
Kanwal, R., & Gupta, S. (2012). Epigenetic modications in
cancer. Clinical Genetics, 81(4), 303–311. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01809.x
Kattner, P., Zeiler, K., Herbener, V. J., Ferla-Brühl, K.,
Kassubek, R., Grunert, M., Burster, T., Brühl, O.,
Weber, A. S., Strobel, H., Karpel-Massler, G., Ott,
S., Hagedorn, A., Tews, D., Schulz, A., Prasad,
V., Siegelin, M. D., Nonnenmacher, L., Fischer-
Posovszky, P., Halatsch, M. E., … Westhoff, M.
A. (2021). What animal cancers teach us about
human biology. Theranostics, 11(14), 6682–6702.
https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.56623
Kerr, P. J., Cattadori, I. M., Liu, J., Sim, D. G., Dodds, J.
W., Brooks, J. W., Kennett, M. J., Holmes, E. C., &
Read, A. F. (2017). Next step in the ongoing arms race
between myxoma virus and wild rabbits in Australia
is a novel disease phenotype. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 114(35), 9397–9402. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1710336114
Krishnamurthy, R. (2020). Chemical origins of life: Its
engagement with society. Trends in Chemistry, 2(5),
406–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trechm.2020.02.011
Kuo, M., & Jordan, C. (2019). Editorial: The natural world as a
resource for learning and development: From schoolyards
to wilderness. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1763. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01763
Labrie, M., Brugge, J. S., Mills, G. B., & Zervantonakis, I.
K. (2022). Therapy resistance: Opportunities created
by adaptive responses to targeted therapies in cancer.
Nature Reviews Cancer, 22, 323–339. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41568-022-00454-5.
Lamichhaney, S., Han, F., Webster, M. T., Andersson, L.,
Grant, B. R., & Grant, P. R. (2018). Rapid hybrid speciation
in Darwin's nches. Science, 359(6372), 224–228.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao4593
Lankau, R., Jørgensen, P. S., Harris, D. J., & Sih, A.
(2011). Incorporating evolutionary principles into
environmental management and policy. Evolutionary
Applications, 4(2), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1752-4571.2010.00171.x
Lindström, M. S., Bartek, J., & Maya-Mendoza, A.
(2022). p53 at the crossroad of DNA replication
and ribosome biogenesis stress pathways.
Cell Death and Differentiation, 29(5), 972–982.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41418-022-00999-w
Losos, J. B., & Lenski, R. E. (Eds.). (2016). How evolution
shapes our lives: Essays on biology and society.
Princeton University Press.
Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2000). The evolutionary
fate and consequences of duplicate
genes. Science, 290(5494), 1151–1155.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5494.1151
Malti, T., Galarneau, E., & Peplak, J. (2021). Moral
development in adolescence. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 1097–1113.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12639
Masel, J., & Siegal, M. L. (2009). Robustness: Mechanisms
and consequences. Trends in Genetics, 25(9), 395–403.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.07.005
Meisel, R. P. (2010). Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate
biology students. Evolution, 3(4), 621–628. https:
7. REFERENCES
84
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo1817
https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(90)90088-U
https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20200067
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1436-4
https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa280
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9809-5
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01809.x
https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.56623
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0254-9
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00171.x
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao4593
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-022-00454-5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01763
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trechm.2020.02.011
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710336114
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41418-022-00999-w
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5494.1151
https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12639
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2009.07.005
https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732216655542

Merlo, L. M., Pepper, J. W., Reid, B. J., & Maley, C. C. (2006).
Cancer as an evolutionary and ecological process.
Nature Reviews Cancer, 6(12), 924–935. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nrc2013
Nguyen, L. V., Vanner, R., Dirks, P., & Eaves, C. J. (2012).
Cancer stem cells: An evolving concept. Nature
Reviews Cancer, 12(2), 133–143. ahttps://doi.
org/10.1038/nrc3184
Nuwer, R. (2022). Why elephants don’t get cancer.
Scientic American, 327(4), 22. https://doi.
org/10.1038/scienticamerican1022-22b
Oldroyd, D. R. (1983). Darwinian impacts: An introduction
to the Darwinian revolution. New South Wales
University Press.
Oude Munnink, B. B., Worp, N., Nieuwenhuijse, D.
F., Sikkema, R. S., Haagmans, B., Fouchier, R., &
Koopmans, M. (2021). The next phase of SARS-CoV-2
surveillance: Real-time molecular epidemiology.
Nature Medicine, 27(9), 1518–1524. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41591-021-01472-w
Page, R. D. M., & Holmes, E. C. (1998). Molecular
evolution: A phylogenetic approach. Wiley-Blackwell.
Pamenter, M. E., & Cheng, H. (2022). Supermole-rat to
the rescue: Does the naked mole-rat offer a panacea
for all that ails us? Comparative Biochemistry
and Physiology. Part A, Molecular & Integrative
Physiology, 266, 1111 3 9 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cbpa.2021.111139
Perry, G. H. (2021) Research: Evolutionary medicine.
eLife, 10, e69398 https://doi.org/10.7554/
eLife.69398
Ragan, M. A. (2009). Trees and networks before and
after Darwin. Biology Direct, 4, 43. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1745-6150-4-43
Ruse, M., & Richards, R. J. (Eds.). (2017) The Cambridge
handbook of evolutionary ethics. Cambridge
University Press.
Saldmann, F., Viltard, M., Leroy, C., & Friedlander, G.
(2019). The naked mole rat: A unique example of
positive oxidative stress. Oxidative Medicine and
Cellular Longevity, 2019, 4502819. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2019/4502819
Salmi, H., Thuneberg, H., & Vainikainen, M-P. (2016). Learning
with dinosaurs: A study on motivation, cognitive
reasoning, and making observations. International
Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 203–218.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2016.1200155
Sandvik, H. (2009). Anthropocentricisms in cladograms.
Biology & Philosophy, 24(4), 425–440. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10539-007-9102-x
Schramm, T., & Schmiemann, P. (2019). Teleological pitfalls
in reading evolutionary trees and ways to avoid
them. Evolution Education and Outreach 12, 20.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0112-3
Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest.
Oxford University Press.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Interest – The curious emotion. Current
Directions in Psychology Research, 17, 57–60.
Sloss, A. N., & Gustafson, S. (2020). 2019 Evolutionary
algorithms review. In W. Banzhaf, E. Goodman, L.
Sheneman, L. Trujillo, & B. Worzel, (Eds.), Genetic
programming theory and practice XVII (pp. 307–
344). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-39958-0_16
Stadler, T., Pybus, O. G., & Stumpf, M. (2021). Phylodynamics
for cell biologists. Science, 371(6526), eaah6266.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6266
Stratton, M. R. (2011). Exploring the genomes of cancer cells:
Progress and promise. Science, 331(6024), 1553–1558.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204040
Strydhorst, N. A., & Landrum, A. R. (2022). Charting
cognition: Mapping public understanding of COVID-19.
Public Understanding of Science, 31(5), 534–552.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221078462
Taberlet, P., Coissac, E., Pompanon, F., Brochmann, C.,
& Willerslev, E. (2012). Towards next-generation
biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding.
Molecular Ecology, 21(8), 2045–2050. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05470.x
Tang, C., Davis, K. E., Delmer, C., Yang, D., & Wills, M.
A. (2018). Elevated atmospheric CO2 promoted
speciation in mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae).
Communications Biology, 1, 182. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s42003-018-0191-7
Thuiller, W., Lavergne, S., Roquet, C., Boulangeat, I.,
Lafourcade, B., & Araujo, M. B. (2011). Consequences
of climate change on the tree of life in Europe.
Nature, 470(7335), 531–534. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature09705
Waldvogel, A. M., Feldmeyer, B., Rolshausen, G.,
Exposito-Alonso, M., Rellstab, C., Koer, R., Mock,
T., Schmid, K., Schmitt, I., Bataillon, T., Savolainen, O.,
Bergland, A., Flatt, T., Guillaume, F., & Pfenninger, M.
(2020). Evolutionary genomics can improve prediction
of species' responses to climate change. Evolution
Letters, 4(1), 4–18.aaa https://doi.org/10.1002/
evl3.154
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school?:
A cognitive scientist answers questions about how
the mind works and what it means for the classroom.
Jossey-Bass.
7. REFERENCES
85
CHAPTER 5 How is evolution
impacting our lives?
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2013
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3184
https://doi.org/10.1038/scienticamerican1022-22b
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01472-w
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.111139
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69398
https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-4-43
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4502819
https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2016.1200155
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-9102-x
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0112-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39958-0_16
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6266
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204040
https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221078462
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05470.x
https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-018-0191-7
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09705
https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.154

Chapter 6
Evolution education
and outreach - important
things to know about
how to teach about
evolution
86

Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution.
Ross H. Nehm1,
Kostas Kampourakis2
1Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, USA
2Section of Biology and IUFE, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Abstract: Although evolution is widely acknowledged as one of the most
valuable scientic theories, it is also one of the most challenging
subjects to communicate and teach effectively. This chapter
provides a brief overview of some of the most signicant
topics relevant to effective teaching and communication
about evolution. These topics include worldviews, the nature
of science, the language of evolution, cognitive biases and
misconceptions, reasoning about evolutionary phenomena,
cases and curricula, pedagogical practices, and assessment and
learning. Since the breadth of prior work is extensive, readers
are encouraged to use this chapter as an entry point into the
rich literature on evolution education.
evolution, teaching, misconceptions, curriculum, pedagogy
KEYWORDS
87
CHAPTER 6

INTRODUCTION
Although evolution is widely acknowledged
as one of the most valuable scientic
theories (Mayr, 1994; U.S. National
Research Council, 2012), it is also one of the
most challenging subjects to communicate
and teach effectively. Hundreds of studies
have documented a variety of sociocultural,
linguistic, cognitive and epistemic factors
that impact evolution understanding and
acceptance (Figure 1).
Far fewer studies have integrated this
expansive body of work or leveraged it to
design interventions to help students and
citizens overcome these obstacles and
develop deep evolutionary understanding.
As such, addressing as many of the
aforementioned factors as possible is
likely to enhance outcomes. While much in
evolution education remains to be known
and accomplished, one unambiguous
conclusion from prior research is that
a robust understanding of human
thinking and reasoning about the science
of evolution—not just knowledge of
evolution—is essential.
This chapter provides a brief
introduction to some of the core
challenges and solutions for teaching and
communicating evolutionary ideas.
Figure 1
Major factors impacting effective evolution education and
outreach (note: this gure is organised like a clock, with
worldviews as the starting point).
WORLDVIEWS
Globally, religion is inextricably interwoven
with culture, identity, family and personal
epistemology. Therefore, religion
must be considered when teaching or
communicating about evolution. This
consideration does not necessarily have to
involve conict.
Although it is easy to perceive
controversy when it comes to evolution and
religion, we agree with the suggestion of
Reiss (2019) that there is a more fruitful way
to approach this relationship: to think of it as
a sensitive rather than a controversial topic.
Despite the lack of controversy among
scientists about the facts of evolution, it
makes many people feel uncomfortable
because they perceive that it challenges
their worldviews, with some even thinking
of evolution as a nihilistic idea that deprives
human life of deeper meaning.
Therefore, evolution should be
approached as a sensitive topic. Such an
approach requires respect for students’
worldviews and a careful discussion about
how evolution is not inherently atheistic
or irreligious per se. There are numerous
examples of people who have managed to
accommodate both religion and evolution.
Notably, studies from the USA and
beyond have found that approximately half
of the scientic community adopts some
form of religious afliation (Ecklund et al.,
2019). An effective way to engage with
worldviews is to avoid conict narratives
and begin by presenting the evidence just
cited about scientists and their religious
afliations. Once students realise that
they do not have to feel threatened by
evolution, they will be more likely to
consider the science itself without worrying
about its implications. This should be
done to respect students’ beliefs and to
refrain from distracting them from the
scientic concepts themselves. For some,
evolutionary theory does have implications
88
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

INTRODUCTION / NATURE AND PRACTICE
OF SCIENCE
for worldviews. However, this is dependent
on the inferences one draws from the
theory, not the theory itself. Therefore, we
suggest that such implications should be
left out of any discussion until the scientic
content is presented.
An analogy with morality may be
useful for introducing the limits of science.
Consider the termination of pregnancies for
medical or other reasons. Science can tell
us what happens in the fertilised zygote,
in the implanted embryo and when the
development of the nervous system begins.
But whether an embryo should be
considered a human being or not, and
whether it has rights, is not a decision that
can be made on scientic grounds alone.
Science generates facts about phenomena
that occur at each of these developmental
stages. Which of these we consider a rights-
bearing living entity is a decision that can be
informed by such facts but cannot be made
based on them alone. Other philosophical
considerations are also important.
Although moral decisions can be
enriched by science in various ways,
science cannot guide them because
decisions about what is bad or wrong
are made on a culturally/socially shared
subjective basis. Overall, engaging with
worldviews is an essential rst step in
evolution education and outreach because
it can serve as an effective approach for
reducing conict and clarifying common
misunderstandings (e.g., evolutionary
biologists cannot be religious, or science
answers all questions).
NATURE AND PRACTICE
OF SCIENCE
In public debates about evolution, if one
looks closely at the arguments of anti-
evolutionists, it becomes evident that much
of the debate is not about evolution per
se but about the nature of science itself:
how science works, what kind of questions
it can answer and how these answers
are developed. For instance, a common
argument against evolution is that it is ‘just
a theory’ (Miller, 2008).
This reects a common confusion
about the meaning of the word ‘theory’ in
everyday life and in science. In everyday
language, the word ‘theory’ refers to a
hunch or speculation, whereas in science it
refers to the most robust set of principles
and models that scientists can use to
arrive at explanations and predictions.
Therefore, in such cases, anti-evolutionists
must understand the structure and nature
of scientic theories in general. Only once
they do so might they be able to realise
the many virtues of evolutionary theory
(Kampourakis, 2020a).
Another example relates to the
reasoning processes of scientists.
Creationist Ken Ham argued in a debate
with Bill Nye ‘the Science Guy’ that the
battle between evolution and creation is
about interpretations of the same evidence.
However, this is not accurate. In some
cases, evolutionists and creationists do
look at the same data and interpret them
differently. However, their methods of doing
so are strikingly different.
Creationists approach the data with
predetermined conclusions (e.g., whatever
religious documents suggest is true)
and look for evidence to support these
conclusions. When the data do not t their
conclusions, they nd ways to make them
t or dismiss them altogether. This is not
what scientists do. Instead, scientists do
not have pre-determined conclusions.
Although they may have hypotheses that
89
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

they could test, and should be open to
rejecting or modifying them if they are not
supported by the available data, scientists
arrive at conclusions based on the evidence
they have. In short, for scientists, it is the
conclusion that must t with the evidence,
not the evidence that must t with the
conclusion (as is the case for creationists).
Scientists are prepared to dismiss long-held
theories if their growing understanding of
nature reaches a point that these theories
can no longer hold.
Another aspect of the nature of science
relates to the explanatory practices of
scientists. They are interested in explaining
phenomena in the natural world, which is
the realm of science. Whenever they fail
to do so, anti-evolutionists often invoke
quasi-scientic arguments involving
God—a reasoning pattern that has been
described as ‘God in the gaps’. However,
the explanatory aims of scientists differ in
an important way.
Scientists attempt to explain nature alone,
which includes the entities and phenomena
in the natural world, but not those outside
it (i.e., the supernatural). Notably, science
is a method of studying nature (known as
methodological naturalism). Whilst this
perspective does not deny the existence of
the supernatural, it nevertheless recognises
that one cannot study it. Consequently,
there is no reason to use science to study
it. Science is certainly concerned with the
metaphysics of nature (i.e., the causes of
natural phenomena).
This stands in contrast to the view
described as metaphysical naturalism, which
is also known as philosophical or ontological
naturalism. These perspectives suggest that
only natural entities exist, thus denying the
existence of anything supernatural. This is
the kind of argument that often confuses
(and frustrates) anti-evolutionists; however,
it is not an argument that most scientists
make. The perspective that only natural
entities exist is a view that characterises
scientism, not science.
Scientism argues that the explanatory
scope of science is not limited to the realm
of the natural world and that science is the
only way of knowing in general (see also
Kampourakis, 2020a, Ch. 7).
In summary, addressing the nature
of science is an essential early step in
evolution education and outreach.
THE LANGUAGE
OF EVOLUTION
NATURE AND PRACTICE OF SCIENCE /
THE LANGUAGE OF EVOLUTION
Language is the primary means through
which scientic ideas have been
communicated and transmitted throughout
history (Rector et al., 2013). Like other
scientic elds, evolutionary biology has a
language of its own. Although some terms
are unique (e.g., autapomorphy), many
others are not and have scientic meanings
that differ from everyday meanings (e.g.,
tness, adaptation, mutation, theory).
For example, although biologists
consider mutations to be randomly
occurring genetic changes that can be
neutral, benecial or detrimental to an
organism, in common use, the term
mutation is often envisioned as a visible,
harmful monstrosity at the phenotypic level.
Moreover, tness is often associated with
physical health and strength as opposed
to the number of offspring surviving and
reproducing in the next generation.
Navigating the many meanings of terms
like these makes effective communication
challenging, particularly when multiple
terms are used together in teaching or
conversation. The situation is made much
more challenging when teachers and
90
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

scientists switch back and forth between
‘everyday’ and scientic meanings (Betz
et al., 2019). Assuming ‘they know what
I mean’ is a common mistake made by
teachers. Simply put, language must be
deployed carefully and addressed explicitly
in evolution education and outreach.
Two general approaches may be used
to address this challenge. First, learners
can be introduced to evolutionary ideas
and concepts using non-technical language
that does not overlap with technical terms.
This minimises interference with prior
knowledge and denitions. Only after
concept understanding is achieved is the
scientic term attached to the concept.
For example, rather than introducing
‘natural selection’, teachers can explore
many aspects of object sorting and the
patterns that result from it (e.g., sorting
objects with and without a blindfold, sorting
for one feature but nding that another
feature piggybacked along with it). Thus,
one’s understanding of different sorting
processes and patterns can subsequently
be tied to evolutionary terms and concepts
(e.g., natural selection, genetic drift). A
second approach lays out the linguistic
challenges prior to any instruction or
communication. In this approach, learners
are explicitly informed of the dual meanings
of evolutionary terms and how they differ in
everyday and scientic contexts (Table 1).
Testing for the understanding of
language mastery is crucial in any
approach. Ambiguity ‘alerts’ must also be
made repeatedly during communication. In
this regard, evolution educators have much
to learn from foreign language teachers.
Table 1
Common and problematic terms that must be explicitly
addressed prior to and during evolution education and
outreach.
Word Everyday meanings that must
be distinguished from scientic
meanings
Mutation Visible, harmful deformity or monstrosity
at the phenotypic level. Must be
contrasted with invisible variants that can
be harmful, neutral or benecial depending
on various factors.
Fitness Physical tness, strength and outward
phenotypic health. Must be contrasted
with reproductive output (i.e., the number
of individuals or genetic contribution to the
next generation).
Adapt/
adaptation
Gradual acclimation or adjustment by
an individual to a circumstance and the
end point of a period of adjustment.
Must be contrasted with population-
level changes in the distribution of
variation caused by natural selection.
Emphasising what the environment can
and cannot cause is also helpful here.
Selection A conscious ‘selector’ making an
intentional choice among entities. Must
be contrasted with non-intentional
sorting due to differential survival
and/or reproduction (e.g., by abiotic
conditions).
Natural
selection
Multiple ideas (e.g., ‘adapting to
environmental change’, ‘survival of
the ttest’) that do not conform to the
tripartite scientic theory (i.e., variation
+ heredity + differential survival/
reproduction).
Environmental
pressure
The ‘force’ that causes evolutionary
change, including phenotypic and
genetic differences. Must be contrasted
with what the environment can and
cannot cause (e.g., the environment
cannot typically cause heritable
mutations or new phenotypes).
Evolutionary
theories
The guesses and speculations intrinsic
to a eld that cannot establish any
‘facts’ or know ‘what really happened’
(see also Nature and Practice of
Science above). Must be contrasted
with robust, tested and evidence-
based explanations that have held up to
intense scrutiny.
THE LANGUAGE OF EVOLUTION
91
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

THE LANGUAGE OF EVOLUTION / COGNITIVE
BIASES AND MISCONCEPTIONS
The media and popular culture exacerbate
this challenging situation. For example,
individual cartoon characters and
superheroes ‘evolve’ and ‘mutate’, whilst
viruses ‘adapt to try to evade immune
systems’, representing everyday discourse
that works against scientic understanding.
The average person is bombarded with
evolutionary language that is discordant
with scientic meanings and scientic
understanding.
There are at least two key elements
that one should keep in mind when
considering popular culture representations
of evolution. The rst element is that
evolution is a process of change that
occurs at the population level and not at
the individual level. Individuals cannot
evolve new features; instead, populations
evolve because of the variation in the
characteristics of their individuals and
differential survival and/or reproduction
through natural processes.
The second element is that this process
of differential survival and/or reproduction
is an unconscious, unintentional process
that may lead to adaptation but also
extinction. Understanding these two key
elements is necessary for avoiding some
common misunderstandings that often
result, some of which are reviewed below.
COGNITIVE BIASES
AND MISCONCEPTIONS
Evolution is not simple or easy to
understand, with claims to the contrary not
being based on evidence. One must grasp
many different fundamental biological
concepts to be able to understand evolution.
Evolution is also counterintuitive since it
goes against our everyday intuitions about
the natural world. Therefore, engaging
with intuition is a necessary component of
effective evolution education and outreach.
Consider the following example: ask
anyone the simple question ‘Why do birds
have wings?’ The intuitive response most
would give is ‘To y’.
This is a rational and reasonable
response because many common birds,
such as pigeons, hawks and crows indeed
use their wings to y. However, if one thinks
more carefully about this, examples of birds
that do not use their wings for ight come to
mind (e.g., swimming penguins and running
ostriches). Therefore, the intuitive response,
‘To y’ to the question ‘Why do birds have
wings?’ does not work for all birds.
Now consider aeroplanes. When asked
‘Why do aeroplanes have wings?’ all would
answer ‘In order to y’. What is different in
this case? Since aeroplanes are artefacts
designed by humans for the sole purpose of
ight, their parts serve this exact purpose.
Of course, there exist other aircraft that
y without wings, such as helicopters.
However, when it comes to aeroplanes,
there is no exception.
All aeroplanes have wings in order to
y because this is what they were designed
for. This is not the case for birds, which
have not been designed but are rather the
products of natural evolutionary processes.
This is a distinction that is not immediately
apparent to many. Since we are surrounded
by artefacts in our everyday life experiences
from a very early age, we could become
accustomed to intentional creation for
necessary functions and the existence of
parts to serve particular roles. Applying
‘artefact thinking’ to organisms could be a
result of this scenario.
Therefore, evolution education
and outreach require attention to the
distinctions between artefacts and
organisms. Artefacts have xed essences
92
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

that relate to the purpose they are
intended to serve, whilst organisms may
have developmental essences that result
in relatively consistent outcomes (e.g.,
the adult phenotype of each species);
however, there is always variation that
serves as the raw material for evolution.
All parts of artefacts serve a specic role.
In contrast, this is not the case for all parts
of organisms. Moreover, those parts of
organisms that do serve a function are the
outcome of evolution by natural processes
(not by design).
Thinking about the parts of organisms
as if they were parts of artefacts is the result
of particular cognitive biases or intuitions—
spontaneous ways of thinking that in turn
form obstacles to a scientic understanding
of phenomena. Two very important biases
are design teleology and psychological
essentialism. These can be interpreted
as stemming from our understanding
of artefacts, which have xed essences
(essentialism) because they are designed to
serve a purpose (design teleology).
These intuitions can lead to thinking
about the features of organisms in the same
manner (i.e., their unchanging parts are
designed for a purpose).
These cognitive biases make the
idea of evolution counterintuitive. Table
2 summarises cognitive biases that are
relevant to teaching and communicating
evolutionary ideas.
COGNITIVE BIASES AND MISCONCEPTIONS
Table 2
Cognitive biases to consider when teaching and
communicating about evolution.
Cognitive
bias
Description and relevance
to evolution
Design-based
reasoning
An external agent (e.g., God, nature)
guides the evolution of individual
organisms towards a particular end
so that they change to be able to
survive. This idea is awed because
it assumes that an agent external to
organisms themselves has designed
them or their futures.
Intentionality Individual organisms undergo
modications because they have
particular intentions that have to be
fullled. This is a awed idea because
the will of organisms or their wishful
thinking (if they have any) cannot
inuence the course of their evolution.
However, this does not mean that the
intentions of organisms are irrelevant.
Organisms have intentions (eat,
mate, etc.) that are expressed in their
behaviour, which might affect the
course of their evolution—but not a
specic, desired evolutionary end.
Essentialism Individual organisms have xed
species essences and cannot undergo
signicant modications, which makes
evolution impossible. The problem here
is that the robustness of development
(e.g., a pig embryo will develop into
a pig and not a dog) makes people
think that there are essential species
properties due to species essences
that cannot change. However, even
small changes in development can bring
about large changes in adult forms,
which can result in evolution.
Need-based
reasoning
Individual organisms unconsciously
undergo modications to full their
needs in a particular environment
and thus survive. This idea is awed
because any favourable traits emerge
by chance and not because organisms
need them. This is why the majority of
species that have lived on Earth have
gone extinct.
93
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

COGNITIVE BIASES AND MISCONCEPTIONS
Misconceptions about evolution are
also important (see Gregory, 2009 for a
review). Whilst these may be due to the
aforementioned cognitive biases, they
may also be due to misunderstandings.
In general, all the knowledge that we
have takes the form of concepts, which
are mental representations of the world.
Scientic concepts, such as those related to
evolution, are systematic representations of
entities and phenomena that scientists use
in their explanations and predictions. For
any concept, it is natural for people to form
different conceptions.
For example, although there is a dog
concept, the conception of a dog that each
one of us has may be different. When it
comes to science, it is natural to form
conceptions of phenomena and entities
before we are taught about them since we
encounter them in everyday life (consider a
‘plant’, ‘animal’, ‘microbe,’ etc.).
These are described as preconceptions.
When these are inaccurate, they are
described as misconceptions. Ultimately,
teaching aims to address these
misconceptions and destabilise them for
students to restructure them and adopt
scientically legitimate conceptions
(Kampourakis & Nehm, 2018).
A requirement for this is that students
are brought into conceptual conict
situations in which their conceptions are
contrasted to the concepts and taught in
a manner that helps them realise that the
latter are more accurate than the former.
Table 3 summarises some common
misconceptions that must be explicitly
addressed when engaging in evolution
education and outreach. Pedagogical
approaches for addressing these
misconceptions are discussed in the
section on pedagogy.
Table 3
Misconceptions commonly held by students and the general
public. These are often combined with one another or with
normative ideas to produce ‘mixed’ ideas (normative + non-
normative).
Misconception Brief description of misconception
Use or disuse of
traits is a causal
factor central
to evolutionary
change.
The lack of utility of a trait is a direct
cause of the decrease or loss of a
trait over generations, or, conversely,
the utility of a trait is the direct
cause of an increase or addition of
a trait. The use/disuse idea is often
linked to the inheritance of acquired
characteristics (see below).
Traits acquired
during a
lifetime are
inherited and
passed on
to the next
generation.
The character states of the traits of
individuals, populations or species
acquired during their lifetimes are
commonly inherited and passed
on to the next generation. This
misconception interferes with the
scientic concept of adaptation.
Environmental
pressures are
a direct cause
of difference,
change and/or
evolution.
Environmental pressures (i.e.,
changes in the intensity or type of
environmental condition) ‘force’
or directly cause living units (i.e.,
individuals, populations and species)
to change their genetics and/or
phenotypes. This idea is often a
product of scientists using ‘shortcut’
language involving pressures causing
changes. This idea is also linked to
inappropriate teleology.
Acclimation or
simultaneous
adjustment of
all biotic units
to change.
Gradual adjustment by units (i.e.,
individuals, populations and species)
to the environment is a pattern
explained by the incorrect processes
of trait use/disuse, acquired
inheritance and/or environmental
pressures (rather than by the
differential sorting of heritable
variants).
94
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

REASONING ABOUT EVOLUTIONARY
PHENOMENA
REASONING ABOUT EVOLUTIONARY PHENOMENA
The central aims of evolutionary biology
include documenting patterns of evolution
and building explanations for them.
Documenting evolutionary patterns is
complex and painstaking work that can take
decades. Most students and citizens engage
with evolution through the exploration
of the following previously documented
phenomena: patterns of change within
a taxon (e.g., SARS-Co-V2 over a year),
patterns of change in a larger lineage (e.g.,
non-avian dinosaurs and modern birds over
millions of years) or patterns of change
in phenotypic traits across many lineages
(e.g., monogamy across mammal clades).
Discussions often centre on what caused
these patterns (e.g., Why did the new
variants of SARS-Co-V2 documented by
biologists start appearing?).
Therefore, our discussion of education
and outreach focuses on thinking about
previously documented evolutionary
phenomena (e.g., patterns) rather
than the scientic approaches used to
generate them. Cognitive biases and
misconceptions (see above) are not the
only factors impacting reasoning about
evolutionary phenomena.
Although the remarkable diversity of
evolutionary phenomena is what gives
evolution its widespread appeal, recent
studies have shown that such diversity is
a ‘double-edged sword’ when it comes to
promoting evolutionary understanding
(Nehm & Ha, 2011). Although many factors
come into play when thinking about
evolution (e.g., knowledge, cognitive
biases, misconceptions, representational
competencies), the types of ideas that are
used to make sense of situations are not
randomly evoked; instead, they depend
quite heavily on the features of the cases in
question (Figure 2).
Students tend to focus their attention
on the unique, observable features of
such cases and, as a result, knowledge
retrieval from memory is driven by these
features rather than by fundamental (often
unobservable) causal principles (e.g.,
extensive heritable variation produced via
mutation, differential reproductive success).
In other words, the unique features of each
example tend to eclipse thinking about
general causal processes in living systems.
The result is that separate and unique
explanations are constructed for each type
of evolutionary example or phenomenon
(Figure 2). For novices, the functional and
ecological consequences of peppered moth
colouration appear to have little in common
with bacterial susceptibility to the drugs
manufactured to kill them. Yet, both cases
are explained in part by the differential
survival of hereditary phenotypic variants
produced by random genetic processes.
Notably, understanding evolutionary
phenomena requires the integration of
causal and concrete elements.
One approach to addressing this
challenge is to help students balance
specicity, generality and causality when
thinking about evolutionary phenomena
or patterns. The rst step in this approach
(known as ‘cross-case comparison’)
involves creating pairs of evolutionary
phenomena or patterns that differ in their
concrete features (e.g., lactase persistence
in humans vs. the loss of tusks in elephants;
Darwin’s nches’ beak thicknesses vs. the
loss of thorns in blueberry plants).
Rather than teaching cases sequentially
or having students build explanations
for a single case, students should work
collaboratively to simultaneously identify the
salient biological and causal similarities and
differences between two cases (Nehm, 2018).
In general, learners have an easier time
nding differences than similarities; thus,
this step should come rst. Many students
will only ‘see’ supercial aspects of the
cases (‘one is a plant and the other is an
animal’, ‘one lives in location X and the
95
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

other in location Y’) that often have little to
do with causation and hence explanation.
Pushing students to consider differences at
a deeper level is often required.
Figure 2
Novice and expert reasoning about evolutionary
phenomena.
Many supercial or concrete features of
evolutionary problems (e.g., plant thorns,
animal fur colour, lactase persistence,
antibiotic resistance) activate different
suites of conceptions and misconceptions
during novice problem solving (Nehm,
2010; Nehm et al., 2012). A student may
utilise misconceptions (e.g., evolutionary
pressures cause mutations in response to
the needs of the species) in one situation,
and normative ideas in another (e.g.,
existing variation in a population was
sorted and only some individuals survived).
Sensitivity to evolutionary problem features
is associated with idiosyncratic knowledge
activation and the generation of multiple
solutions to what experts consider the same
problem (Nehm & Ridgway, 2011).
An important next step is to ask students
to consider whether the features of the
phenomena or patterns that they have
identied relate to biological causes (e.g.,
‘Which of the differences that you have
identied are of a causal nature?’). This
is not only an opportunity to discuss the
nature of science in general but also to
emphasise that causation is an essential
feature of explanation. This is the point
where students should begin to realise that
there are few biological causes unique to a
single phenomenon or pattern. Summaries
of the differences—both supercial and
deep, causal and noncausal—that student
groups (or individual students) identify
can be presented in a worksheet, group
whiteboard or class chalkboard and
discussed as a class.
Once the differences between cases
have been identied and discussed, it is
time to begin exploring similarities between
the evolutionary phenomena or patterns.
These similarities might encompass basic
features (e.g., ‘They have cells and use
oxygen to metabolise food.’) or more
advanced ones (e.g., ‘Heritable mutations
constantly occur in both cases and can
cause differences in the proteins that
form parts of their phenotypes.’). Guiding
questions can also support thinking; for
example, ‘Do genetic differences among
individuals relate to phenotypic differences
in both cases?’, ‘Do endless resources
and habitats characterise both cases?’.
Similarities across evolutionary phenomena
REASONING ABOUT EVOLUTIONARY
PHENOMENA
96
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

or patterns should be summarised in
parallel ways to the differences identied in
the rst part of the exercise.
Once the similarities and differences
between the cases have been identied
and discussed, the more challenging work
of connecting process and pattern begins
(e.g., the processes causing patterns of
elephant tusklessness, or processes causing
lactase persistence in humans).
This step will require scaffolding
tools, such as lists of possible (normative
and non-normative) ideas for students
to discuss and evaluate as potentially
relevant to both evolutionary situations. For
example, since need-based explanations
are commonly used by students (Table 2),
they could evaluate the degree to which
‘needs’ could explain the biological patterns
in the two cases. Would the lack of food in a
human population, as well as an associated
need to consume and digest milk, impact
the frequency of individuals with lactase
persistence? How would this happen?
Would poachers that differentially seek out
elephants based on their phenotypes, as well
as the elephants’ need to lack tusks, cause
individual elephants to lose them? A variety
of causes could be evaluated as contributors
to the patterns documented in the cases.
Scaffolding can also promote normative
ideas (e.g., ‘Do mutations occur in humans
and elephants?’, ‘Do mutations contribute
to phenotypic differences in humans and
elephants?’, ‘How does that work?’, ‘Do
phenotypic differences impact survival
in humans and elephants under certain
environmental conditions?’).
Cross-case comparisons must
emphasise the similarity of process (e.g.,
mutation and genetic recombination
generate large quantities of heritable
variation; variation in genomes relates
to variation in phenotypes; variation in
phenotypes impacts competition for mates
and securing resources) and dissimilarity
of pattern (e.g., elephant tusk distribution,
lactase persistence patterns). Evaluating
potential causal contributors to different
evolutionary scenarios focuses attention on
how patterns might relate to processes.
The method of engaging students
with multiple evolutionary phenomena
or patterns and then gradually fading
cognitive scaffolds (e.g., summary
tables with similarities, differences and
their causal natures) provides a test of
preparation for future learning (i.e., ‘Can
students reason effectively about novel
evolutionary patterns and phenomena?’).
Using contrasting cases provides an
opportunity for students to build abstract
and causal models of evolutionary change
that transcend specic cases.
This helps to address the well-
documented fragmentation and context
specicity of novice evolutionary reasoning
(Nehm, 2018). This approach will help
to counteract the largely unproductive
approach in schools and outreach
programmes of presenting interesting
single cases (or in some cases, sequential
ones) in detail.
Students and citizens must be prepared
for making sense of future evolutionary
phenomena or patterns.
CASES AND CURRICULA
Employing interesting and relevant examples
to illustrate evolution principles and practices
is an important feature to consider when
designing an evolution curriculum.
All too often, students learn about the
same examples during their secondary and
university education (e.g., Darwin’s nches,
peppered moths). The types of evolutionary
examples are a central consideration
REASONING ABOUT EVOLUTIONARY
PHENOMENA / CASES AND CURRICULA
97
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

because (i) students have difculty
reasoning across evolutionary examples and
about novel evolutionary phenomena (see
above), (ii) students often view evolution
as personally unimportant, uninteresting
or useless (Heddy & Sinatra, 2013) and
(iii) the perceived utility of evolutionary
topics is strongly associated with evolution
acceptance (Borgerding & Kaya, 2022).
Recent work has explored what
evolution topics students nd interesting
and reported that the evolution of HIV,
avian u and bacteria is viewed as more
interesting than the evolution of humans
(e.g., lactase persistence, high altitude
adaptation) and other animals (e.g.,
elephants, sh, sheep; Jördens & Hammann
2019). Aligning the curriculum with student
interest could increase students’ motivation
to learn about evolution.
The curriculum should also consider
perceptions of the utility of evolutionary
phenomena. Borgerding and Kaya
(2022) studied the utility value of
evolution learning topics and found that
microevolutionary examples (e.g., disease
transmission, genetic variation, antibiotic
and pesticide resistance) were viewed
as more useful than macroevolutionary
examples (e.g., the relatedness of particular
organisms and coevolution). Notably,
maximising interest and usefulness is an
important feature of curriculum design.
Prior to discussing the specics of the
evolution curriculum, it is valuable to step
back and consider how curriculum design
should be envisioned in the rst place.
Many countries have been working to shift
their science curriculums away from focusing
on large amounts of factual information and
towards learning about fewer core ideas in
greater depth (i.e., ‘less is more’).
In the United States, for example,
the fundamental ideas that deserve the
greatest focus are termed disciplinary core
ideas (DCIs). DCIs are valuable because
they help to make sense of a wide array
of natural phenomena. However, effective
engagement in the natural world requires
much more than knowledge.
Students and citizens must understand
the approaches, principles and frameworks
that scientists use (along with DCIs) to
make sense of natural phenomena (see also
Nature of Science above). Such knowledge-
building approaches (e.g., making
observations, developing models, engaging
in arguments about evidence and building
explanations) are called ‘science practices’.
Science practices are the approaches that
scientists across many disciplines have
found to be essential for sense making.
In addition to DCIs and science practices,
scientists also make use of general ideas
known as ‘cross-cutting concepts’ (CCCs)
to structure their work. For example, these
include framing phenomena in terms of
their pattern, structure-function, and cause
and effect.
Three-dimensional learning (e.g., DCIs,
science practices, CCCs) provides the tools
for helping people make sense of and
explain phenomena. Although the evolution
curriculum should encompass all three
aspects (Figure 3), this is often not the case.
Unfortunately, there is considerably
less research exploring how thinking
about evolution intersects with science
practices and CCCs. This raises the
following questions: What do students
think a meaningful evolution explanation
should include? How do cognitive biases
and misconceptions impact argumentation
practices (and vice versa)?
Can students identify the salient
features of an evolutionary pattern? To a
large extent, the evolution curriculum in
many countries has focused too heavily
on the outputs of science (e.g., natural
selection, phylogenies, extinction) at
CASES AND CURRICULA
98
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

the expense of knowledge building
competencies (e.g., how to approach
explaining an evolutionary pattern, how to
build a robust evolutionary explanation,
how to establish a cause for an evolutionary
pattern). Prior research suggests that
fostering knowledge building competencies
is a challenge.
For example, we know that students
favour descriptions over causal
explanations when engaging with
evolutionary phenomena, that recognising
the salient features of patterns when
building explanations is a struggle and that
argumentation too often lacks articulation
with evidence.
A synthesis of prior ndings in evolution
education using a three-dimensional
learning lens is needed alongside more
curricula focused on teaching evolution
using this approach.
Figure 3
DCIs, science practices, and CCCs. Three-dimensional
learning, as exemplied by the US Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS), encompasses DCIs, science practices
and CCCs. These three strands of science are used as an
integrative framework for exploring phenomena in the
natural world. In other words, these tools allow students to
engage in science, not just learn about the outputs of science.
CASES AND CURRICULA / PEDAGOGICAL
PRACTICES
PEDAGOGICAL
PRACTICES
Active engagement in the learning process
(e.g., collaborative learning, active learning)
is a general pedagogical approach known
to be effective for many science disciplines
(Freeman et al., 2014). Interestingly,
large-scale studies have raised questions
about whether active learning by itself
can promote evolutionary understanding
(Andrews et al., 2011) and whether explicit
attention to misconceptions in active learning
settings is the essential element (Nehm et
al., 2022). In addition to active learning and
explicit attention to misconceptions, many
other pedagogical approaches have been
proposed (see Table 4).
Many of these approaches on their own
have shown promise in small-scale studies.
However, combinations including multiple
strategies will likely generate the greatest
impact. Despite the absence of robust,
large-scale, evidence-based guidelines to
inform pedagogical practices for teaching
evolution, it is important to emphasise
that understanding student thinking and
reasoning about evolution is a prerequisite
to any pedagogical implementation.
Many studies have shown that teachers
are unable to identify limitations in
students’ evolutionary reasoning and often
harbour misconceptions themselves (e.g.,
Hartelt et al., 2022).
99
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES / ASSESSMENT
AND LEARNING
Table 4
Pedagogical approaches for addressing misconceptions.
Pedagogical
approach
Description of how to address
misconceptions
Direct
instruction
Explicit discussion of misconceptions
and why they are inaccurate in
evolutionary contexts (e.g., Nehm et
al., 2022).
Cognitive
conict
Present examples or situations that
contradict expectations or cannot
be explained by current mental
models or misconceptions (e.g.,
Kampourakis, 2020b).
Metacognitive
strategies
Introduce metacognitive opportunities
for students to reect upon, regulate
and apply ideas across everyday and
scientic situations (e.g., Gonzalez
Galli et al., 2020).
Metaknowledge
discussions
Foster the development of
metaknowledge about types of
explanations in biology and evolution
(e.g., functional and mechanistic)
(e.g., Trommler & Hammann, 2020).
Historical
examples
Discuss how scientists previously
struggled with the same concepts
and illustrate how science helped
to resolve confusing phenomena
(e.g., trait loss) (e.g., Kampourakis &
Nehm, 2018).
ASSESSMENT AND
LEARNING
Having clear learning objectives and
assessing them is of critical importance to
effective teaching, with evolution education
being no exception.
The rst consideration when thinking
about assessment is identifying what
learners should know and be able to do
with their knowledge after instruction is
complete; in other words, education should
always begin with the end in mind. Given
that the curriculum should seek to foster
growth in prociency in the language of
evolution, the nature of science and three-
dimensional learning (DCIs, science practices
and CCCs) across a variety of evolutionary
case examples, what forms of assessment
can be used to measure learning, and what
pitfalls should be avoided?
Partly due to the rich information
they generate about student thinking
and reasoning, written explanations of
evolutionary patterns have been used as an
assessment approach for more than 30 years
(e.g., Bishop & Anderson, 1990; see Ha &
Nehm, 2018 for a review). Explaining patterns
of change is also a realistic and authentic
activity because most citizens will engage
with patterns of biotic change at some point.
As new viruses evolve, new organisms
are seen, new fossils are found, new
taxa are named and new evolutionary
phenomena are documented, people will
try to make sense of these patterns (i.e.,
explain them). The COVID-19 pandemic is a
case in point.
The general public’s (and students’)
weak understanding of this phenomenon
is reected in common questions: Why did
a new virus evolve? Why do new variants
of the virus keep appearing? When will the
virus stop changing? Of course, evolutionary
change is the norm and it never stops
occurring. Being introduced to Darwin’s
nches and peppered moths in secondary
school has clearly not instilled abstract,
generalised evolutionary understanding that
extends beyond these cases.
One outcome of evolution education and
outreach should be to prepare citizens for
future learning. As such, it is as important
to be able to make sense of future patterns
as it is to make sense of those that one has
been taught. The Assessment of Contextual
Reasoning about Natural Selection
(ACORNS) instrument (Nehm et al., 2012;
100
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

see www.evograder. ) was designed for this
purpose. Specically, the instrument was
developed to help teachers and researchers
understand thinking across a variety of
scenarios, including different lineages (e.g.,
animals, plants, fungi), different trait polarities
(e.g., loss vs. gain), different trait and taxon
familiarities (porcupine vs. prosimian),
different scales (within- vs. between-species)
and different trait functions (e.g., colouration
vs. locomotion).
Different types of patterns provide
educators with information about
how prepared learners will be when
encountering new cases in the future.
ACORNS results often show that students
lack a robust model of evolution that
generalises across phenomena.
This is a signicant problem if we wish
to prepare students for future discoveries
and societal challenges. Other assessment
formats (e.g., multiple choice) are more
effective at determining whether students
have mastered particular pieces of
evolutionary theory. Explanation tasks
assess the integration of understanding that
reects real-world applications.
Determining whether students have
learned evolution is a remarkably complex
process due to the factors discussed above.
For example, if students lack a robust
understanding of the nature of science
(e.g., what questions science is best able to
answer and those it is not), students may
misunderstand what belongs in a science
class and what types of knowledge are
suitable for an explanation of evolutionary
events (e.g., the origin of a new virus or
disease). If students are confused about the
Table 5
Examples of possible assessment targets and associated
learning objectives. Different assessment formats (e.g.,
true-false, multiple choice, open-ended writing, oral
communication) can be used to measure prociencies.
Assessment
target
At the end of evolution instruction,
students should be able to…
Nature
of science
…explain the boundaries or
limits of science; refute common
misconceptions about evolution and
religion and the nature of science;
illustrate how science practices are
used to generate evidence-based
understanding; differentiate everyday
and scientic meanings of nature of
science words and terms.
Language
of science
…differentiate everyday and scientic
meanings of evolutionary terms;
use evolutionary terms accurately
in scientic communication; identify
ambiguous evolutionary language in a
newspaper or online source and rewrite
the news story to accurately reect
evolutionary concepts.
Evolution
knowledge
(e.g., core
ideas)
…refute common misconceptions
about evolutionary concepts and
theories; explain how both random
and non-random processes impact
evolutionary phenomena; explain why
environmental change is not necessary
for natural selection; explain the role
that mass extinctions play in the
evolution of life on Earth.
Science
practices
…build a single causal model lacking
misconceptions that explains several
novel evolutionary phenomena or
patterns; construct a written scientic
argument that integrates claims,
evidence and reasoning about the
sources of evidence most relevant to an
explanation of an evolutionary pattern;
develop a scientic explanation for a
novel evolutionary phenomenon.
Cross-cutting
concepts
…use a previously developed phylogeny
to document patterns of character state
changes in lineages; be able to identify
cause and effect relationships in an
evolutionary phenomenon.
ASSESSMENT AND LEARNING
101
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution
www.evograder.org

dual meanings of evolutionary terms, it will
be difcult for them to understand what
is being asked in an assessment question.
If students are presented with a question
about a single evolutionary scenario, it will
be impossible to know whether they can
use their knowledge to tackle another. If
students are administered assessment tasks
using different taxa, different types of traits
or different polarities of change before and
after instruction, it may not be possible to
unambiguously isolate context effects from
learning outcomes.
For these reasons, it is essential to
assess a variety of targets (Table 5) and
have items that are parallel in form and
difculty. In other words, all of the topics
discussed in this chapter should be included
in the gathering of evidence to determine
whether communication and education
have been effective.
CONCLUSION
This chapter provided a brief overview of
some of the most signicant topics relevant
to effectively teaching and communicating
evolutionary ideas.
These topics include worldviews,
the nature of science, the language
of evolution, cognitive biases and
misconceptions, reasoning about
evolutionary phenomena, cases and
curricula, pedagogical practices, and
assessment and learning. Since the breadth
of prior work is extensive, readers are
encouraged to use this chapter as an entry
point into the literature.
Focused attention on all of these topics
is required for effective evolution education
and outreach.
ASSESSMENT AND LEARNING / CONCLUSION
102
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution

Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Cogrove, C. A., &
Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated
with student learning in a random sample of college
biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(),
329–435. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.11-07-00613
Betz, N., Leffers, J. S., Dahlgaard Thor, E. E., Fux, M.,
de Nesnera, K., Tanner, K. D., & Coley, J. D. (2019).
Cognitive construal-consistent instructor language
in the undergraduate biology classroom. CBE—Life
Sciences Education, 18(4), 1–16.
Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student
conceptions of natural selection and its role in
evolution. J Res Sci Teach, 27(5), 415–427.
Borgerding, L. A., & Kaya, F. (2022). Is knowledge of
evolution useful? A mixed methods examination
of college biology students’ views. International
Journal of Science Education, 44(2), 271–296. DOI:
10.1080/09500693.2021.2024913.
Ecklund, E. H., Johnson, D. R., Vaidyanathan, B.,
Matthews, K. R., Lewis, S. W., Thomson Jr, R. A., &
Di, D. (2019). Secularity and science: What scientists
around the world really think about religion. Oxford
University Press.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K.,
Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).
Active learning increases student performance in
science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS,
111(23), 8410–8415. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
González Galli, L., Peréz, G., & Gómez Galindo, A. A.
(2020). The self-regulation of teleological thinking in
natural selection learning. Evolution: Education and
Outreach, 13(6).1-16 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-
020-00120-0
Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection:
Essential concepts and common misconceptions.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 156–175.
Ha, M., & Nehm, R. H. (2014). Dar win’s difculties and students’
struggles with trait loss: Cognitive-historical parallelisms
in evolutionary explanation. Science & Education, 23(5),
1051–1074. DOI 10.1007/s11191-013-9626-1.
Hartelt, T., Martens, H., & Minkley, N. (2022). Teachers’ ability
to diagnose and deal with alternative student conceptions
of evolution. Science Education, 106(3), 706–738. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sce.21705
Heddy, B.C., & Sinatra, G.M. (2013). Transforming
misconceptions: Using transformative experience
to promote positive affect and conceptual change in
students learning about biological evolution. Science
Education, 97(5), 723–744. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sce.21072
REFERENCES
Jördens, J., & Hammann, M. (2019). Driven by topics:
High school students’ interest in evolutionary biology.
Research in Science Education, 51(1), 599–616 https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9809-5
Kampourakis, K. (2020a). Understanding evolution.
Cambridge University Press.
Kampourakis, K. (2020b). Students’ “teleological
misconceptions” in evolution education: Why the
underlying design stance, not teleology per se, is the
problem. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 13(1),1-12
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0116-z
Kampourakis, K., & Nehm, R. H. (2014). Histor y and philosophy
of science and the teaching of evolution: Students’
conceptions and explanations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.),
International handbook of research in history, philosophy
and science teaching (pp. 377–399). Springer.
Lennox, J. G., & Kampourakis, K. (2013). Biological
teleology: The need for history. In K. Kampourakis
(Ed.), The philosophy of biology: A companion for
educators (pp. 421–454). Springer.
Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (2014). International handbook of
research in history, philosophy and science teaching
(Vols. 1–3). Springer.
Mayr, E. (1994). What evolution is. Basic Books.
Miller, K. R. (2008). Only a theory: Evolution and the battle
for America’s soul. Penguin.
National Research Council (2012). Thinking evolutionarily.
The National Academies Press.
Nehm, R. H. (2010). Understanding undergraduates’
problem-solving processes. Journal of Biology and
Microbiology Education, 1(2), 119–121.
Nehm, R. H. (2018). Chapter 14: Evolution. In M. Reiss &
K. Kampourakis (Eds.), Teaching biology in schools (pp.
1-14). Routledge.
Nehm, R. H., & Kampourakis, K. (2014). History
and philosophy of science and the teaching of
macroevolution. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International
handbook of research in history, philosophy and
science teaching (pp. 401–421). Springer.
Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution
assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
48(3), 237–256.
Nehm, R. H., & Ridgway, J. (2011). What do experts and
novices “see” in evolutionary problems? Evolution:
Education and Outreach, 4(4), 666–679.
Nehm, R. H., Finch, S., & Sbeglia, G. (2022). Is active
learning enough? The contributions of misconception
focused instruction and active learning dosage on
student learning of evolution. BioScience. https://doi.
org/10.1093/biosci/biac073
103
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00120-0
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21705
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21072
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9809-5
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0116-z
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac073

REFERENCES
Nehm, R. H., Beggrow, E. P., Opfer, J. E., & Ha, M.
(2012). Reasoning about natural selection: Diagnosing
contextual competency using the ACORNS instrument.
The American Biology Teacher, 74(2), 92–98.
Rector, M. A., Nehm, R. H., & Pearl, D. (2013). Learning
the language of evolution: Lexical ambiguity and word
meaning in student explanations. Research in Science
Education, 43(3), 1107–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11165-012-9296-z
Reiss, M. J. (2019). Evolution education: Treating evolution
as a sensitive rather than a controversial issue. Ethics
and Education, 14(3), 351–366.
Trommler, F., & Hammann, M. (2020). The relationship
between biological function and teleology: Implications
for biology education. Evolution: Education and
Outreach, 13(11),1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-
020-00122-y
104
CHAPTER 6 Evolution education and outreach
- important things to know about
how to teach about evolution
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9296-z
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00122-y

Chapter 7
Opportunities to deal
with human evolution
105

Opportunities to deal with human evolution
Merav Siani1, 2,
Anat Yarden1
1Weizmann Institute of Science
2Herzog College
Abstract: Since knowledge about evolution—and especially human
evolution—is insufcient, we aimed to design three student-
centred online activities. These activities deal with human
evolution and are intended to expose high school biology
students and pre-service science teachers to issues concerning
human evolution in order to enhance their knowledge of evolution
and human evolution whilst also potentially enhancing their
acceptance of evolution. The activities deal with lactose tolerance,
celiac disease and starch consumption affecting diabetes.
Additionally, we describe the principles that guided the design of
these three activities: issues connecting to students’ lives; non-
contentious topics regarding human evolution; human evolution
examples that occurred in the not-too-distant past; unambiguous
genetic frame stories including simple genetic mutations that
affect known traits; and examples that expose students to
basic bioinformatics tools for facing authentic scientic issues
dealing with genetic evidence of evolution. Furthermore, we
present the results of pre-service science teachers’ experiences
with one of the activities, which demonstrate that a signicant
proportion of these teachers used more evolution key concepts
after experiencing the activity. Notably, a signicant proportion
of these teachers showed an increase in evolution acceptance.
In-service teachers who experienced one of the activities
recommended the introduction of genetic evidence of human
evolution via the activity and did not predict opposition among
their students. Thus, we recommend the use of these activities
among high school biology students since dealing with a relevant
topic that includes clear and straightforward evidence of evolution
may lead to better knowledge, a greater acceptance of evolution
and human evolution, and the improved negotiation of evolution-
related sociscientic issues (SSIs).
online activities, genetic evidence, religious pre-service teachers
KEYWORDS
106
CHAPTER 7

INTRODUCTION
Although evolution is a controversial topic
(Deniz & Borgerding, 2018), the evolution
of animals and plants is more commonly
accepted than the evolution of humans
(Asghar & Wiles, 2007). This is likely
because many societies consider humans
to have a soul and an ethical code. Thus,
some theologians do not accept the concept
that an evolutionary process is occurring
in humans (Alter & Webb, 1996). A study
conducted in 2009 revealed that only 48%
of Americans agree that evolution is the
best explanation for the origin of human life
on Earth (Moore et al., 2010).
This controversy also resonates in the
eld of education. In UK universities, it was
found that 9% of students do not accept
evolution by natural selection, with 16%
not accepting human evolution by natural
selection (Betti et al., 2020). In Israel, the
situation is similar. Approximately half of
surveyed high school science teachers saw
a conict between the theory of evolution
and religion. For some of them, the
random nature of the theory of evolution
contradicted the belief in creation directed
by the ‘hand of God’, whereas others
opposed the possibility of man evolving
from apes (Dodick et al., 2010).
Another study conducted on science
teachers in Israel showed that human
evolution was one of the most unfamiliar
topics for them (Siani & Yarden, 2022b).
Nevertheless, there has been some change
in this regard over the last decade. When
comparing the time spent on teaching
creationism and the time devoted to human
evolution and evolutionary processes in
biology classes in the US, there was a
substantial increase in the amount of time
that teachers devoted to teaching human
evolution between 2011 (Berkman & Plutzer,
2011) and 2019 (Plutzer et al., 2020).
In the second survey, only 14% of teachers
reported that they discussed creationism in
high school biology classes
—in comparison to 23% in the rst survey
(Plutzer et al., 2020). Despite this change,
human evolution remains a sensitive and
controversial issue in most countries, which
might explain why it is not included in the
science curricula and textbooks of many
countries (Zer-Kavod, 2018).
Since evolution is a controversial topic,
it is considered a socioscientic issue (SSI).
SSIs are dened as controversial issues
that involve the use of scientic topics and
require students to engage in dialogue
and debate (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009).
The process of dealing with SSIs requires
decision making based on scientic
knowledge whilst also being inuenced
by societal factors such as ethnicity and
religion. This implies that the negotiation
of evolution-related SSIs is linked to the
knowledge and acceptance of evolution
(Fowler & Zeidler, 2016).
In this chapter, we introduce three online
instructional activities that address the
topic of human evolution by dealing with
genetic evidence. All three activities aim to
familiarise high school biology students and
pre-service teachers with human evolution
cases that are relevant to students’ lives. We
strive to raise the knowledge and acceptance
of human evolution, which are not high in
Israel and worldwide—especially among
religious populations. Additionally, we
present ndings regarding the experiences
of Jewish religious pre-service science
teachers with the ‘lactose tolerance’ activity
and interviews held with them a few months
after experiencing this activity.
The target audience for this chapter
is high school biology teachers, curriculum
developers in the eld of biology
as well as biology education researchers.
In light of the experience of the
pre-service teachers, we recommend the
use of the proposed activities with high
school teachers and curriculum designers.
Additionally, we recommend that biology
107
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

education researchers examine the
evolution knowledge of their students after
experiencing the activities.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Religious controversy
around evolution
Evolution has been a controversial issue
for many years. Most of the doubt and
disputes surrounding evolution stem
from the conict between evolution and
creationism, which has been detected in
countries such as Britain, where Muslims
and conservative Protestant Christians
show low levels of evolution acceptance.
This is also true for Muslims worldwide
(Edis, 2008), as well as among people from
34 other countries (Miller et al., 2006). It
was previously shown that in some cases,
as the level of religiosity rises, the level of
evolution acceptance lowers (Unsworth &
Voas, 2018). Also, among students, religious
beliefs and religious cultures are among the
most important factors predicting whether
they will accept evolution (Hill, 2014; Truong
et al., 2018). One of the central factors
relating to the acceptance of evolution is
that one should become an atheist in order
to accept evolution (Lyons, 2010). Although
some religions have allowed their believers
to accept evolution alongside their religiosity,
the theory of evolution is rejected despite the
readily available scientic evidence (Coyne,
2012). Moreover, it has been found that
acceptance of evolution positively correlates
with attitudes towards science and the
understanding of the concepts of evolution,
whilst negatively correlating with religious
faith (Eder et al., 2018). One problematic topic
related to evolution with which people feel
hesitation across both religious and non-
religious groups is the Earth’s age (Unsworth
& Voas, 2018).
Among the Jewish people, the complete
rejection of core parts of the theory of
evolution mainly exists in the ultra-
orthodox sector. Other religious sects
accept the main parts of the theory of
evolution, including species transformation.
For them, science complements religion,
with evolution being an ongoing process
driven by God (Dodick & Shuchat, 2014;
Swetlitz, 2013). This approach has been
accepted by rabbis such as Abraham Isaac
Kook (Cho et al., 2011; Pear et al., 2015), with
additional rabbis claiming that evolution
can even support Jewish beliefs (Pear et
al., 2015). In contrast, the ultra-orthodox
Jewish community strongly opposes the
theory of evolution (Pear, 2018), so much so
that well-known ultra-orthodox rabbis told
teachers to remove pages from textbooks
that introduced the theory of evolution,
which seemed like heresies regarding the
creation of the world to them (Pear et al.,
2015). The opposition to evolution states
that the scientic evidence for evolution is
weak and that the Earth is young and has
been created by God in its present form
(Swetlitz, 2013).
Jewish religious science teachers in
Israel were asked about their conicts
regarding evolution. Notably, they
mentioned the age of the Earth as a
controversial issue alongside the clash
between the theory of evolution and
biblical creation. For some of the teachers,
the randomness of evolution opposes their
belief in creation directed by God ‘as is’. In
fact, some of the teachers who mentioned
the controversy lacked complete knowledge
of the theory of evolution (Dodick et al.,
2010). Recent research has found that Israeli
science teachers admitted that they and
their students have difculties with the
religious controversy surrounding evolution
in addition to a lack of scientic knowledge
regarding the theory (Siani & Yarden, 2022b).
In addition to religion, other factors
108
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

INTRODUCTION
have been shown to inuence the
acceptance of evolution. Among UK
secondary school students, evolution
understanding signicantly increased
after learning evolution (especially when
teaching evolution after genetics) since
there is a strong correlation between
evolution understanding and acceptance
(Kampourakis & Strasser, 2015; Mead et
al., 2017). More research from the UK has
shown that students’ prior acceptance
of evolution is an important factor that
inuences acceptance. Those with a low
acceptance of evolution before learning
about evolution respond poorly to evolution
learning (Mead et al., 2018). Among
Greek science teachers, it was found that
acceptance of evolution can be enhanced
by explaining the theory of evolution
through practical and understandable
examples such as geological arguments,
fossils and information about Earth and
its environments (Katakos & Athanasiou,
2020). These examples and others
show that the inuence of religion on
evolution acceptance is complex and that
it is important to consider the range of
perspectives among studied individuals
(Elsdon-Baker, 2015).
1.2 Human evolution in
curricula worldwide
Although it is clear that evolution is
controversial worldwide, it is part of
the science curricula in many countries.
However, the situation is different when
discussing human evolution. Even in
countries where science curricula include
evolution, the topic of human evolution
is frequently missing. A recent review
comparing high school biology curricula in
Australia, England, Virginia and California in
the US, New Zealand, Singapore, Scotland,
Finland and the Canadian province of
British Columbia showed that the topic of
evolution was part of all curricula; however,
human evolution was only mentioned in
two of them (Australia and New Zealand)
(Zer-Kavod, 2018). Human evolution is
also omitted from curricula in Hong Kong
(Cheng & Chan, 2018), Iran (Kazempour &
Amirshokoohi, 2018) and France. (Quessada
& Clément, 2018). Moreover, US textbooks
also make little mention of human evolution.
Prior to the 1960s, biology textbooks placed
little emphasis on human evolution. In the
1970s and early 1980s, textbooks reduced
their coverage of human evolution even
further. However, in the 1990s, the coverage
became quite comprehensive (Skoog,
2005). Upon comparing textbooks from
18 countries (12 European and 6 non-
European), 6 of them had no chapter
dealing with the topic of human evolution
(Quessada et al., 2008). In 2004, the state
science frameworks of only three states in
the US had standards relating to human
evolution (Skoog, 2005).
1.3 Human evolution in the
Israeli science curriculum
The presence of the topic of evolution in
the Israeli junior high school science and
technology curriculum and high school
biology curriculum has recently been
addressed (Siani & Yarden, 2020). Since
2016, both of these curricula included
the topic of evolution, but not human
evolution. Notably, in Israeli high schools,
biology is an elective topic that is studied
by approximately 15% of high school
students. Human evolution was only
included in the 1990 and 2010 biology
curricula as part of evolution, which was
an elective topic chosen by approximately
5% of the students who studied biology
109
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

INTRODUCTION
in high school. In the 2010 curriculum
(Israeli Ministry of Education, 2010), it was
recommended that human evolution be
learned for 1 out of the 30 hours dedicated
to the topic of evolution. As previously
noted, human evolution is no longer
included in Israeli curricula. However, the
Israeli biology curriculum is undergoing yet
another change, with the curriculum writing
committee planning to reinstate human
evolution (personal communication, Chief
Supervisor of High School Biology Education
in Israel). Since this topic has not been part
of the curriculum for a few years now, there
are hardly any related educational activities
for students — especially online student-
centred ones.We set out to prepare such
activities in order to be prepared when
this topic once again becomes part of the
curriculum. One of our considerations in
preparing learning materials on this topic
was that if the principles of evolution were
to be connected to the students’ lives, it
might be easier for students to accept and
identify with them (Pobiner, 2012, 2016;
Pobiner et al., 2018, 2019).
1.4 Why should we teach
human evolution?
As can be understood from examining
various curricula worldwide, human
evolution is less commonly addressed than
other topics in evolution. Nevertheless,
focusing specically on examples from
human evolution has been shown to
raise the enjoyment, engagement and
enthusiasm of students studying evolution
(Pobiner, 2012, 2016; Pobiner et al., 2018).
Notably, human examples have helped
students gain evolution knowledge as
well as acceptance (Kaloi et al., 2022). In
this chapter, we introduce three activities
that deal with contemporary research-
based examples in which genetic evidence
of human evolution is presented. These
activities could enable students to better
understand the evidence of evolution,
which may lead learners to accept evolution
as a scientically valid and meaningful tool
in the study of biology (Pobiner et al., 2018).
1.5 Rationale for the
human evolution
education activities
In previous research, we interviewed
educational stakeholders regarding the
theological tensions surrounding the
implementation of evolution in Israeli
curricula. The interviewees articulated
the need for more learning materials that
include evidence of evolution as a possible
way to avoid theological tensions among
students (Siani & Yarden, 2020). To ll this
need, a chapter regarding evidence for
evolution was included in an online teacher
guide (Siani, 2018). One of the subchapters
included in this guide was ‘Uniformity in
cell structure and chemical composition’.
This subchapter deals with the following
genetic evidence for evolution:
By comparing DNA sequences of different
species, we can check how similar they are
to each other and give them a numerical
score reecting that similarity. With the help
of the scores given to the DNA sections
from the different species, we can tell
who split from whom, and even estimate
how long ago it happened. The greater the
difference between the DNA sequences, the
longer the estimated time since the split.
(Siani, 2018, p. 16)
110
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

INTRODUCTION / PROBLEM / METHODOLOGY
This guide was a rst step in developing
teaching and learning materials about
evolution. However, we have since
understood that student-centred online
materials calling for students’ active
participation are better than teachers’
guides that suggest making materials
accessible for teachers and students.
Since educational stakeholders have noted
that evolution evidence is an important
issue—and even though we knew that
human evolution is currently not mentioned
in the Israeli biology curriculum—we
decided to design online activities that deal
with human evolution.
1.6 Student-centred online
pedagogy
In addition to the pedagogical content
involved in teaching human evolution,
continual changes in our surroundings pose
a challenge for teaching in the 21st century.
The educational system plays a major role
in enabling students to take part in these
changing challenges (Jan, 2017). One way
of coping with these changes is technology,
which is integrated into schooling to
achieve the best quality pedagogy and
effective learning by competent teachers
who have new sets of resources and
techniques (Jan, 2017). Interactive computer-
based simulations have successfully
improved learners’ understanding of
biological concepts and reduced common
learner misconceptions about evolution
(Abraham et al., 2009; Perry et al., 2008).
Moreover, traditional teaching methods
are not suited for teaching complicated
topics such as evolution, which often
include misconceptions (Nelson, 2008).
Rather, inquiry-based teaching units have
improved college students’ explanations
and acceptance of modern evolutionary
theory (Robbins & Roy, 2007). Indeed,
it was shown that, on average, student-
centred pedagogy leads to greater learning
outcomes for students than frontal teaching
of evolution (Grunspan et al., 2018).
PROBLEM
In this chapter, we describe three student-
centred online activities dealing with
human evolution. These activities intend
to expose high school biology students
and pre-service science teachers to issues
concerning human evolution to enhance
their knowledge regarding the evidence
of evolution (which may lead them to
accept evolution and human evolution)
since evolution knowledge and acceptance
are important for SSI argumentation. We
describe the principles that guided the
design of all three activities and present
the results of the experiences of pre-service
science teachers with one of the activities.
METHODOLOGY
Design principles
considered when
designing the activities
All three activities that we designed are
part of the free-of-charge Personalised
Teaching and Learning (PeTeL) environment
developed by the Weizmann Institute’s
Department of Science Teaching. PeTeL
is a Moodle-based interactive online
learning management system that enables
educators to manage their students’
learning in a single online environment.
PeTeL includes a variety of diagnostic and
evaluation interactive units for the use
111
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics teachers.
In addition to aiding in teaching, PeTeL
also enables the evaluation of students’
actions since it follows and records their
answers, their number of attempts and the
time they spent in the environment (Bar et
al., 2022). Information regarding the PeTeL
environment in which these activities are
included, can be found at:
https://stwww1.weizmann.ac.il/petel/home-e
We were guided by a few design
principles when designing the following
three online activities: i) lactose tolerance; ii)
celiac disease; iii) starch consumption and
diabetes. Below, we list each of the design
principles that guided the design of these
three activities (Siani & Yarden, 2022a) and
provide examples to demonstrate how these
principles are reected in the activities:
Choosing a medical issue that is
connected to nearly every student
or his/her family.
a.
Choosing a non-contentious topic of
human evolution that will not raise
protests from different sectors of
the population.
b.
Choosing a human evolution
example that occurred in the
not-too-distant past.
c.
This principle can be demonstrated in
all three activities. All students are likely
familiar with friends or family members
who deal with one or more of the
phenomena/diseases that are the focus of
the activities.
Since human evolution is a contentious
topic—even more than the evolution of
plants and animals—we chose to trace the
genetic evidence of traits that are known
to us and part of our lives. These do not
include topics that might raise controversy
The time when the evolution of a trait
likely occurred was also a central issue in
designing the activities since educational
stakeholders have stated that the time
dimension is a difcult aspect of learning
evolution (Siani & Yarden, 2022b).
One of the positive mutations that led to
lactose tolerance likely occurred when
humans started the transition from nomadic
hunter-gatherer societies to sedentary,
productive agricultural communities
approximately 10,000 years ago—a short
time scale in terms of evolution.
among certain sectors of Israeli society
(Siani & Yarden, 2020), such as the evolution
of skulls and the human-ape common
origin (Pobiner, 2016). This is the case for all
three activities.
Choosing a clear, unambiguous
genetic ‘frame story’ that includes
a simple, one-step genetic
mutation that affects a known
trait—a mutation that can easily
be explained to 15- to 18-year-old
biology students whose knowledge
regarding the control of gene
expression is limited.
d.
All three human evolution activities deal
with a point mutation. For example, in the
activity dealing with celiac disease, students
are taught about the point mutation that
leads to celiac disease and are asked to
complete an immediate response question
(see Figure 1).
METHODOLOGY
112
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution
https://stwis.org/kwfrqy

The unifying theme of all three activities
is that they demonstrate genetic evidence
of human evolution. In previous studies,
science teachers have shown that one way
to reduce tension among their students
is by teaching them about the scientic
evidence of evolution (Siani et al., 2022).
Thus, we understand that teachers are
seeking activities that deal with evidence.
We specically focused on genetic evidence
since genetics is a topic that students
have difculty studying (Dzidzinyo, 2020;
Fauzi & Mitalistiani, 2018). When designing
these activities, we aimed to aid students
in studying evolution within the context of
genetics to enable them to understand the
genetic evidence of evolution.
Choosing an example that exposes
students to basic bioinformatics
tools through which they can catch
a glimpse of authentic science that
deals with the genetic evidence of
evolution.
e.
METHODOLOGY
Figure 1
A question regarding the point mutation that leads to celiac
disease.
Figure 2
Use of the EMBOSS bioinformatics tool in the lactose
tolerance activity.
Bioinformatics tools enable students to
catch a glimpse of authentic science dealing
with the genetic evidence of evolution,
which shows them how scientists work in
this eld. By using these tools, students can
understand that evolution is an evidence-
based scientic eld.
Figure 2 presents a screenshot from the
activity dealing with lactose tolerance. This
demonstrates the use of the EMBOSS tool
(Madeira et al., 2022), with which students
can compare two DNA sequences to
determine where a mutation has occurred
and which type of point mutation it is.
In addition to the design principles that
we were initially guided by, during the
development of the second and third activities,
we identied an additional design principle:
3. Copy the entire DNA sequence in the le DNA-1
4. Paste the sequence that you copied in the upper window
5. Copy the entire DNA sequence in the le DNA-2
6. Paste the sequence that you copied in the lower window.
7. In order to recei ve the result of the comparison between the two sequence pick “pair” and press on “submit
sequences. Enter or paste your rst nucleotide sequence in any supported format:
More options...
The default settings will fulil the needs of most users.
(Click here, if your want to view or change the default settings.)
(Tick this box if you want to be notifed by email when the results are available)
Submit
DNA
pair
STEP 1 - Enter your nucleotide sequences
EMBOSS Needle reads two input sequences and writes their optimal global sequence alignment to le.
STEP 2 - Set your pairwise alignment options
STEP 3 - Subtmit your job
113
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

METHODOLOGY
Since negotiating SSIs has been
correlated with developing knowledge
and acceptance of evolution (Fowler &
Zeidler, 2016) and because we aim for
students to use socioscientic reasoning
in the eld of evolution, we wanted to
design these activities to improve students’
evolution knowledge whilst also raise their
acceptance of human evolution.
Dealing with human evolution
topics to enhance students’
knowledge whilst also potentially
enhancing their acceptance of
evolution so that they might better
negotiate evolution-related SSIs.
f.
Detailed descriptions of
the three activities
Lactose tolerance: The story of a
trait (Activity 1 description)
i)
The rst activity we designed consists of four
units dealing with the activity of the enzyme
lactase in our intestine, the differences in
lactose tolerance in people from different
origins, the genetic foundation of lactose
tolerance (Ségurel & Bon, 2017) and an
extension unit dealing with the control
of lactase gene expression. Practical and
experiential elements, such as the historical
foundation of the mutation leading to lactose
tolerance, are included in this activity.
We have previously described this entire
activity in detail (Siani & Yarden, 2022a).
The entire activity is openly available free
of charge at:
For a demo version without registration:
Does our diet affect our genes?
(Activity 2 description)
ii)
The second activity we designed consists
of two units. The rst unit deals with the
nutritional characteristics of different
populations and the connection between
their diet and the human genome. The
second unit deals with the difference
between the amylase gene in the human
genome and the amylase gene in
chimpanzees whilst attempting to help
students understand why these differences
exist. The entire activity is openly
available free of charge at:https://petel.
stweizmann.org.il/biology/login/signup.p
For a demo version without registration:
We describe the main items of each unit as
follows.
1. Diets in different populations
This unit aims to teach students about the
different starch compositions of diets around
the world and become familiarised with the
amylase gene and its functions. Then, the
students can comprehend that the number
of copies of the amylase gene is different
in tribes such as the Biaka tribe, which
eats small amounts of starch in their diet,
which is mainly based on meat and fruit—in
comparison to Western nutrition, which is
based on carbohydrates.
Figure 3 presents a comparison between
the different populations examined (Perry et
al., 2007). This gure is followed by questions
referring to the research skills that can be
obtained from it. This section continues with
an open-ended question: What might be
the biological benet for people who have
multiple copies of the amylase gene? The
section ends with a possible explanation of
the current advantage of a low-starch diet
(summarised in Figure 4).
114
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution
https://stwis.org/q5czkm
https://stwis.org/xyg8u6
https://stwis.org/48aohg
https://stwis.org/k01jx8

METHODOLOGY
Figure 3
Number of amylase copies in two populations that eat either
high- or low-starch diets.
Figure 4
A summary question.
When blood glucose levels remain high, diabetes and obesity can develop.
It is possible that in populations that consume a diet with a high amount of starch, in which there are more pople with many copies of the amylase gene,
not only does starch efciently break down starch into glucose, insulin effectively puts glucose into cells, and blood sugar levels remain at a normal level.
It turns out that people with multiple copies of the
Therefore, they are able to break down the starch into
and thus the disease and even may develop.
If this condition does not occur, the blood sugar level
and with the help of insulin the monosaccharides enter the cells efciently.
gene in their genome also have high levels of in their blood.
insulin
Check
amylase diabetes rise obesity monosaccharides
115
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

METHODOLOGY
This unit aims to use a bioinformatics tool
to analyse the two point mutations that
cause a difference between the amylase
gene in the human genome and the
amylase gene in chimpanzees, as well as
how this genetic difference has inuenced
the function and diet of humans in
comparison to chimpanzees.
Figure 5 presents part of the instructions
that the students receive in order to
2. The relationship between
evolution and the genetics of the
amylase gene
In this unit, the consequences of eating
high starch diets (in terms of diabetes and
obesity) relate to the rst design principle
listed—i.e., ‘choosing a medical issue that is
Figure 5
Instructions for using the EMBOSS tool.
nd the genetic differences. The design
principle used in this unit is the fth one:
‘An example that exposes students to basic
bioinformatics tools through which they
can catch a glimpse of authentic science
that deals with the genetic evidence of
evolution.’ By using the EMBOSS tool
(Madeira et al., 2022), students can use an
authentic tool commonly used by scientists.
The unit ends with questions that help
students apply their knowledge of the
genetic differences they learned about, to
the eld of human evolution: ‘Compare the
evolutionary process of the amylase gene
connected to nearly every student or his/her
family—since metabolic diseases concern
all modern societies worldwide.
116
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

METHODOLOGY
in humans with the evolutionary process of
the amylase gene in the bonobo.’
This question uses the fourth design
principle: ‘Includes a simple, one-step
genetic mutation that affects a known trait.’
After the students have learned about the
mutation, they form a connection between
it and human evolution.
Celiac disease: An evolutionary
advantage? (Activity 3 description)
iii)
The aim of this activity, which includes one
unit, is to enable students to understand the
symptoms of celiac disease and one of the
genetic mutations that cause it. The activity
is openly available free of charge at:https://
petel.stweizmann.org
For a demo version without registration:
php?key=A1N1201ZTF&lang=en
A short video clip introduces this topic.
Then, students answer questions regarding
the symptoms of celiac disease to continue
the clip (Figure 6). Following the video clip,
the difference between the small intestine
villi of healthy people in comparison to
people with celiac disease is shown (see
Figure 7) and includes a short question.
Figure 6
Interactive video clip dealing with celiac disease.
Figure 7
Illustration of normal and defective villi.
Image source: Scientic Animations Inc, 2019.
The design principles used in this unit are
the rst and second ones. The rst principle
is ‘A topic connected to the lives of the
students’ since approximately 1% of the
global population has celiac disease (About
Celiac Disease. Celiac Disease Foundation.,
2021). The second is ‘A non-contentious
topic of human evolution’ since celiac
disease does not usually connect to human
evolution but rather to health and nutrition.
The mutation that raises the incidence
of the disease (Zhernakova et al., 2010) is
shown next, with students being asked to
add an idea to a ‘forum discussion’ regarding
the possible advantage that people with this
mutation have over others since this mutation
has been conserved for many years.
This forum discussion relates to the
sixth design principle: ‘Dealing with
human evolution topics to enhance
students’ knowledge whilst also potentially
enhancing their acceptance of evolution so
that they might better negotiate evolution-
related SSIs.’ Through the students’
comments in the forum discussion, the
teacher can observe the knowledge and
level of acceptance among students related
to principles of evolution and human
117
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution
https://stwis.org/0mu3kf
https://stwis.org/rkwxgb

evolution. This forum might be an opportunity
for discussion and debate regarding the
acceptance of evolution, advantageous
mutations and human evolution.
The activity ends with a description
of research that assumes that the celiac
disease mutation enables sick people to
cope with infectious diseases, which might
explain why it has been advantageous for
thousands of years.
METHODOLOGY / RESULTS
RESULTS
Religious science
pre-service teachers’
experience with the
lactose tolerance activity
The activity ‘Lactose tolerance: The story
of a trait’ was experienced by 23 religious
Jewish pre-service science teachers
during the 2019–2020 academic year. Four
months after experiencing the activity, we
interviewed 11 of the pre-service teachers
via Zoom. The main aim of the rst
interview, known as the ‘knowledge
of evolution’ interview, was to probe the
pre-service teachers’ evolution knowledge.
The interviews lasted 20 to 30 minutes
and included six knowledge questions.
Questions 1 and 5 deal with human
evolution and were adapted from Pobiner
et al. (2019). The remaining questions were
adapted from Nehm & Ha (2011). Questions
2 and 3 deal with animal evolution: Question
2 deals with the formation of a trait, whilst
Question 3 deals with the loss of a trait.
Question 4 deals with articial evolution
and Question 6 deals with the evolution
of bacteria. The analysis of interview data
showed that in all the questions except for
the one dealing with the loss of a trait (i.e.,
Question 3), the pre-service teachers used
more key evolution concepts (Nehm & Reilly,
2007) than alternative (naïve) concepts
(Nehm & Ha, 2011) to explain evolution
situations. This could mean that experiencing
the human evolution activity was meaningful
and resulted in the pre-service teachers
nding it easier to explain human evolution
phenomena even a few months after the
activity (Siani & Yarden, submitted).
At the beginning and end of the activity,
the pre-service teachers completed the
I-SEA evolution acceptance questionnaire
(Nadelson & Southerland, 2012), in which
one of the three subscales deals with
human evolution. The analysis of the
questionnaire showed a signicant difference
(p=0.0291) between the mean score of the
items dealing with human evolution in the
pre-questionnaire (3.283±0.877) versus the
post-questionnaire (3.572±0.922), meaning
that the average acceptance of the items in
this section rose after engaging in this activity.
Additionally, the average score of evolution
acceptance (according to the I-SEA three-
part questionnaire) shows that among
the 23 pre-service teachers, 13 showed a
clear picture of additional acceptance of
evolution after the activity than before it,
whilst 3 showed no change and 7 showed a
decline in their acceptance (Siani & Yarden,
submitted).
Nine months after they had experienced
the activity, we interviewed four of these
pre-service teachers via Zoom for 20 to
30 minutes. At the time of the second
interview, the interviewees were already
in-service teachers and had completed most
of their college studies. The main aim of the
second interview, known as the ‘acceptance
of evolution’ interview, was to follow
the teachers’ acceptance of evolution,
willingness to teach evolution and clarify
whether there was a change or retention in
their acceptance of evolution and human
evolution. Both of the interviews’ questions
118
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

are detailed in a recent paper by our group
(Siani & Yarden, submitted).
In this chapter, we focus on the way that
pre-service teachers (now in-service science
teachers) stated that they will deal with the
issue of evolution and human evolution 9
months after they experienced the ‘lactose
tolerance’ activity.
Most of the teachers said that in the
schools in which they teach, they have already
faced the rejection of evolution. Others said
that they presume they will face it:
I think I will not teach evolution if I teach in a
religious school because it may arouse there,
hmm... because their view is very negative
towards evolution. Even if I present it in a
very non-negative way, they will think I am
bringing a secular spirit to a religious school
that does not t the place. (S10)
It is impossible to understand the book of
Genesis without the evolutionary perspective:
rst, the sunlight has to develop; then, the
animals in the water and then the birds. Had
there been a contradiction between the Bible
and the theory of evolution, it might have made
‘I don’t think there is a difference between
different living creatures. I think all populations
are changing over the years. All creatures have
evolution.’ (S9).
I do not make a distinction between humans,
bacteria, etc. I will teach about all the
creatures. There is a philosophical statement
here. That man is not the centre of the world.
But what will mainly concern students is the
contradiction between creationism, evolution
and the origin of man. Students can say that
we are actually animals, and this is perhaps
a philosophical question that can also be
discussed, as well as whether the origin of
man is really from the ape. (S5)
We as religious people think that evolution
happens because there is something that
directs it, making it easier to accept it. I look at
the evolutionary process as something that is
directed. In my perception as a religious person,
it does not just happen by itself. (S10)
Although S10 understands that evolution is a
theory accepted by scientists, she argued that
she would not teach evolution as a random
process, but rather as a directed one:
Most of the pre-service teachers did not
differentiate between human evolution and
the evolution of plants and animals, yet
some of them emphasised their students’
problems as follows:
Another in-service teacher emphasised
her own argumentation for evolution and
noted that when she introduces the topic to
students, it is based on both the Bible and
scientic evolutionary principles:
me sceptical of either the Bible or evolution.
Yet, evolution works out for me with the Bible
perfectly. (S11)
Yet, some pre-service teachers did
differentiate between human evolution and
that of other creatures:
Human evolution? It is different from that
of plants and animals. I can accept micro-
evolution but not macro-evolution. The subject
of lactose does not conict with religion. What
conicts with religion is something that has
not been proven yet. The creation of the world
clashes with religion because one does not
know things for sure, like the evolution of the
human being. (S8)
Thus, we can understand that human
evolution is still more controversial than
other topics in evolution. Also, more
activities in this eld are essential and
might aid teachers and students alike.
RESULTS
119
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

RESULTS / DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, we have described the
theoretical considerations and design
principles that have led us to design three
online activities dealing with human
evolution. Additionally, we have described
the experience of pre-service science
teachers using one of these activities. This
experience might have led the pre-service
teachers to better understand and accept
human evolution.
Why should we deal specically with
human evolution and put effort into
activities dealing with this topic? Previous
studies dealing with human evolution
activities have claimed that it is important
to teach human evolution at the school
level to develop a scientically literate
society that can effectively discuss and
debate issues regarding human evolution
(Sutherland & L’Abbé, 2019). Moreover,
understanding human variation, which is
reected in activities dealing with human
evolution, is an important step in respecting
the diverse nature of societies (Donovan
et al., 2019; Strkalj et al., 2007), such as the
multicultural society of Israel.
In addition to the importance of
understanding and accepting the diversity
of society, another main aim when
designing the human evolution activities
was to introduce students to genetic
evidence, which is mainly taught via the
comparison of DNA sequences using
bioinformatics tools. The importance of
teaching evolution evidence is consistent
with previous studies noting that an
important factor inuencing knowledge
and acceptance of the theory of evolution
is discussing evidence that supports
evolution and natural selection (Bravo &
Cofré, 2016). Thus, by discussing genetic
evidence with students, we might enhance
their knowledge—and perhaps also their
acceptance—of evolution.
Another aim when designing the activities
was to expose students to the fact that
evolution occurs for humans like every
other organism. Previous research has
shown that students consider human
evolution as a separate evolutionary subject
(Trevisan & Santovito, 2015). Notably,
it was important for us to overturn this
concept through the activities we designed.
Thus, the pre-service science teachers who
experienced the ‘lactose tolerance’ activity
reected on the fact that the evolution of
humans is a part of the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, common misconceptions
regarding evolution are teleological
explanations, which usually refer to the
purpose of a trait (Hammann & Nehm,
2020) and are common among both high
school and elementary school students
(Brown et al., 2020). When designing the
activities, we made an effort to design
them so that students will not interpret
mutations as being an intentional attempt
by an organism to adapt to its environment.
Rather, we emphasised the fact that the
mutations occurred randomly and gave an
advantage to those who had them.
Since prior studies have shown that
religiosity is an inuential factor when
considering topics such as human origin
(Silva et al., 2021), it was important for us that
religious pre-service teachers experienced
one of the activities and allowed us to assess
their reactions to human evolution a few
months thereafter. From their reactions,
we can conclude that their experience with
the activity might have added value to
their knowledge—and perhaps also to their
acceptance—of human evolution.
In addition to religiosity, another factor
inuencing the acceptance of evolution is
having an understanding of the nature of
science (NOS) (Dunk et al., 2019).
Pre-service science teachers with a high
level of understanding and acceptance of
120
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

the theory of evolution also had a high
understanding of the NOS. They understood
that the scientic theory is reliable since
it has been validated by accumulated
evidence and that it might also change
as a result of new research (Akyol et al.,
2012). Notably, the importance of the NOS
has been emphasised in all three activities
described in this chapter. We aimed to show
students the importance of genetic research
as evidence for human evolution to raise
their understanding of the NOS, thereby
increasing evolution knowledge and perhaps
also evolution acceptance.
Finally, open-minded thinking has
also been found to be signicantly
correlated with the acceptance of human
evolution (Sinatra et al., 2003), implying
that a positive correlation has been found
between characteristics of open-minded
thinking and evolution acceptance. This
means that evolution acceptance can be
higher among pre-service teachers whose
cognitive exibility and openness to
belief of the evolution theory are higher
(Athanasiou et al., 2012).
The three activities designed and
described in this chapter aim to develop the
open-minded exible thinking of students by
showing them the genetic context of everyday
phenomena that are connected to their lives.
IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS
FOR TEACHING
PRACTICES
After analysing the impact of the ‘lactose
tolerance’ activity among pre-service
science teachers, we can conclude that
dealing with human evolution via an
interactive student-centred activity might
increase knowledge of human evolution,
DISCUSSION / IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS
FOR TEACHING PRACTICES
especially since we saw that pre-service
teachers used more scientic concepts and
less alternative concepts when dealing with
the theory of evolution. This may imply that
even a short activity dealing with a topic in
evolution that has elements relevant to the
lives of students and deals with clear and
straightforward evidence of evolution, may
be impactful and lead to better knowledge
—and perhaps a rise in the acceptance—of
evolution and human evolution.
Another use of the ‘lactose tolerance’
activity occurred in 2020 when 117 in-
service teachers experienced the activity.
Their reections regarding this activity
could aid other teachers around the world
by helping them understand how to use
it. On average, the amount of class time
teachers recommended spending for
each of the rst two units was one lesson,
whilst for the third unit, most teachers
recommended spending two lessons. Overall,
88% of the teachers said that the rst unit was
easy or reasonable, whilst 77% said the same
about the second unit and 68% said that the
third unit was reasonable to difcult. Notably,
they were not asked about the fourth unit.
When the teachers were asked about
how they would combine the activity
during teaching evolution, some of them
recommended using the activity after
developing a basic familiarity with natural
selection, selective pressure and mutations.
Other teachers recommended being familiar
with DNA, RNA transcription and protein
translation before using the activity.
The in-service teachers also suggested
using the activity since it is a simple and
relevant example of human evolution that
does not involve studies of the bones of
ancient people or dinosaurs, which may be
unclear or problematic to some students.
They further suggested using the activity
as a way to stimulate students’ curiosity
in the eld of evolution.
121
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

Thus, the main aims of the design principles
we used in all three activities—i.e., a medical
issue that is connected to the students’
lives and a non-contentious topic of human
evolution that will not raise protests
—were mentioned by the teachers, which
enabled them to teach human evolution with
no special controversy. None of the teachers
mentioned any controversy experienced
whilst dealing with human evolution, nor did
they assume controversy would rise among
their students. Similarly, the in-service
science teachers who experienced the
‘lactose tolerance’ activity suggested using
the activity to enable students to feel like
researchers when using the bioinformatics
IMPORTANT HIGHLIGHTS FOR TEACHING
PRACTICES
tools. Thus, the design principle related to
‘exposing students to authentic scientic
tools’ was also suggested by the in-service
science teachers.
Overall, we can conclude that the
use of these activities in classes might
improve evolution knowledge and could
thus increase the acceptance of human
evolution. Additionally, the use of human
evolution examples was recommended by
all in-service and pre-service teachers
—and is likely also preferred by students
—since both groups recommended using
it and did not predict any opposition to the
introduction of genetic evidence of human
evolution via these activities.
122
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution

REFERENCES
About celiac disease. Celiac Disease Foundation. (2021).
https://celiac.org/about-celiac-disease
Abraham, J. K., Meir, E., Perry, J., Herron, J. C., Maruca,
S., & Stal, D. (2009). Addressing Undergraduate
Student Misconceptions about Natural Selection
with an Interactive Simulated Laboratory. Evolution:
Education and Outreach, 2(3), 393–404. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12052-009-0142-3
Alter, S. G., & Webb, G. E. (1996). The Evolution Controversy
in America. History of Education Quarterly, 36(2), 207.
https://doi.org/10.2307/369515
Asghar, A., & Wiles, J. R. (2007). Canadian Pre-service
Elementary Teachers’ Conceptions of Biological
Evolution and Evolution Education. McGill Journal of
Education, 42(2), 189–209. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/235942658
Athanasiou, K., Katakos, E., & Papadopoulou, P. (2012).
Conceptual ecology of evolution acceptance among
Greek education students: the contribution of
knowledge increase. Journal of Biological Education,
46(4), 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.201
2.716780
Bar, C., Siani, M., & Yarden, A. (2022). Biology Teachers’
Re-designed eLearning Units: The Relationships
Between Knowledge Types and Scientic Practices.
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of
the Learning Sciences - ICLS, 993–996.
Berkman, M. B., & Plutzer, E. (2011). Defeating Creationism
in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom.
Science, 331(6016), 404–405. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1198902
Betti, L., Shaw, P., & Behrends, V. (2020). Acceptance
of Biological Evolution by First-Year Life Sciences
University Students. Science & Education, 29(2),
395–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00110-0
Bravo, P., & Cofré, H. (2016). Developing biology teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge through learning study:
the case of teaching human evolution. International
Journal of Science Education, 38(16), 2500–2527.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1249983
Brown, S. A., Ronfard, S., & Kelemen, D. (2020). Teaching
natural selection in early elementary classrooms:
Can a storybook intervention reduce teleological
misunderstandings? Evolution: Education and
Outreach, 13(12), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12052-020-00127-7
Cheng, K. L., & Chan, K. H. (2018). Evolution Education
in Hong Kong (1991--2016): A Content Analysis of the
Biology Textbooks for Secondary School Graduates.
In H. Deniz & L. A. Borgerding (Eds.), Evolution
Education Around the Globe (pp. 315–333). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-90939-4_17
Cho, M.-H., Lankford, D. M., & Wescott, D. J. (2011).
Exploring the Relationships among Epistemological
Beliefs, Nature of Science, and Conceptual Change
in the Learning of Evolutionary Theory. Evolution:
Education and Outreach, 4(2), 313–322. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12052-011-0324-7
Coyne, J. A. (2012). Science, Religion, and Society:
the Problem of Evolution in America. Evolution,
66(8), 2654–2663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-
5646.2012.01664.x
Deniz, H., & Borgerding, L. A. (2018). Evolutionary theory as
a controversial topic in science curriculum around the
globe. In Evolution Education Around the Globe (pp.
3–11). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-90939-4_1
Dodick, J., Dayan, A., & Orion, N. (2010). Philosophical
approaches of religious Jewish science teachers
toward the teaching of “controversial” topics
in science. International Journal of Science
Education, 32(11), 1521–1548. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09500690903518060
Dodick, J., & Shuchat, R. B. (2014). Historical Interactions
Between Judaism and Science and Their Inuence on
Science Teaching and Learning. In M. R. Matthews
(Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History,
Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 1721–1757).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_54
Donovan, B. M., Semmens, R., Keck, P., Brimhall, E.,
Busch, K. C., Weindling, M., Duncan, A., Stuhlsatz,
M., Bracey, Z. B., Bloom, M., Kowalski, S., &
Salazar, B. (2019). Toward a more humane genetics
education: Learning about the social and quantitative
complexities of human genetic variation research
could reduce racial bias in adolescent and adult
populations. Science Education, 103(3), 529–560.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21506
Dunk, R. D. P., Barnes, M. E., Reiss, M. J., Alters, B.,
Asghar, A., Carter, B. E., Cotner, S., Glaze, A. L.,
Hawley, P. H., Jensen, J. L., Mead, L. S., Nadelson, L.
S., Nelson, C. E., Pobiner, B., Scott, E. C., Shtulman,
A., Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., Walter, E. M., …
Wiles, J. R. (2019). Evolution education is a complex
landscape. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(3), 327–329.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0802-9
Dzidzinyo, A. F. (2020). Exploration of Senior High School
Biology Students’ Conceptual Understanding of
Genetics. (Publication No. 23105496) ]Doctoral
dissertation; University of Cape Coast[. UCC
Institutional Repository.
123
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution
https://celiac.org/about-celiac-disease
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0142-3
https://doi.org/10.2307/369515
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235942658
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2012.716780
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198902
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00110-0
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1249983
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00127-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4_17
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-011-0324-7
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01664.x
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4_1
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903518060
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_54
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21506
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0802-9

Eder, E., Seidl, V., Lange, J., & Graf, D. (2018). Evolution
Education in the German-Speaking Countries. In H. Deniz
& L. A. Borgerding (Eds.), Evolution Education Around the
Globe (pp. 235–260). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4_13
Edis, T. (2008). Modern Science and Conservative Islam:
An Uneasy Relationship. In Science, Worldviews
and Education (pp. 237–255). Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2779-5_12
Elsdon-Baker, F. (2015). Creating creationists: The
inuence of ’issues framing’on our understanding
of public perceptions of clash narratives between
evolutionary science and belief. Public Understanding
of Science, 24(4), 422–439.. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963662514563015
Fauzi, A., & Mitalistiani, M. (2018). High school
biology topics that perceived difcult by
undergraduate students. Didaktika Biologi:
Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Biologi, 2(2), 73–84.
https://jurnal.um-palembang.ac.id/dikbio/article/
view/1242/1067
Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of Evolution
Acceptance Inhibits Students’ Negotiation of Biology-
based Socioscientic Issues. Journal of Biological
Education, 50(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00
219266.2016.1150869
Grunspan, D. Z., Kline, M. A., & Brownell, S. E. (2018).
The Lecture Machine: A Cultural Evolutionary Model
of Pedagogy in Higher Education. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 17(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-
12-0287
Hammann, M., & Nehm, R. H. (2020). Teleology and
evolution education: Introduction to the special issue.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 13(1), 1–5. https://
doi.org/10.1186/S12052-020-00130-Y
Hill, J. P. (2014). Rejecting Evolution: The Role of Religion,
Education, and Social Networks. Journal for the
Scientic Study of Religion, 53(3), 575–594. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12127
Israeli Ministry of Education. (2010). Biologia: Tochnit
halimudim lehativa haeliona [Biology curriculum, 10th
to 12th grade]. http://meyda.education.gov.il/les/
Mazkirut_Pedagogit/AgafMadaim/TochnitLimodim_
Bio_2010.pdf
Jan, H. (2017). Teacher of 21st Century: Characteristics
and Development. Research on Humanities and
Social Sciences, 7(9), 50–54.
Kaloi, M., Hopper, J. D., Hubble, G., Niu, M. E.,
Shumway, S. G., Tolman, E. R., & Jensen, J. L.
(2022). Exploring the Relationship between Science,
Religion & Attitudes toward Evolution Education.
The American Biology Teacher, 84(2), 75–81.
https://doi.org/10.1525/ABT.2022.84.2.75
Kampourakis, K., & Strasser, B. J. (2015). The Evolutionist,
the Creationist, and the ‘Unsure’: Picking-Up the
Wrong Fight? International Journal of Science
Education, Part B:, 5(3), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1
080/21548455.2014.931613
Katakos, S., & Athanasiou, K. (2020). The ‘Geological
Argument’as an instrument for the acceptance of the
Theory of Evolution among Greek Science Teachers.
Journal of Genetics and Cell Biology, 3(3), 183–186.
Kazempour, M., & Amirshokoohi, A. (2018). Evolution Education
in Iran: Shattering Myths About Teaching Evolution in an
Islamic State. In Evolution Education Around the Globe
(pp. 281–295). Springer International Publishing. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4_15
Lyons, S. L. (2010). Evolution and Education: Lessons from
Thomas Huxley. Science & Education, 19(4–5), 445–
459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9188-4
Madeira, F., Pearce, M., Tivey, A. R. N., Basutkar, P., Lee, J.,
Edbali, O., Madhusoodanan, N., Kolesnikov, A., & Lopez,
R. (2022). Search and sequence analysis tools services
from EMBL-EBI in 2022. Nucleic Acids Research, 50(1),
276–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac240
Mead, R., Hejmadi, M., & Hurst, L. D. (2017). Teaching
genetics prior to teaching evolution improves evolution
understanding but not acceptance. PLOS Biology,
15(5), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.
PBIO.2002255
Mead, R., Hejmadi, M., & Hurst, L. D. (2018). Scientic
aptitude better explains poor responses to teaching of
evolution than psychological conicts. Nature Ecology
& Evolution, 2(2), 388–394. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41559-017-0442-x
Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public
Acceptance of Evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765–766.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1126746
Moore, R., Decker, M., & Cotner, S. H. (2010). Chronology of
the Evolution-Creationism Controversy. ABC-CLIO. http
s://books.google.co.il/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=4KwJRN
gscdEC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=human+evolution+co
ntroversy&ots=aSLnvpf96c&sig=6NnqYqBMhCQjT-
LQ4-afLss-ypc&redir_esc=page&q=human&f=false
Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in
evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 48(3), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.20400
Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, L. (2007). Biology Majors’ Knowledge
and Misconceptions of Natural Selection. BioScience,
57(3), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570311
REFERENCES
124
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4_13
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2779-5_12
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514563015
https://jurnal.um-palembang.ac.id/dikbio/article/
view/1242/1067
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1150869
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0287
https://doi.org/10.1186/S12052-020-00130-Y
https://doi.org/10.1186/S12052-020-00130-Y
http://meyda.education.gov.il/les/Mazkirut_Pedagogit/
AgafMadaim/TochnitLimodim_Bio_2010.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1525/ABT.2022.84.2.75
https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2014.931613
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4_15
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9188-4
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac240
https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.2002255
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0442-x
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1126746
https://books.google.co.il/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=4KwJR
NgscdEC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=human+evolution+con
troversy&ots=aSLnvpf96c&sig=6NnqYqBMhCQjT-LQ4-
afLss-ypc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=human&f=false
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20400
https://doi.org/10.1641/B570311

Nelson, C. E. (2008). Teaching evolution (and all of
biology) more effectively: Strategies for engagement,
critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions.
Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 213–225.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icn027
Pear, R. S. A. (2018). Agreeing to Disagree: American
Orthodox Jewish Scientists’ Confrontation with
Evolution in the 1960s. Religion and American Culture:
A Journal of Interpretation, 28(02), 206–237. https://
doi.org/10.1525/rac.2018.28.2.206
Pear, R. S. A., Klein, M., & Berger, D. (2015). Report from
the eld: A pilot project on the teaching of Jewish
views of evolution in Israel. International Journal of
Jewish Education Research, 25(8), 59–66.
Perry, G. H., Dominy, N. J., Claw, K. G., Lee, A. S., Fiegler,
H., Redon, R., Werner, J., Villanea, F. A., Mountain, J. L.,
Misra, R., Carter, N. P., Lee, C., & Stone, A. C. (2007).
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy
number variation. Nature Genetics, 39(10), 1256–1260.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ng2123
Perry, J., Meir, E., Herron, J. C., Maruca, S., & Stal, D. (2008).
Evaluating Two Approaches to Helping College Students
Understand Evolutionary Trees through Diagramming
Tasks. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(2), 193–201.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007
Plutzer, E., Branch, G., & Reid, A. (2020). Teaching evolution
in U.S. public schools: a continuing challenge.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 13(14), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00126-8
Pobiner, B., Beardsley, P. M., Bertka, C. M., & Watson, W.
A. (2018). Using human case studies to teach evolution
in high school A.P. biology classrooms. Evolution:
Education and Outreach, 11(3), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12052-018-0077-7
Pobiner, B. L. (2012). Use Human Examples to Teach
Evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 74(2), 71–72.
https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2012.74.2.2
Pobiner, B. L. (2016). Accepting, understanding,
teaching, and learning (human) evolution: Obstacles
and opportunities. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 159, 232–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ajpa.22910
Pobiner, B., Watson, W. A., Beardsley, P. M., & Bertka, C.
M. (2019). Using Human Examples to Teach Evolution
to High School Students: Increasing Understanding
and Decreasing Cognitive Biases and Misconceptions.
In Evolution Education Re-considered (pp. 185–
205). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_11
Quessada, M. P., Clément, P., Oerke, B., & Valente, A.
(2008). Human Evolution in Science Textbooks from
Twelve Different Countries. Science Education
International, 19(2), 147–162.
Quessada, Marie Pierre, & Clément, P. (2018). Evolution
Education in France: Evolution Is Widely Taught and
Accepted. In Evolution Education Around the Globe
(pp. 213–233). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4_12
Robbins, J. R., & Roy, P. (2007). The natural selection:
Identifying & correcting non-science student
preconceptions through an inquiry-based,
critical approach to evolution. In American
Biology Teacher (Vol. 69, Issue 8, pp. 460–
466). National Association of Biology Teachers.
https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2007)69[460:TNSI
CN]2.0.CO;2
Scientic Animations Inc. (2019). https://www.
scienticanimations.com/gluten-sensitivity-different-
celiac-disease/
Ségurel, L., & Bon, C. (2017). On the Evolution of Lactase
Persistence in Humans. Annual Review of Genomics
and Human Genetics, 18(1), 297–319. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035340
Siani, M. (2018). A Window to Evolution. National
Center for High-School Biology and Environmental
Sciences Teacher (Hebrew). https://www.bioteach.
org.il/
Siani, M., Stahi-Hitin, R., & Yarden, A. (2022). Student
Opposition to Learning Evolution and How Teachers
Deal with This following a Teacher Training Course.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 33(7), 764-785.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.2003934
Siani, M., & Yarden, A. (submitted). Possible Connections
Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution
amongst Jewish Religious Preservice Science
Teachers Who Learned About Human Evolution.
Siani, M., & Yarden, A. (2020). “Evolution? I Don’t
Believe in It”: Theological Tensions Surrounding the
Implementation of Evolution in the Israeli Curricula.
Science and Education, 29(2), 411–441. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11191-020-00109-7
Siani, M., & Yarden, A. (2022a). Introducing Evolution of
the Human Lactase Gene using an Online Interactive
Activity. American Biology Teacher, 84(1), 16–21..
aa..........
Siani, M., & Yarden, A. (2022b). “I Think that Teachers
Do Not Teach Evolution Because It Is Complicated”:
Difculties in Teaching and Learning Evolution in Israel.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, 20(3), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10763-021-10179-w
REFERENCES
125
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution
https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icn027
https://doi.org/10.1525/rac.2018.28.2.206
https://doi.org/10.1038/ng2123
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-01-0007
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00126-8
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0077-7
https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2012.74.2.2
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22910
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_11
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4_12
https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2007)69[460:TNS
ICN]2.0.CO;2
https://www.scienticanimations.com/gluten-
sensitivity-different-celiac-disease/
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-091416-035340
https://www.bioteach.org.il/
https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.2003934
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00109-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10179-w
https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2022.84.1.16

Silva, H. M., Oliveira, A. W., Belloso, G. V., Díaz, M. A., &
Carvalho, G. S. (2021). Biology teachers’ conceptions
of Humankind Origin across secular and religious
countries: an international comparison. Evolution:
Education and Outreach, 14(2), 1–12. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12052-020-00141-9
Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., &
Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’
understanding and acceptance of biological evolution.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 510–528.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10087
Skoog, G. (2005). The coverage of human evolution in
high school biology textbooks in the 20th century
and in current state science standards. Science and
Education, 14(3–5), 395–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11191-004-5611-z
Strkalj, G., Gibbon, V., & Wilkinson, T. (2007). Teaching
human variation: Can education change students’
attitudes towards “race”? Glasnik Etnografskog
Instituta, 55(1), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.2298/
GEI0701253S
Sutherland, C., & L’Abbé, E. (2019). Human evolution
in the South African school curriculum. South
African Journal of Science, 115(7/8), 1–7. http://
www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S0038-23532019000400014
Swetlitz, M. (2013). Judaism, Jews, and Evolution. In
Michael Ruse (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia
of Darwin and Evolutionary Thought (pp. 493–498).
Cambridge University Press.
Trevisan, T., & Santovito, G. (2015). Teaching evolution: a
laboratory approach. In EDULEARN15 Proceedings.
pp. 2234-2244.
Truong, J. M., Barnes, M. E., & Brownell, S. E. (2018).
Can Six Minutes of Culturally Competent Evolution
Education Reduce Students’ Level of Perceived
Conict Between Evolution and Religion? The
American Biology Teacher, 80(2), 106-115. https://doi.
org/10.1525/abt.2018.80.2.106
Unsworth, A., & Voas, D. (2018). Attitudes to evolution
among Christians, Muslims and the Non-Religious in
Britain: Differential effects of religious and educational
factors. Public Understanding of Science, 27(1), 76–93.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517735430
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientic
issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary
Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
Zer-Kavod, G. (2018). Review of biology curricula for high
schools around the world. http://education.academy.
ac.il/Index4/Entry.aspx?nodeId=992&entryId=21115
Zhernakova, A., Elbers, C. C., Ferwerda, B., Romanos, J.,
Trynka, G., Dubois, P. C., de Kovel, C. G. F., Franke,
L., Oosting, M., Barisani, D., Bardella, M. T., Joosten,
L. A. B., Saavalainen, P., van Heel, D. A., Catassi, C.,
Netea, M. G., & Wijmenga, C. (2010). Evolutionary and
Functional Analysis of Celiac Risk Loci Reveals SH2B3
as a Protective Factor against Bacterial Infection. The
American Journal of Human Genetics, 86(6), 970–977.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.05.004
REFERENCES
The authors of Chapter 7 would like
to thank the developers of the PeTeL
environment for Personalized Teaching
and Learning at the Department of Science
Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, for
their assistance and technical support.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
126
CHAPTER 7 Opportunities to deal
with human evolution
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00141-9
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10087
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-004-5611-z
https://doi.org/10.2298/GEI0701253S
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S0038-23532019000400014
https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2018.80.2.106
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517735430
http://education.academy.ac.il/Index4/Entry.
aspx?nodeId=992&entryId=21115
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.05.004

Chapter 8
Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources
127

Evolving cooperation and sustainability
for common pool resources
Susan Hanisch1,2,3,
Dustin Eirdosh2,1,
Tammy Morgan4
1Research Group for Biology Education, Friedrich Schiller University
Jena, Germany, 2Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
3Faculty of Education, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
4Lake Placid Central School District, Lake Placid, NY, USA
Abstract: Sustainable resource management is often a matter of managing
common-pool resources (CPRs), which include the social and
material resources shared by groups of individuals. CPRs can be
prone to overuse through competition between resource users who
are motivated to maximise their resource use (or contribute little
to the maintenance of the resource) for individual gain and at the
expense of group-level sustainability—an outcome known as the
Tragedy of the Commons. CPR dilemmas are pervasive in human
contexts, ranging from mitigating climate change to sharing public
spaces, ghting a pandemic or tackling antimicrobial resistance. Since
CPR dilemmas are also found across the non-human living world,
sustainability scientists, economists and evolutionary biologists are
interested in the dynamics of competition and cooperation around
resources. In this chapter, we argue that students’ conceptual
understanding of CPR dilemmas through exploration and critical
reections on human and non-human examples is central to
developing a basic understanding of sustainability issues more
broadly, as well as of evolutionary dynamics that can help explain
the evolution of cooperative social behaviours and conict resolution
mechanisms. We provide an overview of the science of CPR
dilemmas in the evolution of living systems and human natural
resource contexts. Moreover, we present a exible set of resources
that educators in secondary school biology or environmental science
can employ to help students engage in cross-cutting concepts,
scientic ideas of the life sciences and a range of scientic practices
to develop understandings and socioscientic reasoning skills
surrounding real-world issues of sustainable resource use.
sustainable development, behaviour, cooperation, common-pool resources
KEYWORDS
128
CHAPTER 8

1. INTRODUCTION TO
THE SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM
1.1 The Tragedy of the
Commons: A central
model in sustainability
science
In a 1968 article, ecologist Garret Hardin
popularised the model of the Tragedy of the
Commons (ToC; Hardin, 1968). Using the
example of a common village pasture, he
theorised that the self-interest of individual
herders to maximise their own gain from
the shared pasture by increasing their herd
size will inevitably lead to the overuse of
the shared pasture.
The ToC relates to a specic type of
social situation called a social dilemma,
which is a situation in which individuals
behave in a way that benets them
individually in the shorter term (in terms
of evolutionary tness, wealth or other
outcomes); however, collectively, this
behaviour leads to the least benets for
everyone over the longer term.
Many societal problems, such as
mitigating and adapting to climate change,
reducing social inequality, wearing face
masks to ght a global pandemic, and
the responsible use of antibiotics to
tackle antimicrobial resistance, can be
conceptualised as social dilemmas—and
hence as problems related to overcoming
the ToC. The resolution of all of these
problems requires individuals to cooperate
for the common good at more or less
expense to their own short-term benet.
Therefore, the challenges and solutions
to such cooperation problems have
been an area of research scholarship in
sustainability science (e.g., Dickinson et al.,
2013; Meinzen-Dick et al., 2018; Messner et
al., 2013; Waring et al., 2015, 2017).
Hardin (1968) proposed that given our
purportedly selsh human nature, the only
solutions to this tragedy would be
the privatisation of resources or
top-down governmental control. However,
in the 1990s, political scientist Elinor
Ostrom explored a diversity of real-world
case studies of common-pool resources
(CPRs), such as pastures, irrigation and
groundwater systems, and sheries, to
understand whether—and under what
conditions—humans can cooperate and
sustainably manage their shared resources
(Ostrom, 1990).
Contrary to Hardin, she found that
human communities can
indeed cooperate and self-organise for
the sustainable management of their
shared resources; however, this only
tends to be observed when certain
conditions are met. Through this work, she
derived her framework for the analysis of
social-ecological systems (Ostrom, 2007,
2009; Fig. 1) and her Core Design Principles
(CDPs) for the effective management of
CPRs (Ostrom, 1990; Table 1).
Using her framework, Ostrom (2007)
concluded that Hardin’s scenario of the
ToC emerges only under certain specic
assumptions, including when there is no
governance system at all, when resource
users do not communicate at all and
make their decisions independently and
anonymously, and when users focus
primarily on their immediate short-
term benets. In reality, humans often
communicate, make rules, base their
decisions on what others do and care
about more than just immediate short-term
benets to themselves. Diverse methods
129
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

and insights from evolutionary and
behavioural sciences—including lab and
real-world experiments and agent-based
modelling—have provided further added
insights into the conditions and proximate
mechanisms that appear to enable humans
to cooperate towards the common good.
In this chapter, we argue that these
insights and associated scientic concepts
and methods can serve as foundations
for developing student understandings of
scientic ideas as well as socioscientic
reasoning skills. As indicated by Ostrom’s
CDPs (Table 1), ethical, moral and political
dimensions are inherent in analysing and
evaluating solutions to the sustainability of
social-ecological systems.
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM
The CDPs highlight the importance
of shared identity, fairness, inclusion
and autonomy of the stakeholders in a
social-ecological system. The role of (scientic
as well as local) knowledge and ongoing
inquiry around a shared resource and its use
is also salient in Ostrom’s frameworks.
Furthermore, the CDPs are not
exhaustive and do not prescribe specic
policies or behaviours to be implemented.
Rather, they only offer general guidance
for a community, which needs to negotiate,
experiment and test specic mechanisms
that might be suitable in their context,
thus highlighting the limits of science
—or at least the need for an applied and
participatory science approach.
Figure 1
Factors in a framework for analysing social-ecological
systems. Adapted from Ostrom (2009).
130
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM
Table 1
Core Design Principles for the successful management of
common-pool resources and successful cooperation, with
analogous examples in biology (see Section 1.2).
Core Design
Principle
Description Analogous biological examples
7. Autonomy
to self-govern
The group has a minimum of rights and
the freedom to set its own rules without
interference.
4. Transparency
and monitoring
The community observes and monitors
whether everyone behaves according to
the rules, the condition of the resource
and whether common goals are achieved.
6. Fast and fair conict
resolution
There are mechanisms for resolving
conicts among members in ways that
are fast (efcient) and perceived as fair by
those involved.
8. Cooperative relations
with other groups
The group has collaborative relations
(according to CDPs 1–7) with other groups
and across scales of social organisation.
1. Clearly dened
boundaries
It is clear who belongs to a group, and
all members have a shared sense of
common goals and identity. Fates are
intertwined.
Skin and cell membranes; tness
interdependence through factors such
as physical proximity and low levels
of migration, positive assortment and
genetic relatedness.
2. Fair distribution
of costs and benets
The costs incurred by members for
cooperation are distributed in proportion
to their benets from cooperation.
Need-based transfer of resources
(e.g., vampire bats, trophallaxis
in social insects, nutrient distribution
in multicellular organisms).
3. Fair and inclusive
decision making
Most individuals in the group can
participate in decisions that affect them
and set or change the rules of the game.
Quorum sensing in bacteria, decision
making for nesting sites in honeybee
swarms.
Becomes relevant when higher levels of
selection emerge (e.g., endosymbiosis,
multicellular organisms, symbiosis and
major transitions in evolution).
5. Graduated responses
to helpful and unhelpful
behaviours
Rewards for valued behaviours and
punishments for misbehaviours start at a
low level (e.g., friendly discussion) and are
increased in proportion to how helpful or
unhelpful the behaviour is.
Policing in insect societies; the immune
systems in animal bodies.
Sources: Aktipis (2016); Aktipis et al. (2018); Ostrom (1990); Rankin et al.
(2007); Ratnieks and Wenseleers (2005); Seeley (2010); Wilson et al. (2013).
131
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM
1.2 The Tragedy of the
Commons in evolutionary
biology
The ToC and other social dilemmas do not
only present a challenge to our species
but across life. In their article, ‘The Tragedy
of the Commons in Evolutionary Biology’,
Rankin et al. (2007) offer a summary of a
diversity of contexts in which the ToC has
been applied by evolutionary biologists to
analyse how social interactions inuence
the evolution of traits, from intra-genomic
conict to virus-host relationships (e.g., Kerr
et al., 2006), microbial communities (e.g.,
MacLean & Gudelj, 2006), plant competition
for light and water (Zea-Cabrera et al., 2006),
to sexual conict (e.g., Rankin et al., 2011).
Similar to the early views of Hardin
regarding the inevitability of the ToC in the
human domain, evolutionary biologists
since Darwin have been pondering how and
under what conditions cooperation around
shared resources could evolve. If we start
from the premises that competition among
individuals in a population is a core driver
of evolutionary processes, that individual-
level tness differences are what matters
for selection and that cooperative behaviour
involves tness costs, how can cooperative
behaviour possibly evolve in a population?
However, Darwin (1871) already
offered explanations for how this might be
possible by considering a population that
is structured into multiple sub-groups with
various trait compositions within groups.
A variety of mechanisms and concepts
regarding the evolution of cooperative
groups have since been formally developed
and empirically studied by evolutionary
biologists. Thus, important in the study
of the evolution of cooperation and
competition around shared resources is the
search for conditions and mechanisms that
may prevent selsh individual behaviour
and an ensuing ToC (similar to what
Ostrom has done for the human domain).
Notably, Rankin et al. (2007) highlighted the
following: ‘One of the main advantages of
using the tragedy of the commons as an
analogy in evolutionary biology is that it
forces us to ask the question why a tragedy
of the commons is not observed in a
particular scenario’ (p. 648).
Some of the mechanisms that can be
found across the biological world include
tness interdependence (e.g., kin selection),
the need-based and efcient distribution
of resources among group members (e.g.,
among vampire bats), monitoring and
sanctioning mechanisms (e.g., in social
insects) and distributed collective decision-
making mechanisms such as in honeybee
swarms (Aktipis, 2016; Aktipis et al., 2018;
Ratnieks & Wenseleers, 2005; Sachs et al.,
2004; Seeley, 2010). In a more generalised
fashion, these can be related to some of
Ostrom’s design principles (Table 1).
Rankin et al. (2007, p. 649) summarised
how these evolutionary conceptions of the
ToC across the living world can relate to
socioscientic issues (SSIs) of sustainable
resource use: ‘In the light of ever-growing
environmental concerns, thinking about the
tragedy of the commons in evolutionary
biology is of interest not only because of
these evolutionary implications but also
because of the applied analogy to human
societies dealing with environmental and
other public goods problems’.
Today, the ecology and evolution of
group behaviour and cooperation are
often themes in curriculum standards
(e.g., within the Life Sciences disciplinary
core ideas in the Next Generation Science
Standards of the US; NGSS Lead States,
2013). We propose that exploring contexts
across biology in which evolution has
favoured cooperative traits around shared
resources can serve as fruitful lessons to
help students gain a deeper understanding
of the conditions and mechanisms that
132
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM / 2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
foster cooperation and sustainable resource
use whilst critically transferring these
to a variety of SSIs. Teachers that have
already engaged students in the concept of
biomimicry may see further opportunities
for developing an understanding of deeper
principles of living systems through
comparative perspectives.
1.3 Understanding the
cultural evolution of
behaviours, norms and
institutions in CPR
dilemmas
Generally, the eld of cultural evolution
science proposes that cultural traits
—including technologies, norms, traditions,
rules, beliefs and knowledge—can be said
to evolve by evolutionary processes such
as variation, (multilevel) selection and
transmission (Mesoudi, 2011). Cultural
evolution scientists often use methods
borrowed from evolutionary biology to study
the evolution of cultural phenomena, such as
population genetics, agent-based computer
simulations and phylogenetic analyses.
Some sustainability scientists similarly
apply such methods and concepts to
the emergence and spread of human
behaviours and institutions to gain an
understanding of how the successful
management of CPRs is achieved—or
eroded—in social-ecological systems (e.g.,
Ghorbani & Bravo, 2016; Ostrom, 2013;
Waring et al., 2015).
Whilst such a transfer of evolutionary
concepts and methods to the domain of
culture has not yet found its way into most
curricula and learning standards (Hanisch
& Eirdosh, 2020b), we propose that such
explorations can serve as valuable lessons
that can enhance both the understanding of
scientic evolutionary concepts (e.g., Pugh
et al., 2014) and the understanding and
evaluation of SSI. After all, the causes of
and solutions to SSIs often involve changes
in the frequencies of behaviours and other
cultural traits.
In this regard, exploring the scientic
method of computational modelling,
which abstracts real-world phenomena
into mathematical terms and is used by
biological as well as cultural evolutionary
scientists, can help students understand
the nature of evolutionary processes and
critically transfer evolutionary concepts
across domains.
2. PRACTICE
DESCRIPTION
Sadler et al. (2017) proposed starting a
unit on SSIs with an introduction to a
focal SSI, followed by engagement with
three-dimensional learning that integrates
cross-cutting concepts, disciplinary core
ideas, scientic practices and socioscientic
reasoning, end ending with synthesis of
ideas and practices via a culminating activity.
Sadler et al. (2019) also advanced a more
exible approach around six features of
SSIs and model-based learning (SIMBL): 1)
explore underlying scientic phenomena;
2) engage in scientic modelling; 3)
consider issue system dynamics; 4) employ
information and media literacy strategies; 5)
compare and contrast multiple perspectives;
6) elucidate one’s own position/solution with
exibility regarding the order and length of
any of these features.
As highlighted in Section 1.1, we can
encounter the challenges of CPR use and
other social dilemmas in many different
real-world contexts and sustainability
133
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

problems. Thus, the focal SSI of the
proposed unit (see Appendix) can include
one or several examples that students
might be familiar with or interested in.
Such SSIs could include a shared natural
or social resource in their local area, a new
policy in their school, community or country
that is costly for individuals but benets
the community, or global problems such
as climate change, ghting a pandemic or
plastic pollution. Furthermore, the evolution
of cooperation and sustainability around
CPR use has been explored by scientists
through a variety of methods, including
experiments, observations of real-world case
studies and computer simulations. Students
can engage in scientic modelling and
associated scientic practices by exploring a
range of these methods and data.
Thus, in line with Sadler et al. (2019),
we also propose that the selection and
sequencing of lessons presented in
this chapter can be approached exibly
depending on the teaching context,
including curriculum goals and students’
prior knowledge and interests. Although
we propose a sequence below, all lessons
can serve as starting points for introducing
2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
students to the core concepts and applying
them critically to a focal SSI whilst introducing
a range of scientic methods (Fig. 2).
In this unit, students will engage in
cross-cutting concepts (i.e., systems and
system models; cause and effect; stability
and change), disciplinary core ideas from
the NGSS Life Sciences (LS2: Ecosystems:
Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics; LS4:
Biological Evolution: Unity and Diversity)
and Earth and Systems Sciences (ESS3:
Earth and Human Activity), as well as
scientic practices (e.g., by using and
constructing models, analysing data
and designing solutions). Through the
exploration of cross-species comparisons,
real-world human and
non-human case studies, and
agent-based computer simulations,
students can develop scientically
adequate conceptual understandings of the
challenges and solutions to CPR dilemmas
across diverse contexts. Finally, students
can use their understanding of concepts
and methods to analyse a focal SSI and
devise proposals for its improvement by
practising socioscientic reasoning skills.
Figure 2
Overview of the unit with suggested
core lessons as well as opportunities for
additional lesson extensions to reinforce
transfer and deeper understanding.
134
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

Causal maps or causal diagrams:
These help students visualise the
interrelationships between factors
in social-ecological systems. The
construction of causal maps can
be scaffolded in a variety of ways,
such as by completing nodes or
relationships in partially completed
causal maps, constructing maps
from a list of given items and nally
to constructing causal maps from
scratch (Cox et al., 2018; Novak &
Cañas, 2006, 2004). Group work
and peer reviews of causal maps
are also recommended to deepen
reection and understanding (Novak
& Cañas, 2006; Schwendimann
& Linn, 2016). Fig. 3 provides an
example of a causal map of factors
that impact the development of a
(human) social-ecological system
(with some elements that are
transferable to other species).
Notably, in such causal maps of
(human) social-ecological systems,
the boundary between a scientic
model and a socioscientic
model with social, ethical and
political dimensions—as has
been conceptualised in the SSI
literature (Ke et al., 2021)—becomes
blurred or disappears due to the
interdisciplinary nature of this
eld of science.
Analogy maps: These help
students compare phenomena
using overarching concepts and
principles and transfer these
concepts and principles to analyse
novel contexts (e.g., Glynn, 2008).
Payoff matrix: This is a tool used by
evolutionary biologists, economists
and sustainability scientists to
understand the degree to which a
social situation presents a dilemma
between individual and group
outcomes—and thus the degree to
which selection on different levels
favours cooperation or competition
(Bowles & Gintis, 2011; Diekert, 2012).
It can also be used to understand
the motivations behind people’s
behaviour, thus fostering
perspective-taking skills
(Powers, 1986).
2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
The lessons also include the use of a set of
teaching tools informed by science, which
helps to analyse and visualise concepts
and relationships in social-ecological
systems and develop systems thinking and
socioscientic reasoning skills. These may
be introduced within the lessons or used in
various scaffolded ways, depending on the
available time, age of students and specic
learning goals:
An introduction for teachers to the concepts
and teaching tools of this chapter can also
be found in Hanisch and Eirdosh (2020a).
Figure 3
Example of a general causal map of a social-ecological
system.
135
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

2.1 Materials
Here, we present a detailed sequence of
selected lessons that can help students
understand and apply concepts across
contexts and introduce them to a variety of
scientic methods. Suggested extensions
(see Section 2.6) are also listed here.
Lesson 1:
Chimps or children - Who is more
cooperative?
Lesson 5:
Culminating activity: Analysing a focal
SSI and deriving solutions
Lesson 2:
Agent-based computer simulations of
social-ecological systems
Lesson 3:
How does life evolve solutions to CPR
dilemmas?
Lesson 4:
Analysing real-world case studies of
CPRs
Extension: Evolution of human
cooperation
Extension: Exploring and
implementing the design principles
for cooperation
Two foresters
Evolution and competition for forest
resources
Extension: Further models that
integrate further processes
Reading text Life in groups
Extension: Further biological case
studies
Three Mexican sheries
Extension: Further case studies of
CPRs
2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
2.2 Time
The proposed unit spans a minimum of
9 hours. We also encourage educators to
engage students in some of the proposed
extension lessons to deepen their
understanding.
Lesson 1:
20–45 minutes
Lesson 3:
45–120+ minutes
Lesson 5:
5: 3+ hours
Total:
~9+ hours
Lesson 2:
60–120+ minutes
Lesson 4:
90 minutes
2.3 Target audience
This unit is most suitable for participants
from the 9th to 12th grade (15- to
18-year-olds). Most of the lessons are suitable
without students’ prior understanding of
relevant concepts (including evolutionary
concepts). The lessons can be used to
introduce these concepts.
The unit contains lessons using agent-
based computer simulations. For these,
access to computers or tablets is necessary
and students should be familiar with the
basics of using such devices. The computer
simulations can also be discussed with the
entire class using just one computer and
a projector or an interactive smartboard.
The lessons using computer simulations
can also be omitted; however, in this case,
learning goals related to scientic practices
(Section 2.4.2) cannot be targeted in the
same manner.
Selected lessons can also be engaged by
younger students, particularly Lesson 1 and
the two foresters model, since the latter is
very simple (for older students, this model
might be introduced in a short interactive
136
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
presentation, followed by moving on to
more complex models). In Section 2.5
and the individual lesson documents, we
highlight specic suitability and adaptations
for different grade levels. Curriculum
designers and teachers across grade levels
are encouraged to think strategically about
how to weave in lessons iteratively over
grade levels.
2.4 Learning objectives
Students are able to:
Understand that scientic
investigations use a variety of
methods, tools and techniques
to revise and produce new
knowledge.
Understand that many decisions
are not made using science alone
but rely on social and cultural
contexts to resolve issues.
Learning objectives related
to the Nature of Science
2.4.4
Students are able to:
Use and criticise models.
Analyse and interpret data.
Construct explanations and
design solutions.
Learning objectives related
to scientic practices
2.4.3
Students are able to:
Describe and explain the
conditions and mechanisms that
hinder and foster (the evolution
of) cooperation around CPRs.
Analyse case examples of CPR
dilemmas in evolutionary biology
and human ecology for dynamics
that induce or prevent the ToC
and develop solutions.
Learning objectives related
to awareness of the SSI
2.4.1
Students are able to:
Describe the role of multiple
mechanisms in the evolution of
cooperation and sustainable use
of shared resources.
Evaluate evidence of the role of
group behaviour on individuals’
and species’ probability of
survival and reproduction.
Learning objectives related
to evolution
2.4.2
Students are able to:
Engage in socioscientic
reasoning (Sadler et al., 2007):
Learning objectives related
to transversal skills
(i) Recognise the inherent
complexity of SSI.
(ii) Examine issues from
multiple perspectives.
(iii) Appreciate that SSIs are
subject to ongoing inquiry.
(iv) Examine potentially biased
information with scepticism.
2.4.5
137
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

The lessons presented here have been
developed by building on instructional
strategies of teaching for conceptual
understanding and the transfer of learning
by Stern et al. (2017, 2021).
As such, they focus on a core set of
concepts and conceptual questions that
are revisited across contexts. Student
understanding is assessed by prompting
them to reect on their understanding of
the concepts and conceptual questions,
and/or to revise their causal models by
integrating evidence from the lessons.
2.5 Description of the
educational practice
2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
What problems can arise when a
group of individuals has to share a
common resource?
?
What conditions and behaviours
foster and hinder (the evolution
of) cooperation and sustainability
around shared resources?
?
Core conceptual questions are:
The following descriptions of lessons and
recommendations for implementation
draw on the authors’ experiences in
implementing lessons in secondary and
teacher education contexts.
Lesson 1: Chimps or children
- Who is better at sharing
resources?
2.5.1
This lesson introduces a comparative
series of experiments with chimpanzees
and human children (Koomen & Herrmann,
2018a, 2018b; Fig. 4) and asks students to
make predictions about the outcomes. The
experimental setup models the situation
of CPR use. The lesson elicits students’
conceptions about the social behaviour of
humans and our closest primate relatives.
Thus, the lesson is suitable for introducing
a number of basic concepts regarding
sustainability science, cooperation and
evolution in an engaging manner.
We recommend implementing this
lesson with students as early as the 7th
grade (12 to 13 years and above).
Figure 4
Experimental setup of the experiments with (A) children and
(B) chimpanzees. Images sources: Koomen and Herrmann
(2018a, 2018b).
Students are introduced to the experimental
setup with the help of a short presentation,
reading text or video. After this, they are
asked to predict which of the two species
(human children or chimpanzees) will
be more successful at cooperating and
sustaining a shared resource.
(A)
(B)
138
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Students can be given the opportunity
to ask clarifying questions about the
experiment before they think about their
prediction. Common questions concern
the age of the chimpanzees, whether
the chimpanzees or children knew each
other, whether the partners were of the
same sex and whether the children can
communicate. In our experience (Hanisch
& Eirdosh, 2021), many students and
teachers tend to predict that chimpanzees
would be more cooperative than children
in this experiment, tending to give reasons
such as, ‘Chimpanzees need to live in
harmony with nature’, ‘Chimpanzees live in
groups and depend on each other’ or ‘They
need to share resources in their group’,
while children ‘are greedy and selsh’
or ‘don’t understand the situation’. This
may highlight possible misconceptions of
students (and educators) about the causes
of human sustainability issues.
In fact, humans are a much more
cooperative species when compared to
chimpanzees and other primates. Moreover,
they can coordinate, communicate and
share resources much more easily and fairly
among their group than chimpanzees. Thus,
the modern challenges of sustainability in
our globalised world can be conceptualised
as challenges of (cultural) adaptation,
which involves devising and testing new
mechanisms and technologies to ensure the
sustainable use of shared resources.
Explanations for student predictions
also often contain a range of causes that
are explored by behavioural biologists,
including the evolutionary, developmental
and proximate causes and functions of traits
(Tinbergen, 1963). Thus, the lesson can serve
as an introduction to exploring the causes of
organisms’ (behavioural) traits.
After the minimal presentation of the
experiment and discussion of the results
(ca. 20–30 min), the lesson can be extended
to explore how the experiments model
real-world situations of shared resource use
(e.g., using analogy maps) and how certain
conditions could make it easier or more
difcult to cooperate in such situations.
For example, real-world cases included in
the lesson materials include the shrinking
of Aral Lake and Amazon rainforest
deforestation; however, any focal issue
involving (un)sustainable shared resource
use can be used for this transfer.
Students can begin to create a causal
map of the CPR situation by integrating
factors of the resource and the behaviour
of the resource users. In a unit on human
evolution, the lesson can serve as an entry
discussion about the evolutionary causes of
our human social behaviours, as well as our
similarities and differences to chimpanzees.
The lesson plan lists a range of possible
materials and ways to drive further
reection around this experiment.
At the end of this lesson, students could
reect on the question ‘What conditions
and behaviours allow humans to cooperate
and share resources sustainably?’ and
explain their answers by integrating
evidence and insights from the lesson or
providing a real-world example.
Lesson 2: Agent-based models
of social-ecological systems
2.5.2
Evolutionary and sustainability scientists
use agent-based models to understand the
complex interactions among organisms and
between organisms and their environments,
as well as how such interactions impact the
evolution of populations and ecosystems.
Agent-based computer simulations
can also be used in the classroom to help
students investigate and understand these
processes. NetLogo (Wilensky, 1999) is a
free software for agent-based models used
139
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
in science (e.g., Aktipis et al., 2011; Ghorbani
& Bravo, 2016; Waring et al., 2017) and
education (e.g., Dickes et al., 2016; Wilensky &
Reisman, 2006). We have developed a range
of models of social-ecological systems to
help students understand the mechanisms
that inuence the evolution of cooperation
around CPR use.
A simple agent-based model that
is conceptually similar to the previous
lesson and allows the transfer and further
abstraction of the dynamics of CPR use
is the ‘Two Foresters’ model. This is a
model of a simple social-ecological system
consisting of only two individuals and a
renewable resource (trees). Through this
model, students can observe how outcomes
such as the accumulated harvest for each
forester and the state of the forest are
inuenced by the parameters of harvest
level, resource regrowth rate and carrying
capacity (i.e., maximum tree height), and
whether the resource is a common-pool or
private resource.
Students can create a causal map of the
factors and relationships represented in the
model (or amend previously created causal
maps), critically evaluate the model by
comparing it to the real world with the help of
an analogy table, and make predictions about
how human traits and other factors might
change these outcomes in the real world.
The lesson material contains a discussion
guide to introduce the model and the
NetLogo platform to students. In younger
grades (5th to 8th grade; 11- to 14-year-
olds), students can use the model to run
and document experiments and reect on
results individually or in groups with the help
of worksheets. In older grades (9th to 12th
grade; 15- to 18-year-olds), the model might
rather be used to introduce basic concepts
and the use of the NetLogo platform, after
which students can move on to explore more
advanced models individually or in groups.
To follow up on the ‘Two Foresters’ model,
students can explore the model ‘Evolution
and competition for forest resources’ (Fig.
5). This model also simulates a population
of foresters who harvest trees. It introduces
further dynamics from the real world,
including evolutionary processes of random
variation, reproduction, inheritance,
selection and predator-prey relationships.
Due to the addition of evolutionary
dynamics, students observe that, given
the conditions and processes represented
in the model, competition for resources
leads to the depletion of the resource and
the extinction of the forester population
(i.e., the ToC) or boom-and-bust-cycles
of population decline and growth (i.e.,
‘component tragedies’ according to Rankin
et al., 2007, and predator-prey dynamics).
With the help of worksheets, students
run experiments, make predictions,
and describe and explain the observed
outcomes. A payoff matrix can be used
to document outcomes under different
parameter settings and develop an
understanding of social dilemmas.
Once again, students can create or
extend their causal maps of the modelled
social-ecological system, critically evaluate
the model by comparing it to the real world
with the help of an analogy table and think
of other factors that might help stabilise or
sustain the forester and tree populations in
this social-ecological system. The extended
resources presented in Section 2.6 propose
further models that integrate mechanisms
that can prevent the ToC.
140
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Figure 5
User interface of the ‘Evolution and competition for forest
resources’ model.
Lesson 3: Understanding the
evolution of cooperation around
shared resources
2.5.3
The previous lessons establish the basic
challenge of cooperation around shared
limited resources and pose the question
of how cooperation evolves across
life (including in humans).This lesson
introduces the evolution of cooperation
across examples of life with the help of a
reading text.
After some reections on the possible
challenges of group life, the text introduces
examples of multicellular organisms and
honeybees as contexts to explore some
of the mechanisms that have evolved to
enable cooperation.
The lesson can optionally be expanded
by a further reading text (contained in the
lesson material) that explores the evolution
of cooperation in human evolutionary
history by looking at the social organisation
of hunter-gatherer groups.
Further examples of the evolution of
cooperation in biology can also be explored
(see Section 2.6). Overall, this lesson
reinforces the notion that certain behaviours
and mechanisms must be in place to enable
long-term cooperation and sustainability.
These include the distribution of resources
to where they are needed, as well as
monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms to
prevent selsh or harmful individuals from
gaining tness benets (Table 1).
Lesson 4: Analysing case studies
of CPR use
2.5.4
This lesson applies the previous learnings
to an example of a real-world SSI and
integrates another set of scientic methods
for the study of social-ecological systems
—namely, the analysis of real-world case
studies to understand the conditions that
tend to favour cooperation and sustainable
resource use.
141
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
The lesson ‘Three Mexican sheries’ was
developed based on the research of Basurto
and Ostrom (2009), who investigated and
compared three shing villages in the Gulf
of California with the help of the framework
presented in Fig. 1.
In this lesson, students rst explore
ndings about the ecology of one
marine species and derive management
recommendations for the sustainable
harvesting of this species. Thereafter, they
explore the historic, social, economic and
political dimensions of each village via
reading texts and use an analogy table
integrating the factors of Fig. 1 to compare
the villages and identify the factors that
enabled or hindered villages in using their
resources sustainably.
To prepare for the culminating activity
and practice transfer, the lesson could end
with a critical transfer of the analysis tool
to a different real-world case. The lesson
materials include climate change as an
issue to be analysed.
Lesson 5: Applying insights
to a focal SSI
2.5.5
The unit ends with a culminating project
activity in which students use their
understandings of the complexity of
social-ecological systems and the analysis
framework to analyse a focal SSI of the unit.
For this activity, the class could be
divided into separate groups of experts.
The lesson material contains a worksheet
to guide students through the activity.
Materials on the SSI can either be provided
by the teacher or students can search
for information in the media (thereby
practising their media literacy skills as
part of socioscientic reasoning). Expert
groups then come together to integrate
their ndings into a causal map. Finally,
the class decides on recommendations
regarding the sustainability of the social-
ecological system. For example, this can
include recommendations for improving the
knowledge base through the further inquiry
of certain factors, recommendations for
certain policies and practices that target
the CDPs—or for the use or disuse
of certain technologies.
Finally, students develop a way to
communicate the results of their analysis
to stakeholders whilst considering
the motivations, goals, values, costs
and benets to stakeholder groups
and communicating in a manner that
empathises with them and speaks to their
goals and values.
2.6 Further perspectives
on how to use the activity
in other contexts or with
participants of other ages
As indicated in Fig. 1, the lesson sequence
presented here can be extended in
numerous ways.
Here, we highlight some of these
possible extension lessons, which can
also be found in the linked materials in the
Appendix.
Cooperation games
2.6.1
One experiential method that can be used
to introduce the challenge of cooperation
in the classroom is cooperation games.
An important aspect of using games in the
classroom is the reection phase.
We have developed a range of lesson
materials for games that model the
cooperation challenge around sustaining
shared resources together with reections
142
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Additional agent-based models2.6.2
Agent-based models can introduce more
and more processes and thus represent
more and more real-world aspects.
However, they will also become more
complex in the process.
One set of factors that can limit the
degree to which a situation of CPR use
is prone to the ToC include diminishing
returns of resource use and competitive
behaviour (Foster, 2004; Rankin et al., 2007).
For example, many organisms may not be
able to fully exploit available resources due
to limits on resource use efciency, such
that depletion does not occur. To transfer
this to the human domain, the problems
of sustainable resource use became more
prevalent throughout human history
with the advent of increasingly efcient
technologies for resource extraction.
This aspect is also apparent in the ‘Three
Mexican sheries’ lesson.
This factor is simulated in the model
‘Evolution of harvest rate’, where students
do not set the parameters for agents’
harvest rate but the harvest rate itself
on the concepts of the unit, including social
dilemmas, cooperation, conditions that foster
and hinder cooperation, and the functions of
evolved human social behaviours.
For example, the ‘Stone age hunting
game’ simulates one of the cooperation
challenges faced by our ancestors 2 mya
in the African savanna and can serve to
help students understand the early origins
of human social behaviour. Moreover,
the ‘Climate change game’ models the
cooperation challenges around global
climate change. Whilst games can be used
across different age groups, the rewards,
level of reection and introduced concepts
should be adapted to suit the context.
evolves in the model. Instead, the parameter
that the user sets is a factor for the fraction
of energy costs that agents have to pay for
harvesting. Students can create or extend
their causal maps of the modelled social
-ecological system, critically evaluate the
model by comparing it to the real world
with the help of an analogy table and think
of other factors that might help stabilise
(or sustain) the forester and resource
populations in this social-ecological system
in which foresters become increasingly
efcient at extracting resources.
The model ‘Evolution of social
behaviour’ introduces one set of
mechanisms that can help resolve the ToC
—the monitoring of others in the social
group and responding to them in such
a way that selsh behaviour is curtailed
(or has no more tness benets, or
lower tness benets when compared to
cooperative behaviour). This represents
several of Ostrom’s design principles for
successful cooperation (Table 1). Notably,
such mechanisms can be found in many
species and symbiotic relationships (as
described in Section 1.2 and the lesson on
‘Life in groups’).
Finally, the model ‘Evolution of resource
use through behaviour imitation’ simulates
some cultural evolutionary dynamics of
resource use behaviour by modelling a
range of imitation biases that have been
observed in humans (Mesoudi, 2016). This
allows students to reect on the similarities
and differences between biological and
cultural evolutionary dynamics and the role
that imitation biases might play as causes
and solutions to SSIs.
If computer programming and
computational thinking are learning goals,
then students can also modify and create
their own models (Sengupta et al., 2013).
143
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Analysing further case studies
of cooperation in biology
2.6.3
To further transfer conditions and
mechanisms that foster cooperation around
shared resources (Table 1), students can
more deeply explore examples of species
that have evolved such mechanisms.
The extended resources contain a lesson
on decision making in honeybee swarms
based on Seeley (2010), with a critical
transfer of principles to decision making in
human groups.
Understanding design
principles for cooperation and
nding solutions to real-world
cooperation problems
2.6.5
The lessons above introduce a variety of
conditions and behaviours that foster or
hinder cooperation across species and in
humans. They implicitly relate to Ostrom’s
design principles for cooperation (Table 1).
These design principles can be explored
in greater detail and used to analyse and
improve cooperation dynamics that are
relevant to students’ lives, such as in a
student project team, their classroom or
their school community. The teaching
material ‘exploring the design principles for
cooperation’ can be used for this extension.
Evolution of human cooperation
and social behaviour
2.6.4
Understanding the role of human social
behaviours in modern sustainability
issues can be enhanced by exploring their
evolution (e.g., within a unit on human
evolution). A diversity of teaching materials
for this can be found at:
http://human-evolution.globalesd.org.
144
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources
http://human-evolution.globalesd.org.

Aktipis, C. A. (2016). Principles of cooperation across
systems: From human sharing to multicellularity and
cancer. Evolutionary Applications, 9(1), 17–36. https://
doi.org/10.1111/eva.12303
Aktipis, C. A., Cronk, L., Alcock, J., Ayers, J. D., Baciu,
C., Balliet, D., Boddy, A. M., Curry, O. S., Krems, J.
A., Muñoz, A., Sullivan, D., Sznycer, D., Wilkinson, G.
S., & Winfrey, P. (2018). Understanding cooperation
through tness interdependence. Nature Human
Behaviour, 2(7), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41562-018-0378-4
Aktipis, C. A., Cronk, L., & de Aguiar, R. (2011). Risk-pooling
and herd survival: An agent-based model of a Maasai
gift-giving system. Human Ecology, 39(2), 131–140.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9364-9
Basurto, X., & Ostrom, E. (2009). Beyond the tragedy
of the commons. Economia Delle Fonti Di Energia
e Dell’ambiente, 35–60. https://doi.org/10.3280/
EFE2009-001004
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2011). A cooperative species.
Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton
University Press.
Cox, M., Steegen, A., & Elen, J. (2018). Using causal
diagrams to foster systems thinking in geography
education. International Journal of Designs for
Learning, 9(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.
v9i1.22756
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in
relation to sex. John Murray.
Dickes, A. C., Sengupta, P., Farris, A. V., & Basu, S. (2016).
Development of mechanistic reasoning and multilevel
explanations of ecology in third grade using agent-
based models. Science Education, 100(4), 734–776.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21217
Dickinson, J. L., Crain, R. L., Reeve, H. K., & Schuldt, J.
P. (2013). Can evolutionary design of social networks
make it easier to be “green”? Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 28(9), 561–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2013.05.011
Diekert, F. K. (2012). The tragedy of the commons from
a game-theoretic perspective. Sustainability, 4(8),
1776–1786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4081776
Foster, K. R. (2004). Diminishing returns in social evolution:
The not-so-tragic commons. Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, 17(5), 1058–1072. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1420-9101.2004.00747.x
Ghorbani, A., & Bravo, G. (2016). Managing the commons: A
simple model of the emergence of institutions through
collective action. International Journal of the Commons,
10(1), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.606
3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Glynn, S. M. (2008). Making science concepts meaningful
to students: Teaching with analogies. In S. Mikelskis-
Seifert, U. Ringelband, & M. Brückmann (Eds.), Four
decades of research in science education: From
curriculum development to quality improvement (pp.
113–125). Waxmann.
Hanisch, S., & Eirdosh, D. (2020a). A teacher’s guide to
evolution, behavior, and sustainability science, (2nd
edition). http://guide.globalesd.org
JJJJJJ
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
Hanisch, S., & Eirdosh, D. (2020b). Educational potential
of teaching evolution as an interdisciplinary science.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 13(1), 25. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00138-4
Hanisch, S., & Eirdosh, D. (2021). Are humans a
cooperative species? Challenges & opportunities for
teaching the evolution of human prosociality. The
American Biology Teacher, 83(6), 356–361. https://doi.
org/10.1525/abt.2021.83.6.356
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science,
162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.162.3859.1243
Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2021).
Developing and using multiple models to promote
scientic literacy in the context of socioscientic
issues. Science and Education, 30(3), 589–607. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00206-1
Kerr, B., Neuhauser, C., Bohannan, B. J. M., & Dean, A. M.
(2006). Local migration promotes competitive restraint
in a host–pathogen “tragedy of the commons”.
Nature, 442(7098), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature04864
Koomen, R., & Herrmann, E. (2018a). An investigation of
children’s strategies for overcoming the tragedy of
the commons. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 348–355.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0327-2
Koomen, R., & Herrmann, E. (2018b). Chimpanzees
overcome the tragedy of the commons with
dominance. Scientic Reports, 8(10389). https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-018-28416-8
MacLean, R. C., & Gudelj, I. (2006). Resource competition
and social conict in experimental populations
of yeast. Nature, 441(7092), 498–501. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nature04624
Meinzen-Dick, R., Janssen, M. A., Kandikuppa, S.,
Chaturvedi, R., Rao, K., & Theis, S. (2018). Playing
games to save water: Collective action games for
groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India.
World Development, 107(July), 40–53. https:
145
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources
https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12303
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0378-4
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0378-4
https://doi.org/10.3280/EFE2009-001004
https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v9i1.22756
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21217
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.011
https://doi.org/10.3390/su4081776
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00747.x
https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.606
https://openevo.eva.mpg.de/teachingbase/a-teachers-
guide-to-evolution-behavior-and-sustainability-science/
ttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00138-4
https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2021.83.6.356
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00206-1
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04864
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0327-2
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28416-8
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04624
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.006

3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian
theory can explain human culture and synthesize the
social sciences. University of Chicago Press.
Mesoudi, A. (2016). Cultural evolution: Integrating
psychology, evolution and culture. Current Opinion
in Psychology, 7(February), 17–22. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.001
Messner, D., Guarín, A., & Haun, D. B. M. (2013). The
behavioural dimensions of international cooperation.
Global Cooperation Research Papers, 1. Käte Hamburger
Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research.
https://www.gcr21.org/de/publikationen/gcr/research-
papers/the-behavioural-dimensions-of-international-
cooperation/
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science
Standards: For States, by States. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The origins of the
concept mapping tool and the continuing evolution
of the tool. Information Visualization, 5(3), 175–184.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500126
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2004). Building on new
constructivist ideas & CmapTools to create a new
model for education. In A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak, & F. M.
González (Eds.), Concept maps: Theory, methodology,
technology. Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Concept Mapping. Vol. 1 (pp. 469–476).
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution
of institutions for collective action. Cambridge
University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond
panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America,
104 (39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.0702288104
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing
sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science,
325(5939), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1172133
Ostrom, E. (2013). Do institutions for collective action
evolve? Journal of Bioeconomics, 16(1), 3–30. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9154-8
Powers, R. B. (1986). The commons game: Teaching
students about social dilemmas. Journal of
Environmental Education, 17(2), 4–10. https://doi.org
/10.1080/00958964.1986.9941402
Pugh, K. J., Koskey, K. L. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014).
High school biology students’ transfer of the concept
of natural selection: A mixed-methods approach.
Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 23–33. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.801873
Rankin, D. J., Bargum, K., & Kokko, H. (2007). The tragedy
of the commons in evolutionary biology. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, 22(12), 643–651. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.009
Rankin, D. J., Dieckmann, U., & Kokko, H. (2011). Sexual
conict and the tragedy of the commons. The American
Naturalist, 177(6), 780–791.aaaaaaaaaa https://doi.
org/10.1086/659947
Ratnieks, F. L. W., & Wenseleers, T. (2005). Policing insect
societies. Science, 307(5706), 54–56. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1106934
Sachs, J. L., Mueller, U. G., Wilcox, T. P., & Bull, J. J. (2004).
The evolution of cooperation. The Quarterly Review
of Biology, 79(2), 135–160. https://doi.org/0033-
5770/2004/7902-0001$15.00
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do
students gain by engaging in socioscientic inquiry?
Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017).
Evolution of a model for socioscientic issue teaching
and learning. International Journal of Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 75–87.
https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.55999
Sadler, T. D., Friedrichsen, P., & Zangori, L. (2019). A
framework for teaching for socioscientic issues and
model based learning (SIMBL). Revista Educação e
Fronteiras On-Line, 9(25), 8–26.
Schwendimann, B. A., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Comparing two
forms of concept map critique activities to facilitate
knowledge integration processes in evolution education.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(1), 70–94.
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattps://doi.or
Seeley, T. D. (2010). Honeybee democracy. Princeton
University Press.
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., &
Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking
with K-12 science education using agent-based
computation: A theoretical framework. Education and
Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
Stern, J., Ferraro, K., Duncan, K., & Aleo, T. (2021). Learning
that transfers: Designing curriculum for a changing
world. Corwin.
Stern, J., Ferraro, K., & Mohnkern, J. (2017). Tools for teaching
conceptual understanding, secondary. Designing
lessons and assessments for deep learning. Corwin.
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology.
Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410–433. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.x
146
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.001
https://www.gcr21.org/de/publikationen/gcr/research-
papers/the-behavioural-dimensions-of-international-
cooperation/
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500126
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9154-8
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1986.9941402
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.801873
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.009
https://doi.org/10.1086/659947
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106934
https://doi.org/0033-5770/2004/7902-0001$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.55999
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21244
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.x

3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Waring, T. M., Goff, S. H., & Smaldino, P. E. (2017). The
coevolution of economic institutions and sustainable
consumption via cultural group selection. Ecological
Economics, 131(January), 524–532. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.022
Waring, T. M., Kline, M. A., Brooks, J. S., Goff, S. H.,
Gowdy, J., Janssen, M. A., Smaldino, P. E., & Jacquet,
J. (2015). A multilevel evolutionary framework for
sustainability analysis. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 34.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07634-200234
Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Center for Connected
Learning and Computer-Based Modeling,
Northwestern University. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/
netlogo
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a
wolf, a sheep, or a rey: Learning biology through
constructing and testing computational theories -
An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and
Instruction, 24(2), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s1532690xci2402
Wilson, D. S., Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. E. (2013). Generalizing
the core design principles for the efcacy of groups.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,
90(Suppl.), S21–S32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jebo.2012.12.010
Zea-Cabrera, E., Iwasa, Y., Levin, S., & Rodríguez-Iturbe, I.
(2006). Tragedy of the commons in plant water use.
Water Resources Research, 42(Suppl.), 1–12. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004514
4. APPENDIX
All lesson materials can be accessed freely
under the following link:
https://openevo.eva.mpg.de/teachingbase/
evolution-sustainability-and-cooperation/
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Alejandro Sanchez-Amaro for his
helpful comments on the manuscript.
147
CHAPTER 8 Evolving cooperation
and sustainability for
common pool resources
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.022
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07634-200234
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.010
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004514
https://openevo.eva.mpg.de/teachingbase/evolution-
cooperation-and-sustainability/

Chapter 9
Considering evolution
as a socioscientic
issue: an activity
for higher education
148

Considering evolution as a socioscientic issue: an
activity for higher education
Ümran Betül Cebesoy11Usak University, Faculty of Education
Department of Mathematics and
Science Education
Abstract: This activity aims to enhance participants’ understanding of
natural selection—which is a major mechanism in evolution
—within the antibiotic resistance context. The activity starts
by eliciting questions to explore participants’ existing ideas
about evolution and natural selection. Then, a scenario for
discovering participants’ ideas about antibiotic resistance is
presented along with a series of questions, which is followed by
a classroom discussion. The instructor explains the role of natural
selection in antibiotic resistance and the three mechanisms of
natural selection. In the last session, the teacher challenges
participants’ initial ideas with a whole-class discussion. At the
end of the activity, participants are expected to understand
that natural selection is one of the mechanisms of natural
selection. Besides understanding natural selection concepts
and the connections between these concepts, participants are
expected to develop their decision-making skills whilst realising
and respecting different perspectives. They should also learn
how to develop arguments, justications for their arguments,
and counter-arguments (i.e., opposing arguments including
different perspectives) for their justications. This activity has
been developed for senior students (aged 15–17 years old)
and university students. Whilst the activity can be used for
determining participants’ existing knowledge and misconceptions
about natural selection, natural selection concepts and evolution,
it can also be used for assessment purposes—for example,
determining students’ argument construction quality and
consideration of different perspectives (i.e., counter-arguments)
—as explained at the end of the activity.
antibiotic resistance, argumentation, higher education, natural
selection
KEYWORDS
149
CHAPTER 9
umran.cebesoy@usak.edu.tr

1. INTRODUCTION TO
THE SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM
Socioscientic issues (SSIs) have been
an interdisciplinary subject including
non-scientic aspects (Fensham, 2012). SSI
can be best described as social issues that
are directly linked to science. However, these
issues are poorly structured and controversial
in nature. They include ethical and moral
dilemmas, with scientic reasoning alone
being insufcient for dealing with these
issues due to their complex and ambiguous
nature (Sadler, 2011).
Moreover, they require multiple
perspectives—including ethical, moral,
political and economic viewpoints—when
making decisions (Fowler & Zeidler, 2016;
Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler & Sadler,
2008, 2011).
Making informed decisions related to
SSIs requires the negotiation of students’
own decisions (Fowler & Zeidler, 2016).
Whilst negotiating and resolving complex
SSIs, students often employ informal
reasoning by considering the causes of
different propositions and the effects of
different choices, which eventually results
in making informed decisions (Zohar &
Nemet, 2002). Examples of SSIs present
a wide range of issues, including climate
change, genetic engineering issues, abortion
and evolution (Cebesoy & Chang Rundgren,
2021; Fowler & Zeidler, 2016; Sadler &
Zeidler, 2004, 2005).
SSIs represent a strong pedagogical
tool that can be used to enhance students’
argumentation skills (Garrecht et al., 2021;
Guilfoyle & Erduran, 2021), decision-making
skills (Cebesoy & Chang Rundgren, 2021;
Eggert & Bögeholz, 2009; Fowler & Zeidler,
2010), reective judgement skills (Karışan et
al., 2018; Zeidler et al., 2009) as well as their
informal reasoning (Sadler, 2005) and moral
reasoning (Lee et al., 2012), understanding of
the nature of science (Abd-El-Khalick, 2003)
and the quality of their argumentation skills
(Kolstø, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002).
1.1 Socioscientific issues
and evolution
SSIs are considered an important venue
for improving students’ scientic literacy
through school curriculums (Chen & Xiao,
2021; Fowler & Zeidler, 2016; Zeidler et
al., 2019; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008). In terms
of biology related content knowledge, a
scientically literate individual must have a
fundamental comprehension of biological
principles and processes to make sense of
situations in daily life. In this respect, the
theory of evolution can be considered one
of the most important topics in biology
(Fowler & Zeidler, 2010, 2016; Sadler, 2005).
According to Hermann (2013), the theory of
evolution provides ‘the best explanation for
the diversity and interrelatedness of species
on Earth’ (p. 598).
The term ‘evolution’ has long been
used in astronomy, geology, anthropology,
biology and other scientic disciplines
to describe many types of cumulative
changes over time. However, biological
evolution—which refers to the changes in
living organisms over the long history of
life on Earth—is the subject of this chapter
(National Academy of Sciences, 1998).
1.2 Considering evolution
as a socioscientific issue
Evolution can be described as ‘the
biological change in populations of
organisms over time and is explained by
the scientic theory of natural selection’
(Fowler & Zeidler, 2010, p. 2). The topic
150
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM
of evolution includes the concepts of
adaptation, reproduction, genetic variation,
DNA and protein sequences, common
ancestry, fossils and plant and/or animal
diversity (Fowler & Zeidler, 2016, p.4).
Among these concepts, the present
educational activity focuses on the concept
of natural selection.
The biological change in populations
over time is explained by natural
selection and it is one of the fundamental
mechanisms of evolutionary change
(Fowler & Sadler, 2016; Gregory, 2009).
It can be difcult to comprehend why
living things have such diversity without
a solid understanding of natural selection
(Gregory, 2009). As a consequence, the
main focus of this activity is to enhance
students’ understanding of natural selection
and how natural selection facilitates
diversity in living organisms.
Fowler and Zeidler (2010) argued that
evolution itself is not an SSI because it lacks
basic characteristics such as being poorly
structured or a controversial issue. Since
evolution is universally accepted by the
scientic community, it is not solely an SSI.
However, these authors insisted that it is
an SSI negotiation where SSI and evolution
overlap. In support of this claim, studies
have reported that undergraduate students’
understanding of evolution has had a
signicant effect on their decisions when
dealing with SSIs (Sadler, 2005; Sadler &
Zeidler, 2004; 2005).
Therefore, Fowler and Zeidler (2010)
insisted on the need for additional research
on the connection between knowledge
of and acceptance of evolution. They also
noted that biology-based SSIs would be
benecial for SSI teaching. In contrast,
Hermann (2008) considered evolution an
SSI because it meets the four criteria for
a controversial issue: (1) there are at least
two opposing groups (i.e., evolutionists vs.
creationists); (2) there needs to be a heated
debate between supporters of opposing
groups; (3) the answer of the heated
debate is not evident for supporters of
each side; (4) there is accepted uncertainty
and disagreement about evolution for
supporters of each side.
Supporting Fowler and Zeidler’s (2010)
claims, existing studies have revealed
that evolution is one of the major factors
exposed during SSI negotiations (Basel
et al., 2013; Brehm et al., 2003; Fowler &
Zeidler, 2016; Sadler, 2005). By exploring
college students’ informal reasoning in
genetic engineering issues, Sadler (2005)
revealed that students’ decisions were
inuenced by evolutionary concepts such
as genetic diversity and reproduction,
which were stressed as building blocks of
evolution. Still, some students adopted
teleological (i.e., having a purpose or
directive principle) and deterministic views
of evolution in their decisions. In another
study, Fowler and Zeidler (2016) explored
how evolution acceptance inuenced
undergraduate biology and non-biology
majors’ decisions related to biology-based
SSIs. They revealed that evolution acceptance
is a mitigating factor in how science content
knowledge is linked to evolution, which was
elicited during SSI negotiation.
The students generally used
evolutionary concepts such as population
diversity, the inheritance of traits,
differential success and change over
time in their negotiations. As evident in
the aforementioned studies, evolution
and the concepts of evolution can be
revealed as a consequence or inuencing
factor during SSI negotiations. Evolution
could also be used as an SSI topic if it is
carefully designed and includes Hermann’s
(2008) four criteria. Here, argumentation
is proposed as a tool for dealing with
evolution as an SSI. In the following
151
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM / 2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
subsection, brief descriptions of the
components of argumentation and how
argumentation could be used as a context
are presented.
1.3 Argumentation as a tool
for dealing with evolution
as an SSI
Over the past few decades, argumentation
has emerged as a signicant eld of
research in science education (Lin et al.,
2014). It can be dened as the process of
a group of people proposing, supporting
and analysing evidence—in addition to
its connection with different theories—to
convince the scientic community (Kuhn,
1993). Whilst the claim/argument refers
to ‘conjecture, conclusion, explanation,
descriptive statement, or an answer to a
research question’, the evidence refers to
‘the reasons used by scientists including
measurements, observations or even
ndings from other studies’ (Sampson &
Gerbino, 2010, p. 428).
Evidence can be formed in multiple
formats: (a) accepted theories; (b) laws; (c)
models in science; (d) the ndings of other
research. Individuals use this evidence
to support their claims. Notably, this is
commonly used as data. There should be
a third component ‘rationale’ in scientic
argumentation referring to why the
evidence should be considered evidence
and how it supports a claim (Sampson
& Gerbino, 2010). The backing provides
additional support for an argument.
Lastly, a qualier identies the limits of
an argument to be true by using words
such as ‘always’, ‘sometimes’ or ‘usually’,
among others (von Aufschnaiter et al.,
2008). Since argumentation is frequently
used in the SSI literature (Garrecht et al.,
2021; Kolstø, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002),
it can be used as a useful tool for revealing
students’ reasoning and decision-making
skills in SSIs. Moreover, argumentation is
also used in the context of evolution (Basel
et al., 2013; Guilfoyle & Erduran, 2021).
For instance, Basel et al. (2013) explored
students’ argumentation skills in the
context of evolution.
They revealed that students tended to
generate single claims with single evidence
including either data or warrants, thus
showing a low level of complexity. The
number of students using multiple types
of evidence, qualiers/backing or rebuttals
(counter-arguments) was quite low. In
another study by Guilfoyle and Erduran
(2021), argumentation was used when
discussing the evolution versus creationism
debate. Thus, argumentation can serve as
a useful tool for dealing with evolution in
science courses.
2. PRACTICE
DESCRIPTION
This activity has been planned and
implemented in formal contexts (i.e.,
classrooms, etc.).
2.1 Materials
For this activity, three major reading
materials are used by participants. The links
for these are:
1.
2.
3.
152
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education
https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-
dunya-54109247
https://sagligim.gov.tr/akilci-antibiyotik-
kullanimi/940-antibiyotik-direnci-nedir.html
https://bilimgenc.tubitak.gov.tr/makale/
bakteriler-antibiyotiklere-karsi

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
2.3 Target audience
This activity can be performed with
university students (aged 18–22 years
old). It can also be performed with senior
students (aged 15–17 years old) without
changing the structure of the original
activity. Whilst the activity is appropriate
for the older group audience, it can also
be adapted for high school students (aged
12–14 years).
For high school students, teachers/
educators can choose one of the reading
materials. Notably, Reading Material 3
can be used for this purpose since it is
informative and includes more graphics
and less text.
2.4 Learning
objectives
To develop their understanding of
SSI;
To develop their decision-making
skills;
To realise the existence of different
perspectives;
To make informed decisions related
to natural selection.
At the end of this activity, the participants
are expected to achieve the following.
Learning objectives related
to awareness of the SSI
2.4.1
To realise natural selection as one of
the mechanisms of evolution;
To identify variation, heritability/
inheritance and reproductive
advantage/differential reproduction
as the three main concepts of
natural selection;
To discuss the role of variation,
heritability/inheritance and
reproductive advantage/differential
reproduction in understanding
natural selection;
To recognise the role of mutations
as signicant sources of genetic
variation.
Learning objectives related
to evolution
2.4.2
To construct explanations;
To engage in argumentation and
seek evidence;
To obtain, evaluate and
communicate information
To realise that science is based on
empirical evidence.
To analyse issues from multiple
perspectives.
Learning objectives related
to scientic practices
2.4.3
Learning objectives related
to scientic practices
2.4.4
Learning objectives related
to transversal skills
2.4.4
2.2 Time
The estimated time for completing
this activity is 6 class hours (i.e., 6 x 50
minutes = 5 hours). If possible, after 2
class hours (i.e., 100 minutes), a break
could be provided or the activity could
be implemented on different days (i.e., 2
class hours x 3 days) to improve students’
comprehension.
The activity could also be implemented
on consecutive days.
153
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
2.5 Description of the
educational practice
The primary aim of this activity is to have
participants engage in the topic of natural
selection within the context of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
(2 x 50 minutes)
Session 1
The instructor provides a written form
consisting of the questions provided below.
Students are asked to answer the questions
individually before the activity begins (30
minutes for this pre-activity). Students
are asked to write their answers. These
questions will be discussed at the end of
the activity as a whole-class discussion
to determine whether they changed their
initial perspectives.
Do you personally accept the theory
of evolution?
A2)
Choose one of the statements below
by ticking (e.g., )
A3)
( ) I think the theory of evolution is
valid.
( ) I think the theory of evolution is
invalid.
( ) I think the theory of evolution is
partially valid.
Why do you think the theory of
evolution is a valid/invalid/partially
valid theory? Can you provide
reasons for your position?
A4)
If someone holds an opposing
position to yours on this issue, what
arguments might he/she have?
A5)
If you want to convince your
friend about your position, what
arguments would you propose?
A6)
What do you know about the theory
of evolution?
A1)
The activity begins with a scenario about
Mrs Jones (a ctitious character), who
was using chemotherapy drugs and
had a comprised immune system. Then,
six questions to explore participants’
knowledge and prior experience with
antibiotic resistance were asked on an
activity sheet, which is shown below:
Scenario
Mrs Jones (a ctitious character) has a
comprised immune system due to the
chemotherapy drugs she used once in a
while. Since her cancer treatment, she
often gets sick due to infections. Her
doctor prescribes her some antibiotics as a
treatment.
How do antibiotics affect bacteria?
B2)
What happens if Mrs Jones wants to
use the same antibiotics for her u
as well?
B3)
Should the doctor prescribe
antibiotics for her u? Why or why not
B4)
What happens if Mrs Jones is really
feeling bad and insists on taking
antibiotics for her u?
B5)
What do you know about antibiotic
resistance?
B6)
Do you know why the doctor might be
prescribing antibiotics to Mrs Jones?
B1)
Students are then asked to write down their
answers on the activity sheet individually
(30 minutes). Then, the instructor organises
a whole-class discussion about participants’
individual answers to reveal their existing
knowledge about antibiotics and antibiotic
resistance (40 minutes). If possible, the
instructor can use digital tools like Mentimeter
154
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
(https://www.mentimeter.co ), slido
(https://www.slido.com/p ) or padlet
(https://padlet.com/fe ). These digital tools
are appropriate for engaging all students when
participating in a whole-class discussion.
After Session 1, a break should be provided.
If possible, the next session could be held
on another day. In the interim, the instructor
should check the answers. This information
can be used to determine participants’
existing ideas about antibiotic resistance,
natural selection and evolution.
(2 x 50 minutes)Session 2
The instructor divides the students into
groups of four to ve and the activity
continues with group work. The instructor
hands out three reading texts (see the
Appendix) along with new questions and
provides an appropriate amount of time for
reading (ideally, the three reading texts are
given in order). After reading the texts, the
participants are asked to work in groups to
answer the questions provided below. The
groups are rst asked to discuss and then
write down their collective answers on the
activity sheet (20 minutes for reading and
30 minutes for answering):
How do antibiotics work against
bacteria?
C1)
How do the bacteria become
resistant to antibiotics?
C2)
What do you think about the
relationship between natural selection
and antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
C3)
How does natural selection explain
bacteria becoming resistant to
antibiotics?
C4)
Next, the instructor explains the
mechanisms of bacteria becoming resistant
to antibiotics and the denitions of natural
selection concepts (Table 1).
There are three essential components of
natural selection: (a) The trait must vary in
the population; (b) it must be heritable; (c)
individuals with a particular type of variation
must have a reproductive advantage over
those who do not (30 minutes).
Table 1
Natural selection concepts.
Concept Description
Variation A trait variation becomes more or
less common in a population over
time as a result of natural selection.
Notably, the variations should act
randomly and must be passed from
parent to offspring.
Heritability/
inheritance
Some traits are consistently passed
on from parent to offspring. Such
traits are heritable, whereas other
traits are strongly inuenced by
environmental conditions and show
weak heritability.
Reproductive
advantage/
differential
reproduction
This is an evolutionary mechanism
that works by altering the
heritable traits of a population. For
instance, if an individual has an
advantageous trait, then it is more
likely to reproduce. Therefore, this
trait becomes more common in a
population over time.
Along with these three essential
mechanisms, the instructor should also
explain the role of mutations in natural
selection because variation can arise as a
result of mutations (University of Michigan,
nd). Mutations are structural alterations to
DNA molecules and represent signicant
sources of genetic variation. The mutations
can be neutral, harmful or helpful. The
155
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education
https://www.mentimeter.com/plans
https://www.slido.com/product
https://padlet.com/features

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
(2 x 50 minutes)Session 3
In the nal part of the activity, the instructor
explains how natural selection plays a
crucial role in the theory of evolution
and asks the following questions, which
students should write their answers to
individually (20 minutes):
What is the role of natural selection
in evolution?
D1)
Did you change your initial answers
about evolution in Questions A2 and
A3? Please explain why or why not.
D2)
If your classmate disagrees with
you, what might be possible
reasons for her/his position?
D3)
How would you convince your
classmate about your position?
Please explain.
D4)
instructor must note that mutations
occur randomly without considering
the advantages or disadvantages of the
mutations (i.e., mutations do not arise
because they are needed) (National
Geographic, nd).
(2 x 50 minutes)Whole-class discussion
The questions (D1–D4) were designed to
navigate a whole-class discussion from an
argumentative perspective. The participants
are expected to make explicit connections
between the theory of evolution and natural
selection and how natural selection plays a
crucial role in evolution.
By using the questions (D1–D4), the
instructor challenges the initial answers
participants provided in Session 1. They
can revise their answers in light of the new
information provided (i.e., the reading texts
and the instructor’s teaching material).
A whole-class discussion at the end of
the activity will facilitate participants’
understanding of different perspectives
about evolution.
Proposing counter-arguments (rebuttals)
and providing justications (evidence)
for opposing ideas in evolution will also
facilitate participants’ understanding of the
SSI. Even if the theory of evolution itself is
not scientically debatable, acceptance of
evolution among participants provides an
excellent opportunity to discuss different
perspectives regarding the theory of
evolution since it is related to cultural and
social background.
The instructor can complete the
activity by explaining how the acceptance
of evolution can be regarded as an SSI
requiring multiple perspectives whilst
dealing with and making decisions about
it. If possible, the instructor can use digital
tools such as Mentimeter
(https://www.mentimeter.co ), slido
(https://www.slido.com/p) or padlet
(https://padlet.com/fe ). These digital tools
are appropriate for engaging all students when
participating in a whole-class discussion.
The instructor could use participants’
written responses for assessment purposes.
The written responses could be analysed
to determine existing misconceptions
about evolution and natural selection.
Additionally, the quality of participants’
written argumentation can be analysed
using Zohar and Nemet’s (2002) evaluation
criteria. For instance:
Why do you think the theory of
evolution is a valid/invalid/partially
valid theory? Provide reasons for
your position.
A1)
156
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education
https://www.mentimeter.com/plans
https://www.slido.com/product
https://padlet.com/features

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Did you change your initial answers
about evolution in Questions A2 and
A3? Please explain why or why not.
D2)
If someone holds an opposing
position to yours on this issue, what
arguments might he/she have?
A5)
If your classmate disagrees with
you, what might be possible
reasons for her/his position?
D3)
This question is asked to identify
participants’ positions (arguments) and
for them to support their arguments with
justications (reasons). It can be scored as
0 points for no justication, 1 point for one
justication and 2 points for two or more
justications.
This question is asked to make participants
think about revising their arguments with
justications, backings and—if possible—
qualiers (this time, we expect them to
use knowledge about natural selection and
antibiotic resistance in their justications).
The same criteria presented above are used
for the analysis.
These questions are asked to reveal
whether participants could propose
opposing argument(s) and support these
with justications.
Opposing arguments should be
analysed using the same criteria used
to analyse the original argument. Whilst
question A5 was designed to determine
participants’ ability to produce counter-
arguments before the activity, D3 is asked
to determine their ability to do so after the
activity. The instructor can also compare
participants’ pre- and post-activity answers.
If you want to convince your
friend about your position, what
arguments would you propose?
A6)
How would you convince your
friend about your position? Please
explain.
D4)
These questions are asked to determine
whether participants could refute an
opposing argument and support it with
evidence before (Question A6) and after the
activity (Question D4). The same analysis
pattern is used.
If possible, and if the resources are
available, the activity can be expanded by
including a laboratory investigation of the
development of antibiotic resistance in a
bacterial population over time (see Williams
et al., 2018). Through this, participants
can set up an experimental procedure
for observing antibiotic resistance. First,
they can set up control and antibiotic
(experimental) plates under the supervision
of the instructor. Then, they take samples
from a bacterial culture and place them on
the control and antibiotic plates. They can
then add an appropriate antibiotic to the
antibiotic plate. After a while, they observe
an increase in the bacterial colonies on the
antibiotic plate due to mutations. Lastly,
they can have a whole-class discussion
about their observations at the end of the
activity. Details on this type of activity can
be found in Williams et al.’s (2018) study.
This step can be useful for developing
NOS aspects of how scientic knowledge
accumulates based on evidence and
observations.
TIP 1
157
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
It can be useful to provide the activity to
the participants with the questions in a
written format. Collecting participants’
written responses will be useful in terms of
analysing participants’ written arguments
and possible misconceptions.
TIP 2
This activity was planned and implemented
in formal education contexts.
For this reason, there is an informative
part (natural selection concepts; see Table
1) that will enhance the argumentation
portion. In informal contexts, the
informative part could be summarised.
2.6 Further perspectives
on how to use this activity
in other contexts or with
participants of other ages
158
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education

3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientic issues in pre-
college science classrooms. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The
role of moral reasoning on socioscientic issues and
discourse in science education (pp. 41–61). Springer.
Basel, N., Harms, U., & Prechtl, H. (2013). Analysis of
students’ arguments on evolutionary theory. Journal
of Biological Education, 47(4), 192–199. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/00219266.2013.799078
Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived
consequences of evolution: College students perceive
negative personal and social impact in evolutionary
theory. Science Education, 87(2), 181–206. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.10105
Cebesoy, U. B., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2021).
Embracing socioscientic issues-based teaching and
decision-making in teacher professional development.
Educational Review, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/001
31911.2021.1931037
Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and
coping strategies of science teachers in teaching
socioscientic issues: A systematic review.
Educational Research Review, 32, 100377. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2009). Students’ use of decision-
making strategies with regard to socioscientic
issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit
model. Science Education, 94(2), 230–258. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sce.20358
Fensham, P. J. (2012). Preparing citizens for a complex
world: The grand challenge of teaching socio-scientic
issues in science education. In A. Zeyer & R. Kyburz-
Graber (Eds.), Science | Environment | Health. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3949-1_2
Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010, March). College
students’ use of science content during socioscientic
issues negotiation: Evolution as a prevailing concept
[Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching
(NARST), Philadelphia, USA.
Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of evolution
acceptance inhibits students’ negotiation of biology-
based socioscientic issues. Journal of Biological
Education, 50(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00
219266.2016.1150869
Garrecht, C., Reiss, M. J., & Harms, U. (2021). ‘I wouldn’t
want to be the animal in use nor the patient in need’–
The role of issue familiarity in students’ socioscientic
argumentation. International Journal of Science
Education, 43(12), 2065–2086. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09500693.2021.1950944
Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection:
Essential concepts and common misconceptions.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(2), 156–175.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1
Guilfoyle, L., & Erduran, S. (2021). Recalibrating the
evolution versus creationism debate for student
learning: Towards students’ evaluation of evidence
in an argumentation task. International Journal of
Science Education, 43(18), 2974–2995. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/09500693.2021.2004330
Hermann, R. S. (2008). Evolution as a controversial issue:
A review of instructional approaches. Science &
Education, 17, 1011–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11191-007-9074-x
Hermann, R. S. (2013). High school biology teachers’
views on teaching evolution: Implications for science
teacher educators. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 24(4), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10972-012-9328-6
Karışan, D., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Zeidler, D. L. (2018). Pre-
service teachers’ reective judgment skills in the context
of socio-scientic issues based inquiry laboratory course.
Turkish Journal of Education, 7(2), 99–116. https://doi.
org/10.19128/turje.7299116
Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’
argumentation confronted with a risk-focused
socio-scientic issue. International Journal of
Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09500690600560878
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for
teaching and learning scientic thinking. Science
Education, 77(3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sce.3730770306
Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S.W., & Zeidler, D.L.
(2012). Developing character and values for global
citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’
moral reasoning on socioscientic issues. International
Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925–953. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
Lin, T.-C., Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Research trends in
science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic
content analysis of publications in selected journals.
International Journal of Science Education, 36(8),
1346–1372. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.8
64428
National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching about
evolution and the nature of science. The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/5787
National Geographic (n.d). Natural selection. https://
education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-
selection
159
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.799078
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10105
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1931037
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20358
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3949-1_2
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1150869
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1950944
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.2004330
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9074-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9328-6
https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.7299116
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.864428
https://doi.org/10.17226/5787
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/
natural-selection

3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sadler, T .D. (2005). Evolutionary theory as a guide to
socioscientic decision-making. Journal of Biological
Education, 39(2), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0021
9266.2005.9655964
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientic issues in
classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science
education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientic issues
in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp.
1–9). Springer.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Patterns of informal
reasoning in the context of socioscientic decision-
making. Journal of Research in Science Education,
42(1), 112–138.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The signicance of
content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding
socioscientic issues: Applying genetics knowledge
to genetic engineering issues. Science Education,
89(1), 71–93.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
Sampson, V., & Gerbino, F. (2010). Two instructional
models that teachers can use to promote & support
scientic argumentation in the biology classroom. The
American Biology Teacher, 72(7), 427–431. https://doi.
org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.7.7
University of Michigan (n.d.). Evolution and natural selection.
https://globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/
current/lectures/selection/selection.html
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon,
S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue:
Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates
to their scientic knowledge. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tea.20213
Williams, M. A., Friedrichsen, P. J., Sadler, T. D., &
Brown, P. J. (2018). Modeling the emergence of
antibiotic resistance in bacterial populations. The
American Biology Teacher, 80(3), 214–220. https://doi.
org/10.1525/abt.2018.80.3.214
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019).
New directions in socioscientic issues research.
Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education
Research, 1(11), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-
019-0008-7
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler. T. D. (2008). The role of moral
reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character,
and care. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre
(Eds.), Argumentation in science education:
Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.
201–216). Springer.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). An inclusive view of
scientic literacy: Core issues and future directions of
socioscientic reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D.
A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon
(Eds.), Promoting scientic literacy: Science education
research in transaction (pp. 176–192). Routledge.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan,
B. E. (2009). Advancing reective judgment through
socioscientic issues. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 46(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.20281
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’
knowledge and argumentation skills through
dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tea.10008
160
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655964
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.7.7
https://globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/
current/lectures/selection/selection.html
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2018.80.3.214
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

4. APPENDIX
The three reading materials used in this
activity are presented as follows:
Reading Material 1
Superbug: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria
may be riskier than the coronavirus*
After 3 years of work in Fiji,
Researcher Paul De Barro concluded
that antibiotic-resistant bacteria—
also referred to as ‘superbugs’
—are ‘the greatest threat to human
health, without exception’.
According to The Guardian,
Australian scientist Dr Paul De Barro
argued that antibiotic-resistant
bacteria could be a very serious
health threat that could return
modern medicine to ‘the Middle
Ages’. Dr De Barro said, ‘If you
think COVID is bad, then you do not
ever want to encounter antibiotic-
resistant bacteria’. He added, ‘I don’t
think I’m exaggerating when I say
this is the biggest health threat
without any hesitation. COVID can’t
even come close to the effects of
antimicrobial resistance’.
Although drug-resistant bacteria
threaten public health around the
world, the effects are more apparent
in the Pacic, where the risk has
become even more apparent. This
situation could push the region’s
fragile healthcare systems to a
breaking point.
*The original article is in Turkish and
was translated into English by the
author.
Link:
Reading Material 2
What is antibiotic resistance? *
Antibiotics are medicines that are
used to kill bacteria. Some bacteria
can naturally resist these antibiotics.
Over time, some bacteria may adapt
to certain antibiotics. Antibiotic
resistance is an example of this
adaptation process: Resistance
to a particular antibiotic means
that the antibiotic cannot kill
or prevent the reproductionof
resistant bacteria at the therapeutic
dose. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria
gain an advantage over non-
resistant bacteria in the presence
of antibiotics. As a result, most of
the bacteria in the environment
become resistant to those
antibiotics after a certain period.
Additionally, bacteria can transfer
the genetic material that causes
resistance to different bacteria,
which signicantly contributes to
the spread of antibiotic resistance
among bacteria. Diseases caused
by resistant bacteria pose a
serious health threat—especially
in intensive care settings and in
patients with compromised immune
systems. The diseases caused by
resistant bacteria are resistant to
treatment and cause prolonged
hospitalisation, the development of
related complications and an increase
in mortality and disease rates. If
antibiotic resistance is not prevented,
the danger that awaits us in the future
is much greater than this. Soon,
antibiotics may become completely
ineffective in the treatment of
infectious diseases, resulting in
even simple wound infections
potentially resulting in death.
161
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education
https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-
dunya-54109247

4. APPENDIX
Antibiotic resistance as a global problem:
Antibiotics are clinically important drugs used in the treatment
and prophylaxis of infectious diseases caused by microorganisms.
The discovery of antibiotics has been an important turning point in
terms of human health, with mortality and morbidity rates due to
infectious diseases having decreased dramatically since the clinical
use of these drugs. However, with the discovery of antibiotics,
it was almost simultaneously predicted that microorganisms
may acquire resistance to these drugs. Thus, if the necessary
precautions are not taken, existing antibiotics will lose their
effectiveness in the treatment of infectious diseases, resulting
in humanity potentially encountering the pre-antibiotic era once
again. The importance of global initiatives to prevent antibiotic
resistance is not new. In 1998, the General Assembly of the World
Health Organization (WHO) concluded that member countries
should take action against antibiotic resistance. In 2001, the WHO
Global Strategy for Limiting Antibiotic Resistance was published.
The 2005 decision of the General Assembly of the WHO drew
attention to the slow progress on limiting antibiotic resistance and
called on providers and consumers to use antibiotics rationally. To
draw attention to the importance of the threat to public health, the
WHO determined the theme of World Health Day 2011 as antibiotic
resistance and called on the whole world to think about this issue
and take action and responsibility to stop the development of
resistance. Antibiotic resistance is a very serious health problem
that concerns the entire world both today and in the future.
Currently, antibiotic resistance mechanisms are accepted as a
part of the evolutionary processes of bacteria. Accordingly, it is
foreseen that antibiotic resistance will always exist as it always
has and that there is not and will not be an antibiotic that is not
resistant to its effect. Moreover, it is accepted that the plan to
combat antibiotic resistance should be based on this assumption.
Additionally, it is thought that clinically important resistance
mechanisms and resistant bacterial species may change over time.
For these reasons, the production of new antibiotics at regular
intervals suggests that these antibiotics should be specic to
certain resistance mechanisms and that their use should be limited
to these conditions.
*The original article is in Turkish and was translated into English by
the author.
Link:
162
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education
https://sagligim.gov.tr/akilci-antibiyotik-kullanimi/940-antibiyotik-direnci-nedir.html

4. APPENDIX
Reading Material 3
Bacteria vs. antibiotics*
Natural (intrinsic) resistance
If you have visited a doctor recently,
you may have encountered
a warning on the walls of the
hospital: ‘Do not insist on your
doctor prescribing antibiotics’.
Why is this warning made?
Why do we use antibiotics? Are
antibiotics dangerous? Let’s look
at the answers to these questions
together. Although there are many
bacteria in our bodies, not all of
these are harmful. For example,
benecial bacteria living in the gut
help our metabolism function. On
the other hand, harmful bacteria
can cause various infections in the
body. Antibiotics are used to ght
infections caused by these bacteria.
Antibiotics ght infections by killing
bacteria or preventing them from
growing and reproducing.
On the other hand, antibiotics
do not affect viruses. Since the
sources of diseases such as colds,
u, pharyngitis (throat infection)
and bronchitis are mostly viruses,
antibiotics are useless against these
infections. Bacteria gain resistance
In some cases, antibiotics cannot
effectively destroy bacteria. This
condition is called ‘antibiotic
resistance’. It occurs when bacteria
develop the ability to survive
against antibiotics. This process can
occur in a variety of ways.
Sometimes bacteria continue to live and
grow despite antibiotic treatment. For
example, whilst many bacteria have a cell
wall made up of amino acids and sugars
that surround them (Figure 1, A), some
bacteria do not have a cell wall (Figure 1,
B). Penicillin, the world’s rst antibiotic
(discovered in 1927) prevents cell wall
formation in bacteria. Therefore, penicillin
or an antibiotic with a similar effect
mechanism cannot harm bacteria that
already have no cell wall (Figure 1, B). As a
result, while Bacteria A will be affected by
penicillin, Bacteria B will continue to grow
in the presence of the antibiotic. In Figure 1,
Bacteria B is naturally resistant to penicillin.
Figure 1
Figure showing Bacteria A (with a cell wall) and Bacteria B
(with no cell wall) and how penicillin affects both bacteria
(retrieved and adapted from
163
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education
https://microbeonline.com/lists-bacterial-pathogens-
intrinsic-antibiotic-resistance/)

4. APPENDIX
Acquired resistance
Why is antibiotic resistance important?
Bacteria can also become resistant to
antibiotics over time. This occurs when a
type of bacteria changes the way it protects
itself from antibiotics. Bacteria can acquire
resistance in two ways: by undergoing
a new genetic change (spontaneous
mutation) that helps the bacteria survive, or
by acquiring a resistance gene from another
antibiotic-resistant bacteria (horizontal gene
transfer). Whilst spontaneous mutations
can result in antibiotic resistance by altering
the target of the antibiotic, its expression
level, or the regulation of resistant genes,
the horizontal gene transfer mechanism
is another way to acquire resistant genes.
Horizontal gene transfer enables bacteria
to share their genetic material—including
antibiotic resistance genes. Whether
acquired by horizontal gene transfer or
mutation, resistant bacteria can continue
to grow in the presence of antibiotics,
whilst sensitive bacteria are eventually
halted. Thus, resistant bacteria can swiftly
outnumber more sensitive bacteria and
spread throughout a population.
Antibiotic resistance is one of the most
important threats to human health because
diseases that cause dangerous infections
but can be easily treated with antibiotics
become incurable over time due to
antibiotic resistance. Diseases caused by
antibiotic-resistant bacteria are very difcult
to treat since it is much more difcult to
destroy resistant bacteria. As a result,
new antibiotics need to be developed for
antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Therefore,
antibiotic resistance both jeopardises the
lives of patients and makes the treatment
of diseases more costly. Antibiotics are
not only used for treatment but also for
preventing diseases. For example, patients
undergoing chemotherapy treatment
have weakened immune systems and
an increased risk of infection. Therefore,
doctors may recommend the use of
antibiotics to prevent illnesses in these
patients. Also, after open surgeries (e.g.,
heart surgery or organ transplantation),
patients can be given antibiotics to prevent
infections from the environment. Thus,
infections caused by bacteria can be
prevented or their effects can be reduced.
This helps to reduce deaths from infection.
*The original article is in Turkish and was
translated into English by the author.
Link: https://bilimgenc.tubitak.gov.tr/makale/bakteriler-
antibiyotiklere-karsi
Additional sources used in reading material 3:
Figure 1 was adapted from:
https://microbeonline.com/lists-bacterial-pathogens-
intrinsic-antibiotic-resistance/
Le Roux, F., & Blokesch, M. (2018). Eco-
evolutionary dynamics linked to horizontal
gene transfer in Vibrios. Annual Review of
Microbiology, 72, 89–110.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-micro-090817-062148
Baym, M., Stone, L. K., & Kishony, R. (2016).
Multidrug evolutionary strategies to reverse
antibiotic resistance. Science, 351(6268),
aad3292.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad3292
164
CHAPTER 9 Considering evolution as a
socioscientic issue: an activity
for higher education
https://bilimgenc.tubitak.gov.tr/makale/bakteriler-
antibiyotiklere-karsi
https://microbeonline.com/lists-bacterial-pathogens-
intrinsic-antibiotic-resistance/
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-micro-090817-062148
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad3292

Chapter 10
Why are pollinators
declining?
165

Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and stakeholder assets
Rebecca Lewis1,
Ellen Bell1 & Eleanor Kent1
1 University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Abstract: Insects form the largest group of animals on the planet, with 1
million described species and an estimated 5 million or more that
remain unidentied (Stork, 2017). They provide a wide range of
ecosystem services, including pollination. Due to anthropogenic
activities causing habitat loss and fragmentation, pesticide
impacts and climate change, pollinators are in decline, which can
result in reduced agricultural yield and impacts on ecosystem
function. This activity aims to illustrate that the decisions made by
farmers can inuence the rate and severity of pollinator decline
whilst also highlighting the difculties that farmers face in running
farms in the most optimal, eco-friendly manner and still making
a living in the present socio-economic context. In this activity,
students will play the role of a farmer trying to balance money
and pollinator health whilst riding the storm of unexpected events
that can affect their success. This activity is aimed at young
teenage students aged 11–14.
farming, diversity, insect, climate change, agriculture
KEYWORDS
166
CHAPTER 10

1. INTRODUCTION TO
THE SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM
Insects are found worldwide and have
adapted to live in many environments,
from hot arid deserts to tropical forests and
mountain alpine meadows.
The insects that live in these different
habitats have several morphological and
behavioural adaptations that allow them to
successfully survive and reproduce within
their environment.
1.1 Plants and pollinators
Plant-pollinator relationships are an
essential part of the ecosystem. Without
plants, pollinators would have less food
and decline in number, which would have
a knock-on effect on other animal species.
Also, many plants would not be able to
sexually reproduce without pollinators.
Wildowers and other native taxa are
declining in abundance due to habitat loss,
which places even greater importance on
the animals that play a role in their life
cycles (Cane, 2008).
Many different types of pollinators exist,
including birds, bats, moths, butteries,
beetles and bees (Halder et al., 2019). The
process of animal pollination occurs when
a pollinator visits a ower to search for food
(i.e., nectar or pollen). When the animal
approaches the ower, it brushes against
the male parts (anthers), which produce
thousands of pollen grains. The pollen
grains get stuck to the animal’s body so that
when the next ower is visited, the pollen
comes into contact with the female part (the
stigma), resulting in fertilisation. Notably,
not all owering plants are pollinated by
animals; for example, some rely on wind
to carry pollen from one ower to another
(Culley et al., 2002).
Since an estimated 87.5% of owering plant
species depend on animals to transfer
pollen from one ower to another, they have
evolved various strategies for attracting
pollinators (Ollerton et al., 2011). The shape,
colour and odour of owers act as signals
to attract different groups of pollinators. For
example, bat- and moth-pollinated owers
are usually white and heavily fragrant
because these animals are most active at
night and would not be able to identify
brightly coloured petals, thus relying on
scent signals instead (Halder et al., 2019).
Once fertilised, owers complete their
reproductive cycle and produce seeds, which
may grow into mature plants under the
correct conditions. Humans have cultivated
plants for many thousands of years to
harvest their fruit or seeds. Foods such as
chocolate, coffee, nuts, tomatoes and berries
all originate from plants that have been
pollinated by insects. In fact, approximately
one-third of the food we eat originates from
an insect-pollinated plant, which highlights
the high economic value of insect pollinators
worldwide (Klein et al., 2007).
Fruit set is the proportion of a plant’s
ower that develops into fruit or seeds,
which is inuenced by pollination. Farms
with high pollinator diversity have been
shown to produce larger yields and higher
quality fruit when compared to those with a
low diversity of insect pollinators. In a study
of 41 animal-pollinated crops, wild insect
visitation enhanced fruit sets in all crops
(Garibaldi et al., 2013), which highlights the
importance of wild pollinator conservation.
167
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

1.2 Specialism and
generalism
As Darwin noted in 1876, bees tend to ‘visit
the owers of the same species as long as
they can before going to another species’
(Darwin, 1876). This tendency to temporarily
specialise is benecial to plants that
require conspecic pollen for fertilisation
to occur; however, this is also benecial
for bees since oral delity can improve
foraging efciency (Chittka et al., 1999).
Despite this, specialism comes at a cost to
species since high levels of specialism in
an ecosystem can lead to fragility in times
of environmental change. A plant that can
only be pollinated by a single pollinator
species ties its fate to that of its pollinator.
Therefore, there is a crucial balance
between levels of specialism to preserve
robustness in ecosystems (Brosi, 2016).
An example of a specialist pollinator
is Peponapis pruinosa, the squash bee,
which can pollinate squash more quickly
and efciently than introduced honey bees
(Tepedino, 1981). However, agricultural
activities such as using pesticides and
tillage can damage squash bee populations.
Thus, it is important to conserve specialist
pollinator species since they are often more
effective pollinators (Larsson, 2005).
Furthermore, there is evidence
suggesting that levels of specialisation
can change since climate change, habitat
fragmentation and range shifting leads to
decreased tness among more specialised
species. In Colorado, bee tongue length
appears to be rapidly evolving from long
tongues specialised for collecting nectar
from deep owers to shorter tongues
adapted for effective nectar collection from
a broader range of owers (Miller-Struttman
et al., 2015).
This leaves the deep, tubular owers at
risk of extinction if there are no pollinators
specialised to pollinate them.
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM
1.3 Causes of pollinator
decline
Domesticated bumble bee and honey bee
species are commonly used to subsidise
the pollination services performed by wild
pollinators. Bumble bees and honey bees
are ideal to manage on farms because
they are social, live in hives consisting of
thousands of individuals, and are low cost and
convenient to use. However, these species
are not as effective at pollinating certain crop
owers when compared to other species
of wild pollinators. In a study of 41 crops,
researchers discovered that honey bees (Apis
mellifera L.) produced a lower fruit set and
were less consistent for fruit production than
wild bees (Garibaldi et al., 2013).
There are several ways in which
domesticated bees may negatively affect
wild pollinator populations, including
competition for resources such as nectar,
pollen or nesting habitats. In the presence
of imported honey bees, wild bees
may be forced to forage on plants with
lower nutritional quality or spend more
time—and therefore energy—foraging
on owers that are a greater distance
from their nest (Mallinger et al., 2017).
Managed bees are often stocked at high
densities, which makes them more likely
to harbour pathogens than solitary wild
bees. The transmission of pathogens from
managed bees can occur via contaminated
pollen, faeces or contact with shared oral
resources (Graystock et al., 2016).
The extent to which disease spread
affects wild pollinator health would
depend on the density of managed
pollinators and the type of pathogen.
As human populations have grown,
increased pressure has been placed on the
land, thereby causing a decline in insect
abundance. Land use change is a key
driver of pollinator decline that has been
documented for many groups, including
bees, butteries and hoveries (IPBES,
2016; Powney et al., 2019).
168
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM
The increased urbanisation of land has
led to the removal and fragmentation of
natural habitats to make room for housing,
infrastructure, farms and other man-made
structures. Furthermore, farming has
changed dramatically over the last century.
Historically, farmland was a mosaic of
habitats including ower-rich meadows,
hedgerows and owering weeds. More
recently, farms have expanded into large
areas of monoculture that use pesticides
and fertilisers. Also, many have removed
semi-natural habitats, thus creating
environments that are inhospitable for wild
insect communities.
As climate change brings extreme
weather and a warming planet, there
is evidence of the impact of increased
temperatures on insect populations. The
ranges of some insects have begun to shift,
with some North American and European
species moving away from the southern
edges of their ranges and occupying
the higher elevations of mountainous
regions (Pyke et al., 2016). There is also
some evidence of phenological mismatch,
whereby the owering times of plants and
the emergence of insects have become
uncoupled (Kudo & Cooper, 2019).
For example, there is evidence
suggesting that some plants are coming
into ower earlier than when bees emerge
from winter hibernation, which results in
fewer resources for early queen bees (Kudo
& Cooper, 2019; Kudo & Ida, 2013). The long-
term impacts of rising temperatures on
insects are not yet fully understood because
they are difcult to uncouple from other
factors such as habitat loss and agricultural
intensication.
In Puerto Rico, the forests have
increased in temperature by 2°C over the
last 50 years, which has coincided with a
dramatic decline in insect biomass (Lister
& Garcia, 2018). There has been little
disturbance to the forests in this region
during this time, which suggests that
climate change has been a major driver in
the recorded insect declines.
1.4 Pollinator-friendly
farming
With 75% of crops requiring insect
pollination to some degree, the ecosystem
services that pollinators provide are
estimated to be worth $235 to $577 billion
per year worldwide (IPBES, 2016). Insects
contribute to the agricultural production
that feeds millions of people around
the world; therefore, a decline in their
population affects food production for local
consumption and global trade.
Notably, certain strategies and policies
have been proposed to combat insect
decline. First, land can be managed in
such a way as to aid the conservation of
pollinators. For example, sowing eld
margins around crops, providing nesting
resources, diversifying the farming
system and providing nancial incentives
to farmers for practices that support
pollinators are all actions that could
increase and maintain pollinator abundance
and diversity in agriculture (IPBES, 2016).
Europe, Australia and the USA use
agri-environment schemes (AESs) to
offer farmers short-term payments for
implementing certain management
practices, such as the creation and
restoration of semi-natural habitats,
reductions in chemical use on their land
and establishing ower margins. Financial
schemes are costly to implement in less
economically developed countries, where
community-led conservation could be an
alternative measure (Khadse & Rosset, 2019).
Pesticide reduction has also been a focal
point of pollinator conservation. Increased
169
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM / 2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
awareness of responsible pesticide use, as
well as raising global standards, regulations
and risk assessments related to pesticides,
are important factors in changing how
chemicals are used on farms. Research on
pesticides (e.g., neonicotinoids) found they
cause a wide range of problems for bee
health (Blacquiè et al., 2012).
In the presence of neonicotinoids, bee
learning, memory, foraging behaviour
and pollination ability were negatively
impacted. Furthermore, the neonicotinoid
residues on wildowers in eld margins
have been found to contain a high enough
concentration of chemicals to affect the
pollinators foraging on the nectar and
pollen of these owers (Botías et al.,
2015), which suggests that the exposure of
pollinators to chemicals is widespread and
goes beyond farm boundaries.
In the European Union, this family of
chemicals was banned from being sprayed
on farms in 2018, which was an important
step towards recognising the importance
of pollinator health in agricultural systems
(Butler, 2018).
However, although there is substantial
evidence of the negative effects that these
chemicals have on the environment,
many governing bodies have refused to
ban them, which further highlights the
challenges of pollinator-friendly farming
(Sonne & Altrup, 2019).
2. PRACTICE
DESCRIPTION
2.1 Materials
Pollinator-friendly farming
(PowerPoint presentation).
A six-sided die.
Tokens to represent currency
(enough for each participant/group
to have up to 35 x $1 tokens).
Tokens to represent pollinator
points (enough for each participant/
group to have up to 30 tokens).
2.2 Time
Introduction to the issue and
explanation of the game (30 minutes).
Gameplay (30 minutes).
Post-game discussions (30 minutes).
2.3 Target audience
This activity can be adjusted to work with
nearly any age group. However, at present,
the recommended age group is 11+.
Younger participants may play with
suitably sized tokens (to avoid choking
hazards) but may not fully comprehend
some of the nuances of the exercise.
170
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Recognise the benets and
limitations of using conceptual
models to communicate and
examine complex principles.
Learning objectives related
to scientic practices
2.4.3
To develop an understanding of
how science can inform policy,
which can then impact stakeholder
land management and lead to
valuable changes that benet
ecosystems whilst creating a more
sustainable way of living.
Learning objectives related
to the nature of science
2.4.4
To recognise that humans directly
impact biodiversity and that this
may impact future evolutionary
potential.
To recognise the roles of specialists
and generalists in ecosystems.
Learning objectives related
to evolution
2.4.2
To appreciate the complex interplay
between different perspectives,
such as those of governing bodies,
stakeholders and champions of
ecosystem services.
To develop problem-solving skills as
part of a team.
Learning objectives related
to transversal skills
2.4.5
2.4 Learning objectives
To understand the issue of
pollinator decline and that pollinator
diversity is as important as absolute
pollinator abundance.
To appreciate the importance and
difculty of balancing a healthy,
pollinator-rich ecosystem with
acceptable prot margins for
stakeholders (i.e., farmers).
To appreciate that improvements
to ecosystem services (e.g.,
pollinators) often come at the cost
of yield (i.e., prots) to stakeholders
(i.e., farmers).
To appreciate the impact of larger-
scale environmental or societal
changes such as drought or
government incentives on both
ecosystem services (in this case
pollinators) and crop yields (and
thus stakeholder prots).
Learning objectives related
to awareness of the SSI
2.4.1
2.5 Description of the
educational practice
We recommend that session leaders
begin with a brief overview of the
importance of pollinators as an essential
ecosystem service and not just as a
means of maintaining a healthy, diverse
environment or improving crop yield
(Hoehn et al., 2008). We also suggest some
discussion surrounding the importance of
pollinator diversity since it is a common
misconception that the pollinator crisis can
be averted by increasing the abundance of
domestic honey bees.
The session leader may then wish to
introduce some aspects of conventional
farming and the impacts it has on pollinator
abundance and diversity. These discussions
will then be further illustrated and
reinforced by the main activity, which
takes the form of a strategy-based
171
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Game setup and main aims(i)
The pollinator game aims to illustrate
the interplay between stakeholders
(represented here by farmers), ecosystem
services (pollination) and governance. In
the game scenario, the local government
has declared that the country is undergoing
a pollinator crisis and that they will ne any
farm $20 if it has a pollinator health score of
less than 3 pollinator points.
Each player has a farm with a starting
value of $10. Thus, the government
ne represents a signicant penalty
that could remove the player from the
game. Additionally, each farm comes
with a starting pollinator health score
of 5 pollinator points. Players should all
be allocated appropriate currency and
pollinator point tokens. The game aims to
increase the prots of your farm whilst also
increasing its pollinator health score, with
the pollinator health score feeding directly
into the overall value of the farm at the end
of the game.
engine-building game. Since this game is
a simple model of a very complex issue, it
has important limitations. After playing the
game, we encourage educators to examine
this model with the students.
Students could be guided to identify
simplications in this game and discuss
what these may be like in real life. Another
suggestion is to explore what complexity
could be added to this model and how it
would affect the way the game is played.
We also encourage the discussion of
models as tools more generally.
Can students suggest the reasons why
scientists might use models? Similarly to
the use of a model here, students could be
involved in discussions on how models can
be used to understand complex issues or
make predictions/estimates.
Gameplay
(ii)
A complete game takes place over seven
rounds (representing 7 years of farming).
Each round is composed of two decision-
making steps and an event (either randomly
chosen or selected by the session leader).
172
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Table 1
The cost, prots and impacts on pollinator health scores
when growing one to three crops on a farm. The return
is subject to a dice roll in order to represent the annual
variability in farmers’ yields.
Number of crops Cost Return Number of pollinator points
1 – Oilseed rape $3 $4 or $6 -2
2 – Tomato and
oilseed rape
$4 $4 or $6 No change
3 – Strawberries, tomato
and oilseed rape
$5 $4 or $6 +1
Step 1:
Players choose how many crops they wish to grow
on their land. This choice inuences the farms’ prots
and pollinator points (Table 1). Session leaders should
note that the farmers’ returns from this step are
irrespective of the number of crops planted but are
rather dependent on uctuations in the local economy
as dened by a dice roll. Dice rolls of 1 or 2 indicate a
struggling economy or a year with poor yield, in which
the return on all crops would be $4, whilst dice rolls of
3 to 6 equate to a healthy, booming economy and high
yields for which the return of all crops would be $6.
This adds an unpredictable element to the game, which
reects some of the difculties faced by farmers when
undergoing this decision-making process. Since the cost
of planting more than one crop increases incrementally,
the prots will be smaller and come with a higher risk
of losses during a year in which one chooses to grow
more than one crop.
Whilst the potential prots are higher and nancial
risks smaller in the years in which a single crop is
grown, the pollinator health of the farm will suffer.
Moreover, single-crop farms will lose 2 pollinator points,
a reection of the negative impact that monocultures
have on the health of ecosystem services. Meanwhile,
farms that choose to plant three crops will gain
pollinator points, thereby indicating improved pollinator
health on their farm—but at a nancial cost. Once
players have chosen how many crops they wish to
plant, they should take note of their decisions and make
appropriate payments from their currency and pollinator
point tokens. The session leader should then roll the die
to dene the economic climate for the year. A roll of 1 or
2 gives a smaller return, whilst a roll of 3, 4, 5 or 6 gives
a larger return.
Rather than trying to work with net loss/prot
(which is most often peoples’ instinct), we have
found that it is most effective for players to pay
in the required currency and pollinator points
at the start of a ‘round’ after Step 1 and then
receive their returns at the end. This also more
closely mirrors the actual experiences of farmers,
who pay out for seed and chemicals and do not
see a return until the harvest.
TIP 1
173
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Table 2
Optional additional measures with their respective impacts
on prots and pollinator health scores.
Effect on return Pollinator points
Dedicate some land to pollinators -$1 +2
Introduce eld margins -$1 +1
Chemical-free farming -$2 +3
Using pesticides +$1 -2
Additional measures
Step 3 (events):
From round 3 onwards, session leaders will
introduce an event (Table 3) after Step 2. These
events represent the impacts of local environmental
changes (e.g., ooding, pests or disease), changes in
government policy (e.g., the introduction of nancial
incentives), economic changes (e.g., impacts of
supply and demand and public perception) and
changes introduced by local competitors (e.g.,
neighbouring farms). Players should take note of the
impacts of these events in terms of their costs or
benets to their farms, which will often depend on
the decisions they made in Steps 1 or 2 of the round.
Session leaders can select events to occur randomly or
strategically, depending on how the players have been
responding to the game. For example, if players have
been repeatedly monopolising on growing a single
crop (e.g., oilseed rape) then it may be instructional to
introduce the “Oilseed rape has grown extremely well
this year” event.
Tip 2
Step 2:
Although Step 1 involves the basic planting decisions
being made, in Step 2, players decide whether or
not they wish to bring in any further measures to
improve either their pollinator health score or prots
(Table 2). These additional measures are based on
real practices employed by the farming industry and
are weighted accordingly. Session leaders should
note that the costs or benets of these additional
measures affect the return that each farm receives
and do not require a pay-in at the beginning of the
round. Players may choose to implement multiple
additional measures if they wish, with one exception:
players cannot choose to introduce chemical-free
farming whilst also choosing to use pesticides since
these two measures are contradictory. Also, players
cannot obtain a negative return, so any additional
measures resulting in a return <$0 will result in
no return. Once they have decided on additional
measures, players should take note of the choices
they made and the respective potential costs and
benets of those decisions. Whilst groups familiarise
themselves with the format of the game during the
rst two rounds, we recommend that these rounds
are limited to performing Steps 1 and 2.
174
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Table 3
A selection of events and their weighted impacts that may be introduced by the session leader after Step 2 of the game.
Event Event impact
Your farm has ooded.
A disease has emerged that kills oilseed rape.
The government awards a subsidy to farms with
land dedicated to pollinators.
Tomato plants have been attacked by beetles.
Breaking news: Pollinator decline is headline
news! The public is choosing to buy pollinator
-friendly produce.
A celebrity has (incorrectly) tweeted that strawberries
are unhealthy. Nobody wants to buy them anymore.
Oilseed rape has grown extremely well this year.
Supply has outweighed demand and it is less valuable
than usual.
The winter was very cold, causing a decline in the
number of bumble bees. Bumble bees are needed to
buzz-pollinate tomato plants.
A neighbouring farmer has brought in honey bees
to improve pollination. They are out-competing local
pollinators.
The government offers grants for eco-farming.
There has been a heatwave.
Everyone only salvages a maximum return of $2, minus any
deductions from additional measures introduced in Step 2.
If you planted one crop, you gain a $0 return. If you planted
two crops, your return is $2. If you planted three crops, your
return is $4.
If you chose to dedicate some land to pollinators this year,
you gain an extra $2.
If you used pesticides this year, your crops are safe and your
return is $7. If you planted only one crop (e.g., oilseed rape),
your return is $7. If you planted two crops, your return is $3. If
you planted three crops, your return is $4.
If you have 4 or fewer pollinator points, you lose $2 from your
return. If you have nine or more pollinator points, you gain
an extra $2 in return. If you have 5–8 pollinator points, your
return remains the same.
If you planted one or two crops, this does not affect you. If
you planted three crops, you lose $1 of your return.
If you planted one crop, your return is reduced by $2. If
you planted two crops, your return is reduced by $1. If you
planted three crops, your return is unaffected.
Everybody loses 1 pollinator point. Those who planted
tomatoes also lose $2 of their return.
Everybody loses 2 pollinator points.
If you have over 7 pollinator points, you get a $3 payout.
Everyone loses 2 pollinator points.
We strongly encourage session leaders to incorporate their own ideas for events that may be more
relevant to pop culture, real-world events or local conditions. We would be thrilled to hear your ideas!
Finishing a round: After the impacts of the event have been established, players should calculate the
returns their farm is due in terms of both monetary returns and pollinator points. Players should take
currency and pollinator point tokens accordingly and establish the new value of their farm. Finishing the
game: At the end of seven rounds, players should add up their currency tokens and pollinator points. The
pollinator health of the farm adds back to the nal overall value of the farm. Thus, for every 3 pollinator
points obtained by the player, they obtain an additional $1 onto their farm value. The player/team with
the highest nal farm value wins.
Tip 3
175
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Session leaders may wish to construct a leader board to
update every couple of rounds to raise the enthusiasm
and competitive attitudes of students. Please allow
additional time if you wish to include this.
Tip 4
This game has been designed to be
sympathetic to the difculties facing
farming communities and to demonstrate—
in a simplied manner—how difcult it
can be to balance prots and pollinator
health with uctuating economies in
farming. It also aims to draw attention to
the impacts that government policies can
have on farming practices as well as the
unpredictable impacts of environmental
and socio-economic factors on prots
and pollinator health. Session leaders are
encouraged to draw their sessions to a
close with some discussions around these
points. Some suggested discussion points
and key conclusions are provided in Table 4.
It would also be benecial to discuss
why each event students encountered in
the game had effects on prots/pollinator
points. This could either occur during
gameplay when an event takes place
or afterwards as part of the summary
discussion. We encourage sessions leaders
to link back to evolution and ecology where
possible (e.g., honey bees were brought
up in an event) and note the effects that
societal changes can have on the natural
world to show students how far-reaching
the effects of their decisions can be (e.g.,
the celebrity tweet event).
Some discussion prompts have been
suggested below and in Table 4. We
anticipate some complaints from students
about ‘fairness’ when they do not receive
the returns that they may have anticipated.
We believe that this would provide an
excellent opportunity to discuss with
students how nature is not fair since natural
events leave farmers at a disadvantage,
with them needing to do what they must to
remain aoat—even if it is at the expense of
pollinator health.
Final thoughts and discussion: (iii) Linking the game to evolutionary
biology
Many of the ‘events’ in this game have results
that may seem counterintuitive. However,
in these scenarios, the outcomes are rooted
in evolutionary biology concepts (primarily
specialism, generalism and coevolution).
Therefore, these would make excellent
discussion or further exploration points.
For example, since a neighbouring
farmer bringing in honey bees would
increase the number of pollinators around
their farms, students may expect that their
pollinator points would increase. However,
this results in a reduction in pollinator
points. You may wish to explore this with the
students. Swamping the environment with
imported generalist bees can lead to them
outcompeting specialist native species (Ings
et al., 2006) and dominating the environment
(Garibaldi et al., 2021). If the specialist
pollinators become endangered or extinct, it
can have consequences for specialist plants
since generalist invaders may not pollinate
them or may pollinate them inefciently
(Larsson, 2005).
An example of pollinator specialism
is buzz pollination. Some plants, such as
tomatoes, can be much better pollinated
when buzz pollination is employed
(https://www.youtube.com/ )
(Cooley & Vajello-Marín, 2021). This also
links to another event in the game (a cold
winter leading to a decline in bumble
bees). Notably, another game offers the
176
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7q9Kn1rhRc

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
opportunity to explore other specialisms
in plants and pollinators and uses this
to match up specialist plants with their
pollinators
(see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/
pollination-game.html ).
Such specialisms arise through a
process of coevolution, where the plants
and pollinators evolve in response to one
another (Johnson & Anderson, 2010).
Coevolution is a fascinating topic to explore
with students since they often respond well
to the exciting traits selected for by this
process. The following papers suggest a
variety of ways to guide students towards
understanding coevolution: Brockhurst
(2010), Gibson et al. (2015), Thanukos (2010).
Another aspect for discussion that you
might wish to explore with your students
is the idea of differential disease resistance
between species. This is relevant to many
of the events (imported bees may carry
disease; tomato plants and beetles; oilseed
rape and disease). Consider a thought
experiment with your students that involves
modelling the process of adaptation to a
new disease by wild species.
Ask your students to imagine a large
population of a wild pollinator species (if
necessary, draw the individuals of that
population on a board and use this to depict
change across generations). Most individuals
from that species are not resistant to a
certain disease, whilst a few of them carry
alleles conveying resistance to this disease
(you may depict these individuals in a
different colour, for example) due to natural
variation within the population.
Ask your students what they think
will happen to this population during the
generations following the introduction
of the disease. In the rst generation, we
expect most of the individuals who do not
carry the resistance allele to die. Those
carrying the resistance allele will survive
and produce offspring, most of which are
expected to carry the resistance alleles.
However, not all of these offspring will
necessarily carry the resistance allele;
therefore, the non-resistant offspring will
die. Overall, the frequency of resistance is
likely to increase.
Repeat these steps through some
generations and discuss the impact of this
process with your students: i) the number
of individual wild pollinators over the years
following the introduction as well as the
impact of this in terms of fruit production;
ii) the frequency of resistant individuals in
the population. Also, discuss what would
occur if there were no intraspecic diversity
in the initial wild pollinator population.
This activity explores the process of
natural selection, which is explained in the
following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watchxmULuo.
Although this video uses predation as a
selective pressure, it is clear how predation
acts as a selective pressure in the same
way that a disease would. In this video, the
dark colour phenotype is tter, just like the
resistance allele in our example.
177
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/
pollination-game.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VM9YxmULuo.

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Table 4
Suggested post-game discussion points and ‘steering’ prompts to facilitate understanding of why this SSI is so complex
from a societal perspective. A selection of events and their weighted impacts that may be introduced by the session leader
after Step 2 of the game.
Discussion points Key considerations
Do celebrities really have such an impact on society?
(include a link to celebrity tweet event).
Why would the government or policymakers provide
bursaries or subsidies to pollinator-friendly farms?
Other than the crop yield, is there anything else that
might affect farmers’ prots?
In this game, you grew one to three crops and had a
choice of four possible special measures to increase
either yield or pollinator points. In real life, do you
think farming is like this? Is there anything else
that farmers need to think about that has not been
represented in this game (i.e., limitations of this
model)?
To discuss this point, you could nd some real-world
national case studies of celebrities not supporting science
and discuss those with your students. You could even give
your students the task of nding some examples.
For example, see alternative medicine businesses (for an
example, see Arnocky et al., 2018).
Here, you could encourage a discussion of who chooses
those in power.
Consider the commitments that governments make to
preserving the environment.
How important is public opinion to governments?
At this point, you can discuss the upfront nancial costs of
the additional measures. Your students may have additional
valid ideas. Examples include:
Pesticides have an upfront cost associated with them.
Land dedicated to pollinators: How effective would
it be in real life if you did this for just 1 year? Does it
need several years to ‘rewild’?
Do you need to pay to plant wildowers on eld
markings/land dedicated to pollinators? There is a cost
for wildower seeds AND a reduction in prot due to
not growing crops on this land.
Your students may have many valid ideas for this. Some
examples of aspects of farming that are not represented by
this model include:
It is simpler and more efcient for a farmer to grow
only one type of crop; however, this strategy also has
a higher level of risk (e.g., due to disease or drought
susceptibility; Balough, 2021). When growing multiple
types of crops, farmers must consider the timings of
harvests, required equipment, environmental impacts
and saleability (Navarette et al., 2015).
Some special measures cost money at the outset,
with farmers having to be able to afford them.
Different crops are worth different amounts of money.
178
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

2.6 Further perspectives
on how to use this activity
in other contexts or with
participants of other ages
2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
This activity could be modied to suit
a range of issues that encompass other
ecological crises, stakeholders and
governing bodies (e.g., shery decline,
shermen and a national government,
respectively). Modication would require
work from session leaders to research the
respective ecological crisis and edit the
events section accordingly.
It would be very interesting to play this
game with students that have different
focuses/disciplines. We suggest two
alternative ways in which to manage this:
i) by playing this game with older, more
specialised students to prompt
multi-disciplinary discussions; ii) older
students who have specialised could act as
expert mentors and guide teams by discussing
the impacts of events with their teams.
Any aspect of this game can be edited
to suit current affairs or different age
groups. For instance, new events can be
incorporated, more options can be added
for extra measures and the crops used as
examples can be changed.
We strongly encourage educators to make
these changes to maximise the relevance of
the scenarios to their country/locality.
179
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets

3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnocky, S., Bozek, E., Dufort, C., Rybka, S., & Hebert, R.
(2018). Celebrity opinion inuences public acceptance
of human evolution. Evolutionary Psychology, 16(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918800656
Balough, A. (2021). The rise and fall of monoculture farming.
Horizon. The EU Research and Innovation Magazine.
Available at J
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/
en/horizon-magazine/rise-and-fall-monoculture-
farming#:~:text=Raising%20a%20single%20
crop%20has,and%20control%20pests%20
through%20predation. [Accessed 23/08/2022]
Blacquiè, T., Smagghe, G., van Gestel, C. A. M., &
Mommaerts, V. (2012). Neonicotinoids in bees:
A review on concentrations, side-effects and risk
assessment. Ecotoxicology, 21(), 973–992. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10646-012-0863-x
Botías, C., David, A., Horwood, J., Abdul-Sada, A., Nicholls,
E., Hill, E., & Goulson, D. (2015). Neonicotinoid residues
in wildowers, a potential route of chronic exposure
for bees. Environmental Science and Technology,
49(), 12731–12740. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.5b03459
Brockhurst, M. (2010). Using microbial microcosms to
study host-parasite coevolution. Evolution: Education
and Outreach, 3() 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12052-009-0188-2
Brosi, B. (2016). Pollinator specialization: From the
individual to the community. New Phytologist, 210(4),
1190–1194. https://doi-org.uea.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/
nph.13951
Butler, D. (2018). Scientists hail European ban on bee-
harming pesticides. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/
d41586-018-04987-4
Cane, J. (2008). Pollinating bees crucial to farming
wildower seed for U.S. habitat restoration. In R.
James, & T. Pitts-Singer (Eds.), Bee pollination in
agricultural ecosystems. Oxford University Press.
Chittka, L., Thomson, J., & Waser, N. (1999). Flower
constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution.
The Science of Nature, 86(8), 361–377. https
JAJAJAJA://doi-org.uea.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/
s001140050636
Cooley, H., & Vajello-Marín, M. (2021). Buzz-pollinated
crops: A global review and meta-analysis of the effects
of supplemental bee pollination in tomato. Journal of
Economic Entomology,114(2), 505–519. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jee/toab009
Culley, T., Welle, S., & Sakai, A. (2002). The evolution of
wind pollination in angiosperms. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 17(8), 361–369.
Darwin, C. (1876). The effects of cross and self fertilisation
in the vegetable kingdom. J Murray.
Garibaldi, L., Pérez-Méndez, N., Cordeiro, G., Hughes,
A., Orr, M., Alves-dos-Santos, I., Freitas, B., Freitas
de Oliviera, F., LeBuhn, G., Bartomeus, I., Aizen, M.,
Andrade, P., Blochtein, B., Boscolo, D., Drumond, P.,
Gaglianone, M., Gemill-Herren, B., Halinski, R., Krug,
C., Motta Maués, M., Piedade Kiill, L., Pinhiero, M.,
Pires, C., & Viana, B. (2021). Negative impacts of
dominance on bee communities: Does the inuence
of invasive honey bees differ from native bees?
Ecology, 102(12), e03526. https://doi-org.uea.idm.
oclc.org/10.1002/ecy.3526
Garibaldi, L. A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., Aizen,
M. A., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C.,
& Klein, A. M. (2013). Wild pollinators enhance fruit set
of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science,
339(6127), 1608–1611. https://doi.org/10.1126/
SCIENCE.1230200
Gibson, A., Drown, D., & Lively, C. (2015). The red queen’s
race: An experimental card game to teach coevolution.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8(10), . https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12052-015-0039-2
Graystock, P., Blane, E. J., McFrederick, Q. S., Goulson,
D., & Hughes, W. O. H. (2016). Do managed bees
drive parasite spread and emergence in wild bees?
International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites
and Wildlife, 5(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJPPAW.2015.10.001
Halder, S., Ghosh, S., Khan, R., Ali Kan, A., Perween, T., &
Hasan, A. (2019). Role of pollination in fruit crops: A
review. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 8(5), 695–702.
Hoehn, P., Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J., & Steffan-
Dewenter, I. (2008). Functional group diversity of
bee pollinators increases crop yield. Proceedings
Biological Sciences, 275(), 2283–2291.
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJhttps://dx-doi-org.uea.
idm.oclc.org/10.1098%2Frspb.2008.0405
Ings, T., Ward, N., & Chittka, L. (2006). Can commercially
imported bumble bees outcompete their native
conspecics? Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(5), 940–948.
IPBES. (2016). The assessment report on pollinators,
pollination and food production. Retrieved from http://
nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/514356/
Johnson, S., & Anderson, B. (2010). Coevolution between
food-rewarding owers and their pollinators.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(), 32–39. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0192-6
Kassen, R. (2002). The experimental evolution of specialists,
generalists, and the maintenance of diversity. Journal
of Evolutionary Biology, 15(2), 173–190.
180
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918800656
https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/
en/horizon-magazine/rise-and-fall-monoculture-
farming#:~:text=Raising%20a%20single%20
crop%20has,and%20control%20pests%20
through%20predation. [Accessed 23/08/2022]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-012-0863-x
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03459
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0188-2
https://doi-org.uea.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/nph.13951
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-04987-4
https://doi-org.uea.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/
s001140050636
https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toab009
https://doi-org.uea.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/ecy.3526
https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1230200
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-015-0039-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPPAW.2015.10.001
https://dx-doi-org.uea.idm.oclc org/10.1098%2Frspb.
2008.0405
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/514356/
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0192-6

Khadse, A., & Rosset, P. M. (2019). Zero budget natural
farming in India – From inception t o
institutionalization. Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems, 43(), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.108
0/21683565.2019.1608349
Klein, A. -M., Vaissière, B. E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-
Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., &
Tscharntke, T. (2007). Importance of pollinators in
changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings
Biological Sciences, 274(1608), 303–313. https://doi.
org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
Kudo, G., & Cooper, E. J. (2019). When spring ephemerals
fail to meet pollinators: Mechanism of phenological
mismatch and its impact on plant reproduction.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1904). https://
doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0573
Kudo, G., & Ida, T. Y. (2013). Early onset of spring increases
the phenological mismatch between plants and
pollinators. Ecology, 94(10), 2311–2320. https://doi.
org/10.1890/12-2003.1
Kula, A. (2015). Experimental evolution of specialism in a
wild virus. Loyola University Chicago.
Larsson, M. (2005). Higher pollinator effectiveness
by specialist then generalist ower-visitors of
unspecialized Knautia arvensis (Dissacaceae).
Oecologia, 146(3), 394–403. https://doi-org.uea.idm.
oclc.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0217-y
Lister, B. C., & Garcia, A. (2018). Climate-driven declines
in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest
food web. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 115(44), . https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1722477115
Miller-Struttman, N., Geib, J., Franklin, J., Kevan, P., Holdo,
R., Ebert-May, D., Lynn, A., Kettenbach, J., Hedrick, E.,
& Gaeln, C. (2015). Functional mismatch in a bumble
bee pollination mutualism under climate change.
Science, 349(6255), 1541–1544. https://doi-org.uea.
idm.oclc.org/10.1126/science.aab0868
Mallinger, R. E., Gaines-Day, H. R., & Gratton, C. (2017). Do
managed bees have negative effects on wild bees?: A
systematic review of the literature. PLoS ONE, 12(12),
. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0189268
Navarette, M., Dupré, L., & Lamine, C. (2015). Crop
management, labour organisation and marketing:
Three key issues for improving sustainability in
organic vegetable farming. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 13(3), 257–274.
Oliver, T., Heard, M., Isaac, N, Roy, D., Proctor, D.,
Eigenbrod, F., Freckleton, R., Hector, A., Orme, D.,
Petchey, O., Proença, V., Raffaelli, D., Suttle, B., Mace,
G., Matín-López, B., Woodcock, B., & Bullock J. (2015).
Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30(11), 673–684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.009
Ollerton, J., Winfree, R., & Tarrant, S. (2011). How many
owering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos,
120(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0706.2010.18644.x
Powney, G. D., Carvell, C., Edwards, M., Morris, R. K. A.,
Roy, H. E., Woodcock, B. A., & Isaac, N. J. B. (2019).
Widespread losses of pollinating insects in Britain.
Nature Communications, 10(1038), . https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-019-08974-9
Pyke, G., Thomson, J., Inouye, D., & Miller, T. (2016). Effects
of climate change on phenologies and distributions of
bumble bees and the plants they visit. Ecosphere, 7(3),.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1267
Sonne, C., & Alstrup, A. O. (2019). Denmark dees EU
neonicotinoid ban. Science, 363(6430), 938. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw6754
Stork, N. E. (2017). How many species of insects and
other terrestrial arthropods are there on Earth?
Annual Review of Entomology, 63(), 31–45.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043348
Tepedino, V. (1981). The pollination efciency of the
squash bee (Peponapis pruinosa) and the honey bee
(Apis mellifera) on summer squash (Cucurbita pepo).
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 54(2),
359–3717.
Thanukos, A. (2010). Coevolution in the classroom.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(), 71–77.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0203-7
3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
4. APPENDIX
At
you can nd a PowerPoint le that we
created to help you to run the game with
your class. It contains simple instructions
and several ‘event’ pages.
Please spend some time familiarising
yourself with this since you may wish to
exclude certain events or edit/remove the
competitive element on the ‘leader board’
slide at the end.
181
CHAPTER 10 Why are pollinators declining?
Balancing pollinator health and
stakeholder assets
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1608349
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0573
https://doi.org/10.1890/12-2003.1
https://doi-org.uea.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0217-y
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722477115
https://doi-org.uea.idm.oclc.org/10.1126/science.aab0868
https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0189268
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.009
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08974-9
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1267
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw6754
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043348
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0203-7
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7323863

Chapter 11
The impacts of solar
radiation on our health
182

The impacts of solar radiation on our health
Rita Ponce1,2,
Susana Carneiro3,
André Rodrigues4,
Mustafa Sami Topcu5
1Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Escola de Psicologia e Ciências da
Vida, Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisbon,
Portugal
2 iNOVA Media Lab/ICNOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
3Secondary School of Trofa, Portugal
4Independent researcher
5 Yildiz Technical University, Ist anbul, Turkey
Abstract: The correlation between the geographic distribution of human
skin colour and the intensity of solar radiation is one of the most
remarkable examples of how natural selection has shaped the
evolution of our species and the divergence between human
populations. The selective pressures shaping this distribution
are still acting today, resulting in health problems for individuals
whose skin colour is not adapted to the environment in which
they live. Healthy sun exposure habits depend on both the
individual’s skin colour and the environment in which they live.
Thus, health communication strategies should recognise and
reect this diversity. However, although it is an important feature,
skin colour is sometimes not mentioned — possibly due to a
historical association with racism.Herein, we propose an activity
aimed at 9th to 12th-grade students in which they are invited to
plan and implement a dissemination campaign to inform their
school community about the health impacts of solar radiation.
During this process, students will learn about natural selection,
how it causes population divergence and how such divergence
is related to evolutionary processes. Additionally, students will
explore the concepts of subspecies and races (and how the latter
does not have a true biological meaning). They will also debate
the ethical and medical consequences of using ethnic information
to diagnose and communicate health issues whilst learning about
the nature of science. Additionally, students will develop scientic
practices such as asking questions and obtaining, evaluating and
communicating information.
health education, human evolution, racism, skin colour, sunlight exposure
KEYWORDS
183
CHAPTER 11

1. WHAT DO WE
KNOW ABOUT THIS
SOCIOSCIENTIFIC
ISSUE AND HOW IT
CAN BE INFORMED
BY AN EVOLUTIONARY
PERSPECTIVE?
On the rst day of June 1858, Charles
Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace’s
theory of evolution by natural selection
was presented at the Linnean Society of
London. This idea would revolutionise not
only biology but also society. Currently,
evolution is one of the central concepts of
biology, being essential to understanding
the world around us and our origins, with
additional implications for our health and
well-being. One important contribution of
evolutionary biology has been enabling us
to understand the origin and implications
of human skin colour. Body colour is an
important feature in the animal kingdom
that serves many roles, from sexual
selection to adaption to the environment.
Skin colour is one of the characteristics
that shows the greatest variation among
human populations, with a signicant
correlation being observed between the
degree of skin pigmentation of native
populations in a region and the intensity of
ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Current evidence
suggests that this distribution is due to the
occurrence of different selective pressures
that acted on ancestral human populations
due to latitudinal variation in the intensity
and seasonality of UV radiation (Crawford
et al., 2017; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2000).
When it reaches our skin, part of the
energy from UV radiation (especially UVB)
is used to produce vitamin D. Vitamin
D is an essential nutrient for human
development and has important effects
on human health. However, intense
exposure to UV radiation can cause cell
damage, including damage to DNA and the
destruction of nutrients (e.g., folate) that are
essential for the survival and reproduction
of individuals.
The outermost layers of the skin serve
as a barrier against the harmful effects
of solar radiation, thereby decreasing
the intensity of UV radiation reaching the
innermost layers of the skin and body.
Melanocytes, which are cells located in
the basal layer of the epidermis, produce a
natural sunscreen known as melanin, which
is capable of absorbing and dissipating
between 50 and 75% of incident UV radiation
(Brenne & Hearing, 2007; Solano, 2020).
In humans, two types of melanin are
produced within the melanocytes: a) brown/
black eumelanin, which has a greater
capacity to absorb and protect against UV
radiation; b) lighter red/yellow pheomelanin,
which has a lower capacity to absorb and
protect against UV radiation. In addition to
protecting against UV radiation, melanin
is also responsible for skin pigmentation,
which depends on the location, total amount
and proportion of the two types of melanin
produced. Notably, the global distribution of
skin colour results from this dual function of
melanin (i.e., pigmentation and protection)
(Schlessinger et al., 2021).
The human species originated near the
equator in Africa, where the intensity of
UV radiation (both UVA and UVB) is high
throughout the year. Without clothes or
sunscreen, the main barrier against the
harmful effects of UV radiation on the
skin was melanin (particularly eumelanin).
Thus, the individuals who had it in greater
quantity survived longer and, more
importantly, left more offspring who would
also carry their parents’ genes coding
for higher melanin content. Thus, in each
generation, individuals with darker skin
184
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health

1. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THIS
SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE AND HOW IT
CAN BE INFORMED BY AN EVOLUTIONARY
PERSPECTIVE?
colour beneted. Over time, due to natural
selection, the number of individuals
with darker skin increased in equatorial
populations. Although a higher amount of
melanin in the skin reduces the amount of
UVB radiation available to produce vitamin
D, the high intensity of this type of radiation
throughout the year in this area of the globe
would still allow the necessary amount of
this molecule to be synthesised.
However, when humans began
dispersing throughout the world, they
started living in areas where UV radiation
(especially UVB) is less intense and has
important seasonal variations. In fact, in
some areas of Asia, Europe and America,
the incident UVB radiation is not sufcient
to produce the necessary amount of vitamin
D during most months of the year. Notably,
this production is much lower in individuals
with a darker skin tone. Under these
circumstances, the lighter the skin tone of
the individuals, the greater the probability
of producing enough vitamin D for their
healthy development and reproduction.
Thus, over the generations, individuals with
lighter skin colour left more offspring that
inherited their lighter skin tone—an effect
that led to the depigmentation of populations
further north. This depigmentation occurred
independently in European and Asian
populations, with different genes being
involved in the two cases (Crawford et al.,
2017; Jablonski & Chaplin, 2017).
However, beyond historical curiosity,
what is the relevance of knowing the
evolutionary processes involved in the
current distribution of skin colour? The
relevance is that the factors that acted in
the past to cause selective mortality and
fertility in humans are still acting today,
causing health and fertility problems for
individuals worldwide. Understanding
that the propensity to suffer from these
problems depends—among other factors
—on one’s skin colour and the environment
in which they live allows individuals
to make informed decisions to prevent
them. Notably, this is also important for
health professionals when communicating
information on these topics.
However, human skin colour is a feature
that has been historically associated with
complex social problems such as racism
and discrimination (Jones, 2001; Pew
Research Center, 2021). The discussion
about whether and how to use features
such as skin colour or ethnic group to
support diagnoses and communicate
health information remains a hotly
debated issue in scientic and medical
communities (Klonoff & Landrine, 2000;
Landley et al., 2019). The purposes, ethics
and values that should inform how to
use skin colour to prevent or diagnose a
health problem and communicate with the
public is an important debate in society.
It is also important to understand the
most appropriate ways of doing this to
avoid people feeling harmed, ashamed or
insulted by the way such information is
communicated.
In this activity, we explore the
relationships between health and skin,
particularly solar exposure and skin
colour. One of the factors affecting the
consequences of sun exposure is the
individual’s skin colour. Therefore, the use
and sharing of ethnic information (e.g.,
skin colour) in diagnosing diseases could
be important to the agenda of the medical
and scientic communities. However, this
is not a simple decision or an easy debate.
It could be said that accessing and sharing
such information could offer opportunities
such as taking preventive health measures,
the early diagnosis of diseases, identifying
and applying treatment methods specic
to certain ethnic groups and even working
in a suitable job. However, it can also be
185
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health

1. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THIS
SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE AND HOW IT
CAN BE INFORMED BY AN EVOLUTIONARY
PERSPECTIVE? / 2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
argued that this implies classifying certain
groups as stronger or weaker regarding a
certain health issue, which may also lead
to possible undesirable consequences,
such as discrimination in hiring or health
insurance conditions based on shared
genetic information. Therefore, ‘stop using
skin colour to determine health tendency’
and ‘early diagnosis saves lives’ are two
common and opposing perspectives.
2. PRACTICE
DESCRIPTION
2.1 Materials
A projector, a blackboard and computers
with internet access (for students to
perform online research).
The editable scripts for the students can
be found here:
2.2 Time
This activity can be implemented in four
90-minute sessions, which coincide with the
four stages of the activity.
However, depending on your setting,
the length of time can be extended (as
described in the tips).
2.3 Target audience
Suggested target audience:
9th to 12th-grade students.
grade students.
9th to 12th
2.4 Learning objectives
2.4.1 Learning objectives related
to awareness of the
Socioscientic issue (SSI)
Understand dynamic relationships
between science, technology and
society.
Many decisions are not made using
science alone but rely on social and
cultural contexts to resolve issues.
Argue, criticise and make informed
decisions on the effects of science
and technology on society.
Recognise the complex, scientic
inquiry-based, sceptical and
multiple-perspective nature of SSIs.
Discuss the epistemological, ethical
and moral dimensions of science-
related social issues in the context
of daily life.
2.4.3 Learning objectives related
to scientic practices
Asking questions.
Obtaining, evaluating and
communicating information.
Analysing and interpreting data.
Scientic inquiry-based practices.
186
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7323921

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
2.4.4 Learning objectives related
to the nature of science
Science is based on empirical evidence.
Scientic knowledge is open to
revision in light of new evidence.
Science models laws, mechanisms
and theories to explain natural
phenomena.
The following objectives are in the
interphase between the nature of
science and SSIs:
Science and engineering are
inuenced by society, whilst
society is inuenced by science and
engineering.
Not all questions can be answered
by science.
Scientic knowledge can predict
what can happen in natural systems
but does not indicate what should
happen. The latter involves ethics,
values and human decisions related
to the use of knowledge.
2.4.2 Learning objectives related
to evolution
Recognise the existence of heritable
intraspecic diversity.
Describe the process of natural
selection by explicitly mentioning
how the environment impacts
the survival and reproduction of
organisms with distinct features.
Describe how differences in
environmental features may lead to
population divergence.
Discuss the concepts of species and
subspecies as biological concepts,
their relationship with evolutionary
processes and the concept of race
as a non-biological concept.
2.4.4 Learning objectives related
to transversal skills
Analyse issues from multiple
perspectives.
Identify aspects of issues that are
subject to ongoing inquiry.
Explore how science can
contribute to addressing current
health problems in humans and
understand the limitations of
science.
Perspective taking.
Collaborative problem-solving skills.
2.5 Description of the
educational practice
If possible and desirable, articulate
with the arts and humanities
subjects courses since connections
may be found with these curricula.
Our experience has shown us that in
addition to these courses, effective
articulations can be fostered with
geography, history, philosophy,
biology, arts, history of science and
religious education courses.
Ask your school board if they agree
with the letter from page 2 of your
students’ script (see Figure 1). If
they agree, ask them to sign it.
Before the sessions:A.
187
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Dear students:
We hereby request your help to carry out a dissemimination project related to the
impacts of solar radiation on health, almed at your school’s community. With this
project we aim to alert people about the consequences of sun exposure and inform
them about the care they should take in their daily lives to avoid health problems.
With this aim, we would like to ask you to investigate the impacts of sun exposure
on people’s health and discuss what information you think is pertinent to disclose,
given the characteristics of students, teachers and school staff, as well as their
lifestyle habits. We would also like to ask you to think about how to disseminate
this information. After gathering information and discussion, we would like you to
develop a dissemination project aimed at promoting healthy habits in your school
community. We thank you in advance for your collaboration, which we are certain
will contribute to changing lifestyles and thus preventing disease and/or saving lives.
Best regards,
On behalf of the school board,
Location, date
(Signature)
Figure 1
Presentation letter.
2.5 Description of the
educational practice
Present the letter from page 2 of
the student’s learning script (Figure
1) to introduce the project and the
problem to be addressed.
Present the UV and skin colour
distribution maps (Figures 2 and 3,
below) from page 3 of the student
script to your students.
In the rst session (or rst stage) —
Introduction:
B.
Figure 2
Annual insolation reaching the Earth’s surface after passing
through the atmosphere. Credits: This image was produced
by William M. Connolley using HadCM3 data and is available
at.
188
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Insolation.png.

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Figure 3
Distribution of skin colour in Indigenous populations before
colonisation processes based on the chromatic scale of Von
Luschan (data from Biasutti, 1940; disputed). Credits: This
image was rst uploaded to Wikipedia by The Ogre and was
reshaped and coloured by Crisco 1492. Data from: Jablonski
& Chaplin (2000).
To foster a discussion, ask students the
following questions:
What is the relationship between
skin pigmentation and UV radiation?
?
What do you think can be the
causes of the global distribution of
skin colour?
?
In small groups, ask the students to rst
think about these questions themselves.
Then, ask them to share and discuss their
thoughts within the group and register the
group’s ideas in the sections ‘Your idea’ and
‘Other ideas in the group’ (see Table 1) from
their script.
This may take 5 to 10 minutes. Ask
the groups to share their ideas with the
classroom, which may take 5 minutes.
Table 1
Hypothesis for skin colour distribution.
Skin colour distribution
What is the relationship between skin
pigmentation and UV radiation?
What do you think can be the causes of the
worldwide distribution of skin tones?
Questions or observations
Your idea:
Your idea:
Other ideas in the group:
Other ideas in the group:
After wacthing the video:
After wacthing the video:
189
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
With your students, watch the TED Talk
from Nina Jablonski (https://www.ted.com/talks/
nina_jablonski_skin_color_is_an_illusion#t-865407; 15
minutes ).
In this video, researcher Nina Jablonski
reects upon the evolution of skin colour
and how skin colours are an adaptation to
different levels of UV exposure.
In small groups, ask students to compare
their initial ideas with what was described in
the video. Then, ask them to discuss these
differences within their groups, register their
new ideas and answer the questions in Table
1 from their script. Ask the groups to then
share their ideas with the classroom and
promote a classroom discussion (this may
take 15 to 20 minutes).
At this stage, make sure that the
students understand that natural selection
does not offer individuals what they need
to survive, but instead acts by causing
mortality and reduced fertility to individuals
with less adapted features. Skin colour is a
consequence of melanin presence, which
can have two important roles: protecting
from the damaging effects of UV light and
inuencing vitamin D production. Also, make
sure they notice that this is related to health
problems that are still affecting people today.
In a class discussion, ask students to
state what they know about the impact
of solar radiation on human health, what
information they feel is still missing for them
to prepare for the dissemination campaign
and how they will look for this information.
Register this information on the blackboard
and ask each group to register it in Table 2
of their script. They can then be prompted to
decide what information will they be looking
for until the next class.
Table 2
Collecting additional information.
The impacts of solar radiation in our health
What do you we know?
What do you we need to know?
How will we look for this information?
What information did you collect?
Is this information reliable? (Check if your
information source is reliable. The more boxes
you tick the more reliable the information
is expected to be. Check the CRAP test of
reliability at )
The information is coming from a scientic paper or
book.
The source I found cites the sources of the
information and provides a reference list.
The source is a well-known and credible
organistation.
I interviewed an expert in the eld ( in this case tell
us who and ask her/him to check what you wrote)
______________________________________________
The information I collected is supported by more
than one reliable source of information.
The information I collected seems impartial,
objective, and unbiased.
It is credible because___________________________
190
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health
https://www.ted.com/talks/nina_jablonski_skin_color_is_
an_illusion#t-865407; 15 minutes
https://ccconline.libguides.com/c.
php?g=242130&p=2185475

Ask each group to present the
information they collected with the
other groups.
After the presentations, in a class
discussion, ask students what
key messages should be part of
the dissemination campaign that
they will prepare for their school
community to promote healthy
lifestyles, as well as who their target
audience will be (students can then
complete Table 3).
In the second session (or second
stage) — Reection:
C.
After the key messages are chosen, ask
them to discuss how they will communicate
these to the school community. During
these discussions, introduce the following
questions (see Table 4):
Questions related to medical and ethical
issues:
Questions that invite students to rethink the
misinterpretation of the association of skin
colour with race:
Should we use information about
ethnic groups to inform people
about health issues?
?
What is the difference between
a ‘race’, a ‘subspecies’ and a
‘species’? Why aren’t there races in
humans?
?
How are these concepts related to
evolution?
?
What ethical and medical problems
are associated with the position
held by the authors of the articles?
?
What good practices are mentioned
by the authors of the articles for
communicating human health
issues that are different for
individuals with distinct features?
?
2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Autonomous work: Each group will look
for the required information and prepare a
5- to 10-minute presentation (depending on
the number of groups in the class) to share
their information with the other groups.
Table 3
Key messages and target audience.
The impacts of solar radiation in our health
What key messages are important to
disseminate in our community?
What should be our target group(s)?
191
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Table 4
How to comunicate about health problema related with skin
color.
The impacts of solar radiation in our health
What is the difference between a “race”, a
“subspecies” and a “species”? And why aren’t
there races in humans?
How are these concepts related to evolution?
Should we use the ethnic information to inform
about health issues?
What ethical and medical problems are
associated with the position held by the
authors?
What good practices are mentioned by the
authors for communicating human health
issues that are different for individuals with
distanct features?
What decision did your group take about the
best way to communicate the health issues?
Why did you make such a decision? What are
the possible ethical and medical problems
arising from this decision?
For a deeper exploration of these issues,
you may also want to introduce the
following questions (adapted from Sadler &
Zeidler, 2005).
These are suited for older students
and/or when relating the activity to other
subjects (e.g., philosophy).
What do you think about using
skin colour information for medical
research, communication, diagnosis
and treatment? What factors were
inuential in determining your
position on this subject?
?
If somebody agrees with your
decision, what are the arguments
he/she may have?
?
If somebody disagrees with you,
what arguments may he/she hold?
?
Why do you agree/disagree with
using skin colour to prevent or
diagnose a health problem and/
or communicate with the public?
Explain your position.
?
Do you think that using skin colour
as described in this case is subject
to any kind of moral rules or
principles? If so, how did this affect
your decision making?
?
Did you immediately feel that using
skin colour to prevent or diagnose a
health problem and/or communicate
with the public was the right/wrong
course of action in this context?
Did you know your position on the
issue before you had to consciously
reect on it?
?
192
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Divide your students into groups and
ask each group to look for information
to answer the previous questions in the
documents shared with them.
Ask your students to complete Table 4
with the information they collected. Based
on that, ask the students to debate and
decide whether and how they would use
ethnic information in their proposal and the
implications that this decision may have.
Is there anything else that I
should know about your thinking
process or decision making as you
considered this issue?
?
Based on their ndings and
previous debates, ask each group to
develop a proposal and a product
for the dissemination campaign
for the school community by using
Table 5 to describe it. Ask the
students to prepare a 5-minute
presentation of their proposal and
present it to their classmates. When
presenting, the students should ask
for feedback from their classmates
and consider incorporating it into
their nal product. Additionally,
ask your students to plan the
dissemination campaign and ensure
that it gets high visibility.
In the third session (or third
stage) — Development of the
dissemination campaign:
D.
Table 5
Table to plan your dissemination project proposal.
The impacts of solar radiation in our health
What will we do in our dissemination
campaign?
(describe here what will you do for your
dissmination campign)
How will we communicate the key messages?
(describe here ow your projet will be
communicating the key messages you want to
share)
Why do we think the format we propose will be
effective to reach our target group(s)?
What do we need and how will we get this?
What was our colleagues’ feedback and
what did we change in our initial proposal to
incorporate it?
In the nal session, the students
should present their nal product
and plan for the dissemination
campaign.
In the fourth session (fourth
stage) — Presentation of the
dissemination campaign:
E.
193
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
Skin colour is a trait that is frequently not thoroughly analysed in the school context. However,
it seems important to explore the biology behind this very diverse trait, address health issues
and promote a deconstruction of racist ideas associated with skin colour. From our experience,
the natural course of an open discussion usually leads to a deconstruction of racist ideas.
However, we wish to alert the leaders of the discussion that it may be important to consider
that we are addressing skin colour as a physical trait and that race and other classications are
social constructs. As such, it might be good to be prepared to talk about the topic.
TIP 1
We have already implemented this activity in a formal education setting (i.e., classroom) and
an informal education setting (i.e., science club) with 9th-grade students. However, we found
this activity to be suitable for students from the 9th to 12th grade. Additionally, according to
the settings, this activity can be extended to more than four sessions. In particular, this would
be necessary if sessions are shorter (e.g., 50–60 minutes). If sessions are shorter, you may
wish to explore one topic per session. When coordinating the activity with other courses—
and when in a problem-based learning setting—more sessions may be required (we consider
that it can be extended to up to 12 sessions of 60 minutes).
TIP 2
During the rst session, when asking the
students to think about the relationship
between skin pigmentation and UV
radiation and the causes of the global
distribution of skin tones, students may
answer that humans developed features to
protect them from UV radiation because
they needed them. This corresponds to a
frequent misconception of evolution.
TIP 3
Please be aware that the way Nina
Jablonski presents this topic in the TED Talk
may reinforce the frequent misconception
that natural selection provides individuals
with what they need.
TIP 4
This activity may serve as the basis for interesting reections when schools have students
from diverse backgrounds by valuing the diversity of the group.
TIP 5
194
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health

2. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION
When articulating with art courses, we
have complemented this activity with
another TED Talk
(https://www.ted.com/talks/angelica_
dass_the_beauty_of_human_skin_in_every_
color?language=pt) and discussed the
project H
TIP 6
In the student script we indicate four
articles as suggested reading. Herein
we provide a list of articles that may be
considered as an alternative.
TIP 7
Additionally, students also attempted
to use different painting techniques to
reproduce their own skin colours.
).
195
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health
https://www.ted.com/talks/angelica_dass_
the_beauty_of_human_skin_in_every_
color?language=pt) and discussed the project
Humanae (https://angelicadass.com/pt/foto/
humanae/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/science/skin-
color-race.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/
mg24132210-100-too-much-sunscreen-why-
avoiding-the-sun-could-damage-your-health/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13922-
skin-tone-gene-could-predict-cancer-risk/
https://www.scienticamerican.com/article/how-
skin-cancer-rates-vary-across-the-globe/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2021/02/210218142820.htm
http://douglasallchin.net/papers/Allchin-skin-color-
and-NOS.pdf

3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barsh, G. S. (2003). What controls variation in human skin
color? PLoS Biology, 1(1), e27. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pbio.0000027
Brenner, M., & Hearing, V. J. (2008). The protective
role of melanin against UV damage in human skin.
Photochemistry and Photobiology, 84(3), 539–549.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2007.00226.x
Crawford, N. G., Kelly, D. E., Hansen, M. E. B., Beltrame,
M. H., Fan, S., Bowman, S. L., Jewett, E., Ranciaro,
A., Thompson, S., Lo, Y., Pfeifer, S. P., Jensen, J.
D., Campbell, M. C., Beggs, W., Hormozdiari, F.,
Mpoloka, S. W., Mokone, G. G., Nyambo, T., Meskel,
D. W., … Tishkoff, S. A. (2017). Loci associated with
skin pigmentation identied in African populations.
Science, 358(6365), eaan8433. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aan8433
Jablonski, N. G., & Chaplin, G. (2000). The evolution of skin
coloration. Journal of Human Evolution. 39, 57–106.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2000.0403.
Jablonski, N. G., & Chaplin, G. (2017). The colours of
humanity: The evolution of pigmentation in the
human lineage. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B, 372 (1724): 20160349. http://doi.
org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0349.
Jones, T. (2001). Shades of brown: The law of skin color.
Duke Law Journal, 49(1487). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.233850.
Klonoff E. A., & Landrine, H. (2000). Is skin color a
marker for racial discrimination? Explaining the
skin color-hypertension relationship. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 23(4), 329–338. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1005580300128.
Pew Research Center. (2021). Majority of Latinos say skin
color impacts opportunity in America and shapes
daily life. https://w
ww.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/uploads/
sites/5/2021/11/RE_2021.11.04_Latinos-Race-
Identity_FINAL.pdf
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal
reasoning in the context of socioscientic decision
making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
42(1), 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
Schlessinger, D. I., Anoruo, M. D. & Schlessinger, J. (2022)
Biochemistry, Melanin. [Updated 2022 May 8]. In:
StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls
Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
NBK459156/.
Solano, F. (2020). Photoprotection and skin pigmentation:
Melanin-related molecules and some other new agents
obtained from natural sources. Molecules, 25(7), 1537.
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25071537
Laidley, T., Domingue, B., Sinsub, P., Harris, K. M.& Conley,
D. (2019). New evidence of skin color bias and health
outcomes using sibling difference models: A research
note. Demography, 56 (2), 753–762. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13524-018-0756-6
4. APPENDIX
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The editable scripts can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ep8ln
wsZOaXjFnwqkJtoEAaxFNiUYHGlJRjB
196
CHAPTER 11 The impacts of solar
radiation on our health
The authors thank the students who
took part in this activity, the anonymous
reviewers for their input and the editors
who made this book possible, with a very
special thanks to Xana Sá Pinto for her
contribution turning the idea of this activity
into a reality.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.2007.00226.x
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan8433
https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2000.0403
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0349
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.233850
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005580300128
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/
uploads/sites/5/2021/11/RE_2021.11.04_Latinos-
Race-Identity_FINAL.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459156
https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25071537
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0756-6
https://zenodo.org/record/7323921#.Y5IP--zP2Cc

Chapter 12
Are we allowed to tinker
with (human) DNA?
Addressing
socioscientic issues
through philosophical
dialogue - the case of
genetic engineering
197

Are we allowed to tinker with (human) DNA?
Addressing socioscientic issues through
philosophical dialogue - the case of genetic
engineering
Jelle De Schrijver1,2,
Stefaan Blancke3,
Eef Cornelissen2,
Jan Sermeus4, Lynda Dunlop5
1University of Antwerp, Belgium
2Odisee University of Applied Sciences, Belgium
3Tilburg University, the Netherlands
4KULeuven & Royal Observatory of Belgium
5University of York, United Kingdom
Abstract: Education about socioscientic issues (SSIs) can be challenging
as underlying tensions can surface. When discussing the topic
of genetic engineering, these tensions can be related to (1)
the molecular biology of genetics and genetic engineering, (2)
the evolutionary aspects of genetic engineering, (3) the nature
of science and (4) the ethical understanding of this SSI. Such
tensions may lead to confrontation, either between students or
between students and teachers. The practice of ‘philosophical
inquiry’ provides a pedagogical approach to help explore these
tensions and engage in dialogues. Philosophical inquiry entails a
dialogic approach in which a facilitator helps a group of students
uncover hidden presuppositions and elicit an argumentative
conversation. Stimuli such as pictures, cases or quotes provide a
context to help students engage in dialogues about philosophical
questions. Thus, students can reect upon the relationship
between science and evolution, the nature of science and the
tensions between genetic engineering and society. In this
chapter, we rst explore different sensitivities related to genetic
engineering. Then, we showcase learning material for secondary
school students to cope with these issues. We focus on an
approach to using big questions and stimulating dialogue to
explore sensitivities. Ultimately, we provide tips to consider when
addressing SSIs through philosophical dialogue.
philosophical inquiry, nature of science, questions, ethics
KEYWORDS
198
CHAPTER 12

199
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
1. QUESTIONS ABOUT
GENETIC ENGINEERING
For decades, the practice of genetic
engineering (GE), which is the manipulation
or modication of the genetic makeup of
an organism, has resulted in new crops
and therapies for people. In the medical
eld, millions of people with diabetes are
treated with insulin produced by genetically
modied bacteria. Genetic engineering
sparks our imagination, but it can also lead to
questionable practices.
For example, Schwarzenegger mice were
genetically engineered to have increased
muscle growth and researchers aim to
protect us from HIV by genetically modifying
human embryos. These and many other
examples demonstrate how scientists might
be tempted to genetically engineer humans
to possess certain desired traits. However,
is this what we want? Is this morally
acceptable? Discussions about GE easily elicit
hundreds of ethical questions.
The impact of GE cannot be understood
without taking an evolutionary perspective.
In this regard, GE can be considered an
instrument to articially select organisms
that t human needs; thus, it can be viewed
as an instrument to ‘steer’ evolution.
The introduction of new technologies to
alter genetic codes and repair genes with
deciencies (CRISPR-Cas) makes such
discussions ever more urgent. This raises the
following questions: Are people allowed to
ddle with the gene pools? Are we allowed
to tinker with human DNA and redirect the
course of evolution?
GE is an archetypical socioscientic issue
(SSI) in science education. This means it
is a (potentially) controversial social issue
related to science that is open-ended and
has multiple solutions (Sadler 2004; Zeidler
& Keefer, 2003). Addressing socially acute
questions is one of the many ways to equip
students to take part in discussions on SSIs.
These kinds of questions are open-ended
and involve poorly structured problems that
integrate knowledge in the humanities and
sciences (Morin et al., 2017).
GE allows the exploration of (socially
acute) questions related to food production,
identity, the direction of evolution, the
interchange of science and technology,
the ethics of research and the relationship
between science and society. Furthermore,
the topic of GE provides a myriad of
opportunities to promote scientic literacy.
Scientic literacy is relevant to questions
that students may encounter as citizens
and to the socio-ethical implications of
scientic knowledge (i.e., literacy about the
implications of science for society).
Thus, it provides an opportunity to not
only help students understand the issues at
stake and stimulate students’ socioscientic
reasoning skills but also contribute to
citizenship education since it helps students
make informed decisions and empowers
them to participate in debates (Sadler et al.,
2007; Simonneaux & Simonneaux, 2008).
Notably, GE can stir up emotions in a
classroom. The number of (big) questions
that might surface when discussing genetic
modication seems endless: Are we allowed
to genetically engineer humans? Are humans
playing God when they do so? Can we
improve nature? Do some people need to be
‘xed’? Does genetic modication only favour
rich people? If we allow genetic modication,
then what is next? Can we improve nature? Is
it right to tinker with DNA? Are we sure that
our cells function as we think they do? Do big
pharma companies know what is best? Can
we prohibit a technology even if it has a lot of
potential? The broad variety of big questions
that can be raised in the context of GE can be
categorised into different domains
(see Table 1).

Table 1
Types of big questions in the eld of genetic engineering.
Scientic concepts Evolution Nature of science Ethics
What is a gene?
How does CRISPR-
Cas function to change
the genetic makeup of
organisms?
How can genetic
malfunctions lead to
illnesses?
What is the relationship
between genotype and
phenotype?
Can evolution exist without
genetic modication?
Is it unnatural to tinker with
DNA?
Can evolution be
improved?
What is the difference
between evolution, change
and engineering?
Are we sure that our cells
function as we think they
do?
Do science and religion
exclude each other?
Do we have to know all the
potential consequences of
introducing a technology
before it is introduced?
How can we know genes’
functions in evolutionary
processes?
Should we genetically
engineer humans?
Are humans playing God
when they genetically
engineer organisms?
Are scientists allowed to
improve nature?
May we forbid a
technology even if it has a
lot of potential?
Whereas some of the questions focus on
the scientic knowledge involved in GE,
others focus on the relationship between
evolution and GE, the epistemological
aspects of science and the socio-ethical
aspects of GE. In each of these domains,
students can experience difculties and
challenges that hinder an understanding
of the issues at stake. In this chapter, we
explore how the practice of philosophical
inquiry allows teachers to address these
different aspects. First, we will zoom in on
the challenges students face within each of
these domains.
200
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
1. QUESTIONS ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING
1.1 The molecular biology
of genetic engineering
The GE of organisms is a broad domain.
It covers the production of genetically
modied crops, the use of genetic
modication to ‘improve’ organisms and
discussions on the genetic modication of
humans to cure diseases or promote more
desirable characteristics. In any of these
applications, an understanding of genetics
is relevant.
This not only entails an understanding
of cell biology, heredity, and genetics but
further involves an understanding of the
techniques of GE (e.g., the use of CRISPR
-Cas to do so). It also entails a fundamental
understanding of the relationships between
organisms and their genes, which is
the degree to which genes are simply
blueprints or essences.
A broad range of misconceptions
(alternative conceptions) about the
biology of GE can surface in the classroom
(Aldahmash et al., 2012; Briggs et al., 2016;
Wisch et al., 2018). For instance, these can
relate to the meaning of words such as
‘recombinant DNA’, the idea that one trait

201
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
1. QUESTIONS ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING
corresponds to one gene, that an allele is a
subcomponent of a gene and that proteins
store genetic information. Questions
phrased in this domain are scientic
questions that can be answered through
study or research. Notably, our approach
in this chapter focuses on philosophical
dialogue and will not focus on these types
of questions.
Dobzhanski famously wrote, ‘nothing
makes sense in biology, except in the
light of evolution’. Indeed, since Darwin,
the ‘ever-evolving’ theory of evolution
has had far-reaching implications on our
understanding of biological diversity, our
worldview and more specic issues such as
drug resistance and pandemic outbreaks.
Evolution also helps us understand
sensitivities related to GE.
An important connection between
evolution and GE is that we can think of GE
as a new form of articial selection. Articial
selection has been practised for centuries
on both plants and animals, resulting
in new varieties. Unawaringly, farmers
and breeders thereby altered organisms’
genetic makeup. In the case of GE,
scientists are certainly aware that they are
selecting genes and modifying genomes,
with the process and results essentially
being the same (i.e., organisms evolved by
articial selection). Darwin (1859) relied on
the analogy of articial selection to explain
natural selection.
As Dawkins (2009) later claried,
this analogy makes sense because we
can understand articial selection as a
special case of natural selection in which
organisms adapt to an environment in
1.2 The evolutionary
aspects of genetic
engineering
which the needs and tastes of humans exert
strong selective pressure. The organisms
with the most desirable traits are the most
reproductively successful. Hence, GE can
be used to clarify the central evolutionary
mechanism.
Students could still argue that the
products of GE are articial or unnatural
in the sense that in contrast to natural
selection, we intervene with nature to
produce them. Such considerations provide
the ideal opportunity to discuss two
important dimensions of evolution. One is
that evolution is a blind process that does
not have our best interests at heart.
Therefore, what is natural is not
necessarily good. Evolution produces traits
that favour the reproductive success of its
bearers, not our well-being. These adaptive
traits often include defences or weapons
targeted at other organisms, including us.
For example, many plants produce toxins
that are harmful and sometimes even lethal,
which prevents them from being eaten.
Since nature does not provide, we must
do it ourselves - which implies that we must
alter our ecological surroundings. However,
since species will continue to adapt to
changes in the environment through natural
selection in ways that favour them and
not us, this is a continuous struggle. For
instance, consider that insects can become
resistant to pesticides.
Another dimension is that humans
are not separate from, but rather part
of nature. This means that, like any other
organism, humans will make the most of
their environment. Although humans might
be exceptional in this regard, their differences
from other organisms are not essential but
gradual. As such, articial selection can be
regarded as a form of natural selection since
our interests and tastes are part of the natural
environment to which other species adapt.
GE is different from traditional forms of

202
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
1. QUESTIONS ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING
breeding in the sense that the technology
enables us to modify the genomes of
organisms by introducing genes from
different species.
This crossing of species barriers
represents an important concern among the
general public. However, this practice can
help explain that horizontal gene transfer
is quite common in nature and that the
process plays an important role in evolution
- a point that scientists are now becoming
increasingly aware of. For instance,
approximately 8% of human DNA is of viral
origin. Furthermore, the technology of GE
recruits a natural process by which bacteria
introduce their genetic material into the
cells of their hosts.
Certainly, horizontal gene transfer is
only possible because the genetic code is
universal. As such, GE also provides a context
in which to discuss common descent.
How is our current understanding of GE
achieved? Is our understanding of GE
biased? If so, how? What is the relationship
between technology and science? These
issues relate to the nature of science (NOS)
and touch on metaphysics (i.e., what is real;
genes, evolution, species), epistemology
(i.e., how we know, including the question
of what we can know about genes and
evolutionary processes) and axiology (i.e.,
what is valued), among others. Logic and
different forms of reasoning are required to
answer questions of this nature.
It is important to consider philosophical
(i.e., NOS) questions when it comes to GE
in education for several reasons. In terms
of knowledge, it is important for students
to understand the basis upon which claims
about GE and evolution are made. Through
1.3 The nature of science
of genetic engineering
this, they may understand how science
works and be able to approach social
and ethical questions from an informed
position. Since GE can be a divisive
topic, there is a need to establish a good
understanding of what is known, what
the evidence is and what the limitations
and uncertainties are. GE is a ‘hot’ area
of research, where governance and
regulations are barely catching up at times.
Thus, it is important for society to answer
the question ‘just because we can, does it
mean we should?’.
It is also important to open spaces
where students can agree or disagree
with the direction that science is taking. In
dealing with questions that link science and
society and creating space for dialogue, we
empower students to handle science-based
issues that will determine their future world.
Finally, it is important to pay attention to
good quality thinking about what is known
and how we can help students gain a better
understanding of how science works in the
lab and beyond while avoiding arguments
based on misinformation or logical fallacies
in arguments.
Critics of school science have drawn
attention to the focus on ‘nal form’ or
‘readymade’ science, which emphasises
the products rather than the processes of
science. When considering science-in-the-
making, such as at the frontiers of GE, it is
important to understand not only what is
known, but also how that knowledge has
been gained and the status and certainty of
scientic truths.
Teaching and learning NOS is one way
of responding to this criticism because it
draws attention to the knowledge creation
process and science as a human practice.
Clough (2020) argued that NOS should
be framed and taught as questions rather
than as declarative statements to (i) more
accurately reect the context, cultural

203
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
1. QUESTIONS ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING
embeddedness and nuance needed for
understanding and (ii) foreground the
investigative process. The use of questions
to investigate NOS in relation to GE
allows teachers and students to attend to
contemporary conditions including politics,
democracy, capitalism, subjectivity, agency
and ethics.
For example: Are we sure that
genetically modied organisms will not
harm the planet? How should decisions
about GE be made when there is
uncertainty about its consequences? Do
cells function as we think they do? What
does it mean to ‘own’ a gene? Can nature
teach us about what is good? Should we
consider the impact that the GE of crops
has on the job quality of farmers? Who
benets from GE? In our description of
practice below, we demonstrate how
questions can be used in this way.
GE is a challenge in our contemporary
society. It opens a sea of possibilities and
just as many discussions. It has raised
many concerns, especially in the domain
of agriculture. Medical applications such as
insulin tend to be less contentious amongst
the public. Concerns related to GE include
worries about the safety of the technology,
its threats to the environment and its socio-
economic consequences.
Since the matter is highly complex,
when assessing environmental and
socio-economic impacts, it is important
to consider not only the safety of the
technology itself but also how it is used and
regulated, as well as the impact on different
groups of stakeholders in society. GE is a
popular tool used to develop crops that
are more tolerant to extreme conditions,
1.4 The ethics of genetic
engineering
resistant to pesticides and viruses or able
to ght malnutrition (e.g., the case of golden
rice). However, such technology also often
evokes questions about the involvement of
multinationals, patents and the agro-industry.
However, in the future, GE might
have other applications. The possibility of
human enhancement raises different types
of concerns. For example: Is GE safe? Is
it good for everybody or just a selected
group? Should GE be used to enhance
humans? What is the difference between
therapy and enhancement in the use of
GE? What responsibility do people have
towards future generations? Is GE different
from other therapies and enhancements? Is
human GE ‘market-based eugenics’?
A broad range of ethical frameworks
resonates in discussions on GE.
In a way, what is considered ‘good’
and why it is considered so depends on
the ethical framework that is embraced.
Consequentialism provides a costs and
benets approach to the impact of GE. A
deontological approach rather focuses on the
principles underpinning the act of GE and
what ought to be done.
Thinking about human enhancement
also invokes questions about human nature,
personal identity, autonomy, values and
social inequality. Philosophers and ethicists
bring various perspectives to these issues.
Transhumanists argue that modes of human
enhancement, including GE, should be
seriously considered as a means to improve
the quality of human life (e.g., Bostrom, 2003).
Others, such as the inuential ethicist
Hans Jonas, argue that in dealing with such
technologies, one should ‘act so that the
effects of your action are compatible with the
permanence of genuine human life’ (Jonas,
1984, p. 11). Feminist bioethicists focus
on power relationships and the impact of
human enhancement on women and other
marginalised groups (e.g., Simonstein, 2019).

204
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
1. QUESTIONS ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING
/ 2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
2. PHILOSOPHICAL
INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS
CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
The key idea of this educational practice
is to help students reect on the NOS as
well as the ethics and evolutionary aspects
of GE. Here, philosophical inquiry (and
philosophical dialogues) are the means to
realise this goal.
2.1 Materials
Stimuli to start the dialogue (see
below).
Philosophical questions (see below).
A classroom in which students sit in
a circle.
2.2 Time
The philosophical inquiries can last from
10 to 30 minutes (or even longer if the
students are well acquainted with this
teaching method).
2.3 Target audience
The activities focus on 12- to 18-year-old
students in the context of both formal
science education (i.e., schools) and
informal contexts (i.e., science museums,
science centres, etc.).
Asking questions.
Scientic ideas can change over
time.
Science is a human endeavour.
Analyse issues from multiple
perspectives.
Explore how science can
contribute to the issues and the
limitations of science.
2.4 Learning objectives
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
3.
5.
7.
6.
8.
Evolution does not consist
of progress in any particular
direction.
2.4.2
2.
Learning objectives related
to evolution
Learning objectives related
to scientic practices
Learning objectives related
to the nature of science
Learning objectives related
to transversal skills
2.4.1
1.
Learning objectives related
to awareness of the SSI
The social, ethical and moral
issues emerging from the
context of GE and sensitive SSIs.

205
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2.5 Description of the
educational practice
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
In a philosophical inquiry, participants
search for answers to challenging
(philosophical) questions under the
supervision of a facilitator. The facilitator
structures the dialogue and stimulates a
logical investigation without providing
any answers. This helps create a space
for students to inquire about the
epistemological underpinnings of science
and the relationship between science and
human values.
The use of philosophical dialogues is
inspired by the philosopher John Dewey.
He argued for a form of education in which
the emphasis is placed on the learners,
with the latter taking responsibility for their
own learning process (Dewey, 1997). It is
on this track that the American philosopher
Matthew Lipman developed the
methodology of ‘philosophy for children’ in
the 1960s (Lipman, 1988).
Lipman regarded philosophy not only
as an academic discipline for specialists but
as a form of dialogical thinking (Lipman,
2003). Central to philosophical inquiries is
the ambition to induce ‘critical and creative
thinking’ in students. Logic plays a central
role in this process (e.g., by exploring how
to distinguish arguments from fallacies).
This process occurs in a social context (e.g.,
a class), which is called the ‘community
of inquiry’. In this community of inquiry, a
group of students can search for answers to
philosophical questions under the guidance
of a facilitator.
Students are questioned about the
coherence and relevance of arguments and
the (hidden) premises or consequences of
statements. In recent decades, the impact
of philosophical conversations on young
people’s behaviour has been investigated
more systematically (Reznitskaya, 2005).
Philosophical dialogues not only
stimulate young people’s curiosity and
capacity for analysis but also sharpen their
social and discussion skills and reasoning
ability (Lafortunate, 2003; Lipman, 2003).
Philosophical dialogues allow students to
explore the meanings of (philosophical)
concepts and distinct perspectives in order
to understand them.
The use of philosophical dialogues may
be promising to help students critically
reect and develop an ecologically valid
understanding of knowledge - especially
because this process of developing
knowledge is re-enacted during the
dialogue itself. Thus, students can come to
an understanding of ideas, the relationships
between these ideas and reality, and the
ways such understandings can differ for
different people (Worley, 2016).
Studies on the implementation of
philosophical inquiries in the context of
science education show how these inquiries
can be used to help students reect on
scientic concepts, ethical issues or NOS
(De Schrijver et al., 2018; Dunlop & De
Schrijver, 2020).
2.4.1 Learning objectives related
to awareness of the SSI
During a philosophical inquiry, students sit
in a circle and are guided by the questions
of the teacher (facilitator) to explore
different answers.
A philosophical inquiry entails different
phases (gure 1): (i) stimulus; (ii) raising
philosophical questions; (iii) dialogue;
(iv) meta-reection. Depending on your
approach as a teacher, different phases
will allow you to work on different learning
objectives (e.g., whereas the stimulus phase
provides excellent opportunities to create
an awareness of the issue, the dialogue
phase provides opportunities to analyse an
issue from multiple perspectives).

Figure 1
Phases in a philosophical inquiry.
Figure 2
Example of a stimulus for a philosophical inquiry.
206
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
Stimulus Philosohphical
questions Dialogue Meta
reection
(i) Stimulus
A philosophical dialogue often begins after
a philosophical problem is introduced with a
stimulus that provokes reection. Stimuli may
include short videos, songs, cartoons, texts,
strange experiments, cases, images or stories.
Typically, the stimulus material is
shared with the group, with students
being asked to reect on what they have
seen, read, heard or shared. This might
include identifying troublesome concepts,
responding to the stimulus using a limited
number of words or asking students to
identify ideas that they agreed or disagreed
with. Also, a short case study or picture can
function as a stimulus to start the dialogue.
A picture (gure 2) can serve as a stimulus
to begin a dialogue, as shown in the
following dialogue:
Facilitator What do you think of when you see
this image?
Student 1 A nger, DNA.
Student 1 It is what I think, I think
Student 5
Student 6
Student 2
Student 2 A person who thinks he is God.
Genetic modication, God, science.
Opportunities… to make what we want.
Danger, because I see dark clouds
Facilitator What are the themes of this image?
Student 3 How dangerous it is to change DNA.
Facilitator Is this what you think or what you see?
Facilitator What do the others think?
(ii) Philosophical questions
Philosophical questions can be described
as those that are ‘open to informed, rational
and honest disagreement...’ (Floridi, 2013
—i.e., to be open and to lend themselves to
authentic exploration through reasoning.
Using philosophical questions (e.g., Can
scientic knowledge ever be proven?) as
the focus for inquiry allows students to
explore, discuss and develop their own
ideas about NOS. These philosophical
What is a philosophical question?

207
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
In creating the environment for
philosophical dialogue, a range of
approaches to generate questions exists.
This includes (i) the development and/or
selection of the question by the teacher/
facilitator and (ii) the creation and/or
selection of the question by the students.
The creation and/or selection of the
question by the teacher/facilitator might be
important when there is a specic question
or issue that the teacher would like the
class to explore; for example, what is the
difference between science and technology?
Are scientists playing God? What is the
difference between science and religion?
This may yield a philosophical dialogue that
focuses tightly on what teachers want their
students to learn.
However, students may lack ownership
of and investment in questions that have
been selected for them. The creation and/
or selection of questions by students might
be important when the teacher wants to
engage students by making connections
between science, themselves and the world.
It can further give students ownership
of the inquiry and ensure that the
philosophical inquiry is relevant to them.
Also, it can help them develop their ability
to ask (philosophical) questions. Furthermore,
it gives the teacher an idea of the (pre)
concepts living within the students’ minds.
As discussed above, a stimulus can be
useful for raising a philosophical question.
For example, after a short dialogue
regarding an image, the teacher can ask
students to phrase philosophical questions.
It may be helpful to ask students to write all
the questions that come to mind and then
look for the most interesting ones. It could
also be helpful to stress that philosophical
questions are open, easy to understand and
elicit a cognitive conict.
questions can originate from the students
or the teacher. Interactions between the
participants and facilitation by teachers enable
students to reect upon NOS and develop
their own arguments.
As a teacher, you may describe these
big philosophical questions as questions
that are interesting to explore together,
questions that are difcult to give a nal
answer to and/or questions that Google
does not know the answer to.
How do you raise philosophical
questions?

Examples of big questions Is this a useful question for a philosophical dialogue?
Why is it good to genetically modify organisms?
What is genetic modication?
Can nature improve itself?
Is genetically modifying a plant better than genetically
modifying an ant?
Can evolution be improved?
Are we allowed to tinker with the blueprints of human
beings?
This question is not open. It is manipulative since it
already suggests that genetic modication is good. Thus,
it does not allow students to explore all of the options.
This is a factual question. However, it is not very useful
as a philosophical question since there is only one clear
answer (or scientic consensus).
This question is a useful philosophical question since it allows
us to explore the meaning of ‘improvement/progress’ and
‘nature’. It does not lead to one scientic explanation but
invites one to explore different points of view.
This question makes students smile and stimulates
wonder. It invites them to look for differences between
the engineering of ants and plants. Using specic
organisms helps students to be concrete.
This is a useful philosophical question. It focuses on the
meaning of ‘improvement’ in the context of evolution.
It elicits a cognitive conict by mixing two kinds of
thinking: scientic thinking (evolution) and ethical thinking
(improving).
This is a useful philosophical (ethical) question that
invites students to argue whether they agree or disagree
and why. Having a yes-or-no question is helpful since it
makes it easy for participants to react. After their initial
reaction, students will have to elaborate on it.
208
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
Table 2
Examples of philosophical questions that (do not) work in a
philosophical dialogue.

209
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
(iii) Dialogue
Whilst facilitating a philosophical dialogue,
the following rules usually apply (Rondhuis,
2005):
Opinions are only allowed if they
are supported by arguments.
Participants may respond to each
other’s arguments, but not each
other’s opinions.
Statements and arguments must be
understandable and accessible to
everyone.
Dogmas, irrational certainties
and arguments based on external
authorities are not allowed.
Reasoning must be structured
consistently and systematically.
Thus, the facilitator helps the
learners structure and clarify their
views, assumptions and concepts.
Philosophical questions can give rise to
new (follow-up) questions that help to
deepen the inquiry. In the table below, we
show that one big question can give rise to
extra questions that a facilitator may ask.

Philosophical questions Philosophical follow-up questions
Is genetically modifying a plant better than genetically
modifying an ant?
Can evolution be improved?
Is GE a form of evolution?
Would the world be a better place if GE did not exist?
Can you have evolution without genetically
engineering organisms?
Who decides what is good and what is bad?
Are animals more important than plants?
May we modify everything?
Should we follow (ethical) rules for genetic modication?
Is modifying a sheep better than modifying a human
Is a human better adapted to its environment than a
bacterium?
Does evolution lead to progress?
Is improvement always the best option?
How do you know that something is better?
Can progress go backward?
Does evolution have end goals?
Is life possible without change?
Is life possible without evolution?
Is GE possible without an engineer?
Is nature an engineer?
Can GE occur by coincidence?
Is GE a good technology? If yes, why?
Does GE have more advantages than disadvantages?
Is GE the same as playing God?
Can we interfere in nature?
Is there a difference between engineering, modication
and change?
Which elements are necessary to be able to speak of
evolution?
Can you have evolution without change?
What?
Why? Are you
certain?
Do you know it or
do you think it?
Do you agree?
Can you give
an example?
210
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
Table 3
Philosophical questions and follow-up questions.
Figure 3
Facilitator questions in a philosophical inquiry.
The facilitator does not provide any
answers but instead asks questions. These
questions encourage students to explore
various points of view.
The emphasis lies not on nding one
nal answer, but on collectively exploring
a topic. The types of questions a facilitator
may ask are presented as follows.
The role of the facilitator

211
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
1. Facilitator questions asking
for clarity
2. Facilitator questions asking
for arguments
These questions stimulate participants to
understand the words and concepts that are
used.
We all make judgements all the time.
However, we rarely stop to think about
where these judgements come from and
whether they are based on valid grounds.
In a philosophical conversation, we look for
the basis of our judgements and examine
the hypotheses and assumptions upon
which they are built.
What do you mean with…?
Can you give an example?
Can you summarise what … is
talking about?
What is the main question in this
discussion?
Can you rephrase your/her/his
answer?
Why do you think so?
Why is it so?
How do we know this is true?
What is it based on?
What do we know for sure about this?
How can we prove it?
Is it a fact or an opinion?
3. Facilitator questions asking
for alternative perspectives
4. Facilitator questions about
implications and consequences
These questions invite us to look at and
question our own familiar perspectives.
Our everyday experiences and views are
usually self-evident. However, you can
also experience and understand the same
things differently if you look at them from a
different angle. Questions about changing
perspectives are also suitable for exposing
unfounded arguments or opinions without
explicitly acting as a content ‘corrector’ of
the conversation.
You can also test an assertion by making
its consequences and implications explicit.
For example, this type of question can be
used to expose contradictions in a line of
reasoning.
Can you imagine the opposite?
Are there other options that could
also be true?
Can the opposite be true?
Does anyone think otherwise?
What can we deduce from this?
Is there a general rule for this?
How does that t in with what you
just said?

212
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
(iv) Meta-reection
The focus of philosophising is on learning
to think critically together rather than
on nding one correct answer. It rarely
or never happens that a group comes
to a consensus. The characteristic of this
activity is that it raises more questions
than answers. The main goal is to increase
one’s understanding of the complexity of
the matter. You do not have to wait for an
answer that everyone agrees with before
you can conclude the discussion. However,
it is useful to have a short meta-reection
after the research in which you discuss the
conversation itself.
During a meta-reection, the
conversation is summarised, the most
important insights are listed and a joint
decision is made as to whether there
should be a follow-up conversation. You can
also conclude with a round of questions if
there is sufcient time. The questions that
remain after the discussion can be noted in
a philosophy notebook and dealt with in a
subsequent session.
It is also useful to determine how the
students experienced this activity, what
went well and what did not. Based on
this feedback, you may want to revise the
process of the discussion.
Facilitator questions for the meta-reection
What can we conclude?
What insights remain?
Do we understand the issue better?
Was the conversation useful?
Does everyone agree with the way
the conversation went?
What questions were not
addressed?
Is a follow-up discussion desirable?
2.5.2 Dialogue examples
Example 1: May we improve nature?
Stimulus
Students are asked to categorise objects
into two groups: ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’.
The facilitator asks students to explain why
they made a choice. Other students can also
respond.

213
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
Dialogue
Dialogue
Facilitator May we improve nature?
Facilitator May you doubt everything in a science
lesson?
Facilitator Does everyone agree?
Facilitator Aren’t there theories that never
change?
Facilitator Can you give an example of a fact that
never changes?
Facilitator What do the others think? Is ‘the Earth
is round’ a fact that never changes?
Facilitator Let’s go back to the beginning. Can you
doubt everything in the science class?
Facilitator What do the others think? Do you
agree?
Facilitator Can you give an example?
Facilitator Student 1, what do you think about
this example?
Facilitator Can you try to put your argumentation
into a rule?
Facilitator What do you mean by more and more?
Facilitator Who disagrees?
Facilitator What do the others think?
Student 1 No, we aren’t God.
Student 1 Yes, because sometimes you nd out
something new and you have to change
your original idea.
Student 1 Yes, I agree with Student 2. But this is not
what I wanted to say. I mean like cloning.
Student 1 If you don’t play with our genetic material,
it is OK.
Student 1 Because it will never stay with a hip.
Once we have the technology, we will
want more and more.
Student 1 Yes.
Student 2 No, we do it all the time—and that
doesn’t make us God.
Student 2 My aunt has a new hip. She can walk
again.
Student 2 Yes, a theory is never really nished. It is
like a tree—it keeps growing.
Student 6 Maybe we need rules, like a boundary.
Student 4 Like perfect people?
Student 4 Yes and no. In a way, you should doubt,
because if you think something is true, it
is much more like dogma—and science is
no dogma.
Student 4 I disagree. Imagine that we discover
a planet where all the organisms are
identical to the organisms on Earth. That
would show that evolution is different
from what we understand… or imagine
that we would nd a skeleton of a human
in an earth layer from the dinosaur age…
Then we might have to adapt the theory
of evolution, don’t we? The theory of
evolution can change. But thus far, we
haven’t needed to change it.
Student 5 I don’t know if that is true. If we can
improve hips, it does not mean that we
‘will want more’.
Student 5 Perhaps only facts can change.
Student 5 But then it wasn’t a fact if it could change.
Student 3 So a plastic hip is OK, but a cloned hip is
wrong. Why?
Student 3 The theory of evolution. That’s a theory
that cannot change.
Student 3 The Earth is round.
Student 3 We used to think that the earth was at,
so that has already changed.
Example 2: May you doubt everything in a
science lesson?
Stimulus
Quote: ‘To doubt everything and to believe
everything are two equally convenient
solutions; each saves us from thinking’
(Poincaré, 1902).
Students are asked to say what they think
this quote means. Then, the students
should answer why it means what they
think it means. Based on their ideas, new
philosophical questions can be phrased.

What teachers nd most difcult is not
to answer the questions themselves or
to correct the students. However, most of
the time, students will investigate each
other’s ideas on their own. As soon as you
start correcting students, the dialogue
evaporates and students mainly listen to
your answers. Then, the thinking process
has come to an end. If you start the
dialogue, make it clear to the students that
in a philosophical inquiry, you do not know
the answers. Afterwards, in a different
teaching phase, you can come back to
ideas or misconceptions that surfaced in
the dialogue.
TIP 1: Take the Socratic stance
214
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
Student 3 But if you doubt everything, you will never
be able to know everything. Maybe you
should doubt everything, but not the fact
that science can give us knowledge.
Student 7 Ay, my head aches—but I’m inspired as
well.
Example 3: Can you believe in science?
Stimulus: Case study
Students read a case study. Afterwards,
they answer the questions below in small
groups.
Case study. During the lesson on genetic
modication, Paulo gets angry and walks
out of the classroom, saying, ‘We must
not tamper with what God has given us!
Scientists work for the devil!’
What do you think of this
statement?
(How) Do religion and science
differ?
Can you talk about faith in science
class?
Can you believe in science?
Can a scientist believe in God?
Can scientists learn from religion?
Dialogue
Facilitator Can you believe in science?
Facilitator Is it possible to be absolutely sure of
something?
Facilitator Can you give an example?
Facilitator Does everyone agree?
Facilitator What is the difference between
knowing and believing?
Student 1 No, you can only believe in God. Science
is not something you believe in, it is
something you know.
Student 2 No, I think you can believe in science.
You can believe that science gives you a
better understanding of the world.
Student 1 Sometimes a scientist says he knows
something when he actually doesn’t. He
only believed that he knew it. You can
never be absolutely sure.
Student 2 I disagree. sometimes I say I know
something. For example, I know that my
brother is at home—but in the end, he is
not.
Student 4 If you know something, it is true. But if
you believe it, you think it is true.
Student 3 You can believe that science is a good
approach to knowing something.
Student 3 Hmm, perhaps not. But that makes it
difcult because if we are not sure, how
can we make choices?
Student 3 Well, if we don’t really know whether
genetic engineering is dangerous, then
what should we do? Should we wait with
it or should we start nevertheless?
Student 4 I agree. If we cannot be really sure of
anything, that’s what makes science
science. But at least I believe that science
is one of the best instruments used to
know what is true.

These philosophical dialogues should
be part of a larger teaching approach.
Of course, a science lesson is more than
simply having dialogues and exploring
student ideas. It also involves acquiring
an understanding of biology and science.
However, these dialogues can be useful
instruments for stimulating active
reection about science and ethics.
Not everyone feels eager to participate in
the dialogic process. For some students,
it may be frightening that certainties
are questioned. We often give students
the chance to participate by actively
addressing them as a facilitator. Yet, if
they do not wish to respond, that is
OK. Giving students time to discuss a
certain question in a pair helps to involve
the ideas of those who are shyer to
participate.
TIP 4: Participation is not
compulsory
The dialogic exercises can vary over
time. Sometimes it sufces to only ask
the question for a whole dialogue to be
sparked. Other times, it is more difcult.
Sometimes it may sufce to simply ask
a question and go on with the regular
science activity. For example, the question
‘Do you think this, or do you know it?’
can be a useful question to elicit a brief
moment of philosophical reection.
TIP 3: Timing can vary
TIP 2: Science education is more
than dialogue alone
215
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
2. PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY ABOUT
QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETIC
ENGINEERING
2.6 Further perspectives
on how to use the activity
in other contexts or with
participants of other ages
In this chapter we provided example
questions, stimuli and dialogues to start
a philosophical dialogue about GE in
your classroom. The dialogic approach
can function in many different contexts.
The challenge is to nd stimulating
philosophical questions. Taking the Socratic
stance and questioning the students’
responses will create a community of
inquiry that enhances a sense of wonder
and motivates students to think and provide
arguments.

216
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
3. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldahmash, A. H., Alshaya, F. S., & Asiri, A. A. (2012).
Secondary school students’ alternative conceptions
about genetics. The Electronic Journal for Research in
Science & Mathematics Education, 16(1).
Bostrom, N. (2003). Human genetic enhancements: A
transhumanist perspective. The Journal of Value
Inquiry, 37(4), 493–506.
Briggs, A. G., Morgan, S. K., Sanderson, S. K., Schulting, M.
C., & Wieseman, L. J. (2016). Tracking the resolution of
student misconceptions about the central dogma of
molecular biology. Journal of Microbiology & Biology
Education, 17(3), 339–350.
Clough, M. P. (2020). Framing and teaching nature of
science as questions. In Nature of science in science
instruction (pp. 271–282). Springer.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. Pan Mac-Millan.
Dawkins, R. (2009). The greatest show on Earth: The
evidence for evolution. Bantam Press.
De Schrijver, J., De Poorter, J., Cornelissen, E., & Anthone,
R. (2018). Pilot study on the introduction of philosophical
dialogues in Flemish science classes: Can a rabbit be a
scientist? In E. Duthie, F.G. Moriyon, & R.R. Loro (Eds.),
Family resemblances: Current trends in philosophy
with children (pp. 239–251). Anaya.
Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and education. The Free Press.
Dunlop, L., & De Schrijver, J. (2020). Reecting about the
nature of science through philosophical dialogue. In W. F.
McComas & Oramous, J. (Eds.), The nature of science:
Rationales and strategies (pp. 223–237). Springer.
Floridi, L. (2013). What is a philosophical question?
Metaphilosophy, 44(3), 195–221.
Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility: In
search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago
University Press.
Lafortunate, L., Daniel, M. F., Mongeau, P., & Pallascio,
R. (2003). Philosophy for children adapted to
mathematics: A study of its impact on the evolution
of affective factors. Analytic Teaching, 23(1).
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge
University Press.
Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to school. Temple
University Press.
Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., & Tytler, R. (2017). Engaging with
socially acute questions: Development and validation
of an interactional reasoning framework. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 54(7), 825–851.
Reznitskaya, A. (2005). Empirical research in philosophy
for children: Limitations and new directions. Thinking:
The Journal of Philosophy for Children, 17(4), 4–13.
Rondhuis, N. T. W. (2005). Philosophical talent: Empirical
investigations into philosophical features of
adolescents’ discourse. Veenman.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding
socioscientic issues: A critical review of research.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do
students gain by engaging in socioscientic inquiry?
Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.
Simonneaux, L., & Simonneaux, J. (2009). Socio-scientic
reasoning inuenced by identities. Cultural Studies of
Science Education, 4(3), 705–711.
Simonstein, F. (2019). Gene editing, enhancing and
women’s role. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(4),
1007–1016.
Wisch, J. K., Farrell, E., Siegel, M., & Freyermuth, S.
(2018). Misconceptions and persistence: Resources
for targeting student alternative conceptions in
biotechnology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Education, 46(6), 602–611.
Worley, P. (2016). Ariadne’s Clew Absence and presence in
the facilitation of philosophical conversations. Journal
of Philosophy in Schools, 3(2).
Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral
reasoning and the status of socioscientic issues
in science education. In The role of moral reasoning
on socioscientic issues and discourse in science
education (pp. 7–38). Springer.

217
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book would not be possible without
the scientic and technical review done
by evolutionary biologists, educational
researchers, teachers, and educators from
science museums. The editors of this book
would like to recognize the fundamental
role of the reviewers of this book that are
listed below and thank them for the work
they put into this book.
Reviewer’s name Afliation
Alpedrinha, João
Carneiro, Susana
Cavadas, Bento
Evangelia, Mavrikaki
Fiedler, Daniela
Fonseca, Maria João
Georgiou, Martha
Jeffries, Alex
Kampourakis, Kostas
Katakos, Stratis
Kristiansen, Kristian Holst
Mead, Rebecca
Mira, Sara
Magro, Alexandra
Jenkins, Tania
Corinne, Fortin
Đorđević, Mirko
cE3c, Ciências ULisboa, Portugal
Escola Secundária da Trofa, Portugal
Polytechnic Institute of Santarém; University Lusófona, CeiED, Portuga
National & Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA), Greece
IPN - Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Kiel, Germany
Museu de História Natural e da Ciência da Universidade do Porto, Portugal
Department of Biology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Milner Centre for Evolution, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath, UK
University of Geneva, Switzerland
5th high school of Kallithea, Greece
Department of Planning, Aalborg University Copenhagen, Denmark
Milner Centre for Evolution, Department of Life Sciences, University of Bath, UK
Lagos Ciência Viva Science Centre, Portugal
1) Laboratoire Évolution et Diversité biologique, UMR 5174 CNRS/UPS/IRD,
Toulouse, France
2) Université Fédérale de Toulouse Midi- Pyrénées – ENSFEA, Castanet-Tolosan,
France
University of Geneva, Science II, Quai Ernest Ansermet 30, 1205 Geneva,
Switzerland
Université Paris-Est Créteil, Laboratoire de didactique André Revuz Université
Paris-Cité, France
Department of Evolutionary Biology, Institute for Biological Research “Siniša
Stanković” - National Institute of the Republic of Serbia, University of Belgrade,
Belgrade, Serbia

218
CHAPTER 12 Are we allowed to tinker with (human)
DNA? Addressing socioscientic
issues through philosophical dialogue
- the case of genetic engineering
Reviewer’s name Afliation
Moormann, Alexandra
Realdon; Giulia
Rodrigues, André
Valakos, Stratis
Topcu, Mustafa Sami
Pessoa, Patrícia
Pinho, Catarina
Pinxten, Rianne
Turpin, Sébastien
Zeidler, Dana L.
Sá-Pinto, Xana
Nehm, Ross H.
Pietrzak, Barbara
Museum für Naturkunde - Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science,
Berlin, Germany
University of Camerino, Geology Section, UNICAMearth group, Italy
Freelancer educator, Portugal
Department of Biology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
Yıldız Technical University, Turkey
University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal; CIDTFF - Research Centre
on Didactics and Technology in the Education of Trainers, Department of
Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Portugal
CIBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO,
Laboratório Associado, Portugal; BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity
and Land Planning, Portugal
Afliation 1: Research group Didactica, Antwerp School of Education, University
of Antwerp, Belgium Afliation 2: Behavioural Ecology & Ecophysiology research
group, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Département Homme et
Environnement - Centre d’Écologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, France
Department of Teaching & Learning, College of Education, University of South
Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
CIDTFF, Research Centre on Didactics and Technology in the Education of
Trainers, Department of Psychology and Education, University of Aveiro, Portugal
Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, USA
Faculty of Biology, Institute of Functional Biology and Ecology, Department o
Hydrobiology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland