a cross-cultural comparison of korean and american science teachers' views of evolution and the...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 22 April 2011Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Korean and American Science Teachers'Views of Evolution and the Nature of ScienceSun Young Kima; Ross H. Nehmb

a Department of Science Education, The Pusan National University, Busan, Republic of Korea b Collegeof Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

First published on: 30 March 2010

To cite this Article Kim, Sun Young and Nehm, Ross H.(2011) 'A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Korean and AmericanScience Teachers' Views of Evolution and the Nature of Science', International Journal of Science Education, 33: 2, 197 —227, First published on: 30 March 2010 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09500690903563819URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690903563819

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713737283

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690903563819

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

International Journal of Science EducationVol. 33, No. 2, 15 January 2011, pp. 197–227

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/11/020197–31© 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690903563819

RESEARCH REPORT

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Korean and American Science Teachers’ Views of Evolution and the Nature of Science

Sun Young Kima* and Ross H. NehmbaDepartment of Science Education, The Pusan National University, Busan, Republic of Korea; bCollege of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USATaylor and FrancisTSED_A_456857.sgm10.1080/09500690903563819International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Research Report2010Taylor & Francis0000000002010Dr. Sun [email protected]

Despite a few international comparisons of the evolutionary beliefs of the general public, compara-tively less research has focused on science teachers. Cross-cultural studies offer profitable opportu-nities for exploring the interactions among knowledge and belief variables in regard to evolution indifferent socio-cultural contexts. We investigated the evolutionary worldviews of pre-servicescience teachers from Asia (specifically South Korea), a region often excluded from internationalcomparisons. We compared Korean and American science teachers’: (1) understandings of evolu-tion and the nature of science, and (2) acceptance of evolution in order to elucidate how knowl-edge and belief relationships are manifested in different cultural contexts. We found that Koreanscience teachers exhibited ‘moderate’ evolutionary acceptance levels comparable to or lower thanAmerican science teacher samples. Gender was significantly related to Korean teachers’ evolutioncontent knowledge and acceptance of evolution, with female Christian biology teachers displayingthe lowest values on all measures. Korean science teachers’ understandings of nature of sciencewere significantly related to their acceptance and understanding of evolution; this relationshipappears to transcend cultural boundaries. Our new data on Korean teachers, combined with stud-ies from more than 20 other nations, expose the global nature of science teacher ambivalence orantipathy toward evolutionary knowledge.

Keywords: Biology education; Gender-related; Nature of science; Pre-service; Religion; Evolution; Cross-cultural; Nature of science

*Corresponding author. Department of Science Education, The Pusan National University,Busan, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded At: 18:11 22 April 2011

198 S. Y. Kim and R. H. Nehm

Introduction

Worldwide celebrations commemorating the 150th anniversary of the publication ofDarwin’s On the Origin of Species have been dampened by a growing body of researchdemonstrating consistently low levels of evolutionary knowledge, high levels of anti-evolutionary beliefs, and pervasive misconceptions about the nature of science(NOS) in the citizens and teachers from one of the world’s most scientificallyadvanced nations—the USA (Miller, Scott, & Okamoto, 2006). Seventy years ofpublished research on American science teachers have revealed a relatively consis-tent portrait of antievolutionism across geography and through time (Affannato,1986; Burnett, 1941; Eglin, 1983; Fahrenwald, 1999; Firenze, 1998; Fisher, 1989;Groves, 1990; Johnson, 1991; Jorstad, 2002; Kraemer, 1995; Miller, 1990; Moore,2008; Nehm, Kim, & Sheppard, 2009; Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007; Osif, 1997;Riddle, 1942; Shankar, 1989; Taylor, 1999; Trani, 2004; Troost, 1966; Zimmer-man, 1987). These studies have investigated a wide range of topics that impact theteaching of evolution, including teacher beliefs, attitudes, religiosity, educationalbackgrounds, curricular emphasis on evolution, knowledge and understanding of theNOS, and external pressure not to teach evolution (Nehm, Kim, et al., 2009). Whilethe results of these studies show a wide range of practices, beliefs, attitudes, andcompetencies, the teaching of creationism/intelligent design or the deliberate non-teaching of evolution (what we collectively term ‘antievolutionism’) is a majorconcern for American biology teachers (Moore & Kraemer, 2005). Nearly half of thescience teachers sampled from New York City (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007), Kansas(Aldrich, 1991), California (Strauss, 2008), and Indiana (Troost, 1966), for exam-ple, personally preferred that creationism or intelligent design be taught in publicschools. These results do not differ markedly from those of the American public(Newport, 2009). Remarkably, nearly a quarter of science teachers in some Ameri-can states continue to teach creationism (Moore & Kraemer, 2005).

But is ambivalence or antipathy toward evolutionary knowledge—in the publicgenerally or in science teachers particularly—a uniquely American issue, as somehave suggested (e.g., Archer, 1987; Miller et al., 2006; Price, 1992; Scott, 2009; butfor a contrasting view, see Kutschera, 2008)? Despite international comparisons ofthe evolutionary attitudes toward creationism in the general public using very simplemeasures (Miller et al., 2006), comparatively less international research has focusedon science teachers (see Deniz, Donnelly, & Yilmaz, 2008). Moreover, little workhas examined how teachers’ funds of science knowledge intersect with differentcultural belief systems to generate evolutionary epistemologies (cf. Deniz et al.,2008). Cross-cultural comparisons offer profitable opportunities for exploring theinteractions among knowledge and belief in different cultural contexts; generaliza-tions of knowledge/belief interrelationships within one culture—or within one reli-gious worldview—may not hold among others. For example, while considerablework in the USA indicates that fundamentalist religiosity is the largest explanatoryvariable accounting for antievolutionary worldviews, recent work in Germanysuggests that understanding of the NOS may be of greater importance (Graf, 2009).


Korean and American Teachers’ Views of Evolution 199

Likewise, research on creationist beliefs and their connections to Christianity inScotland and Kenya revealed significantly different relationships among variables(Fulljames, Harry, Gibson, & Francis, 1991). Cross-cultural research studies, there-fore, offer great promise for establishing more rigorous and contextually expansiveexplanatory models of evolutionary knowledge/belief relationships.

Research Questions

The overarching goal of our study is to compare Korean and American pre-servicescience teachers’ understandings of the NOS, evolution content knowledge, andacceptance of evolution. Specifically, we ask four interrelated questions—DoAmerican and Korean pre-service science teachers differ in their: (1) degree ofacceptance of the theory of evolution, (2) magnitude of evolutionary content knowl-edge, (3) magnitude of knowledge of evolution in relation to the NOS, and (4)degree of informed views about the NOS? We answer these questions by partitioningour dataset by teacher content specialization area (biology vs. non-biology), religion(Christian vs. non-Christian), and gender (male vs. female). Prior to presenting ournew data on Korean science teachers, we examined previous research on the evolu-tionary views of teachers from around the world in order to situate our researchquestions within a broader international context and compare our findings to priorwork.

American Science Teachers’ Evolutionary Worldviews

More research has been conducted on American science teachers’ evolutionaryworldviews than any other region of the world. Although a comprehensive nationalsurvey remains to be completed, isolated studies suggest that large numbers ofAmerican science teachers include either creationism or intelligent design in theirscience classes or prefer its inclusion along with evolution in the curriculum(Berkman, Pacheco, & Plutzer, 2008; Plutzer & Berkman, 2008). Survey researchemploying different items and prompts reveals that approximately 30% of scienceteachers prefer to teach—or do teach—creationism in schools (Aguillard, 1998;Eglin, 1983; Eve & Dunn, 1990; Fisher, 1989; Johnson, 1991; Miller, 1990; Roelfs,1987; Tatina, 1989). Furthermore, approximately 50% of science teachers supportthe teaching of evolution alongside some form of creationism or intelligent design(Buckner, 1983; Nehm, Kim, et al., 2009; Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007; Strauss,2008), although some studies suggest considerably higher percentages (Bergman,1979; Van Koevering & Stiehl, 1989). Survey research also suggests that evolution israrely taught as a unifying theme in biology classrooms (Brown, 2000; Maldonado-Rivera, 1998; Weld & McNew, 1999) or with appropriate emphasis as a conceptualorganizer (Nehm, Poole, et al., 2009).

The factors that have been hypothesized to account for American science teacherantievolutionism are many, but few causal relationships have been rigorously estab-lished (reviewed in Donnelly & Boone, 2007). This is primarily a consequence of



survey research designs rather than quasi-experimental interventions (however, seeNehm & Schonfeld, 2007, for an example of the latter). Nevertheless, severalpatterns have been established: science teachers often do not want to teach evolution(Aguillard, 1998; Eve & Dunn, 1990; Shankar & Skoog, 1993), do not feeladequately prepared to teach it (Aguillard, 1999; Griffith & Brem, 2004; Plutzer &Berkman, 2008), or do not understand the legal precedents associated with evolu-tion education (Moore, 2003). In addition, science teachers’ knowledge of evolutionand the NOS are often low, and many teachers consequently harbor naïve scientificworldviews (Crawford, Zembal-Saul, Munford, & Friedrichsen, 2005; Evans, 2005;Moore, 2008; Nehm, Kim, et al., 2009; Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007). Moreover,many state science standards remain weak with regard to the importance of evolu-tionary theory to the natural sciences (Lerner, 2000; Moore, 2003). Unsurprisingly,fundamentalist religiosity (and in some cases strong religious convictions) is associ-ated with lower levels of evolutionary acceptance (Trani, 2004; however, see Nehm,Kim, et al., 2009). Finally, many communities, school boards, and parents, chal-lenge teachers when they follow state and national standards and teach evolution(Chuang, 2003; Plutzer & Berkman, 2008; Tatina, 1989; Van Koevering & Stiehl,1989). These and other contextual factors are not surprisingly associated with teach-ers’ emotional stress and negative perceptions regarding evolution (Brem, Ranney, &Schindel, 2003; Griffith & Brem, 2004).

A few studies of science teacher antievolutionism have been completed in the USterritory of Puerto Rico. They reveal a comparably dismal portrait of science teacherevolutionary views as documented on the mainland (Maldonado-Rivera, 1998; SotoSonera, 2006). While evolution was part of the official curriculum in Puerto Rico,Maldonado-Rivera (1998) found that it was ‘completely neglected’ largely as aconsequence of teacher fundamentalist religiosity, lack of evolutionary knowledgeand understanding of the NOS. Soto Sonera (2006) found that the ‘official docu-ment Standards of Excellence … omits the subject of biological evolution and incorpo-rates a language that promotes and justifies the inclusion in the curriculum of thecreationists [sic] positions.’ Like Maldonado-Rivera (1998), Soto Sonera (2006)found that ‘in the classroom the topics of the [sic] biological evolution are nottaught.’

Within American science student and teacher samples, understanding of theNOS has received increasing and focused attention as a variable with possiblecausal associations with evolutionary worldviews (e.g., Clough, 1994, 2006;Dagher & BouJaoude, 1997; Johnson & Peeples, 1987; Lombrozo, Thanukos, &Weisberg, 2008; Nehm, Kim, et al., 2009; Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007; Rutledge &Mitchell, 2002; Scharmann, 2005; Trani, 2004). Johnson and Peeples (1987), forexample, found that students’ understanding of NOS was significantly correlatedwith the acceptance of evolutionary theory; as students increased their understand-ing of the NOS, they were more likely to accept the theory of evolution. Rutledgeand Mitchell (2002) likewise found that there was a significant association betweenteachers’ acceptance of evolutionary theory and completion of a course in NOS.Rutledge and Warden (2000) similarly found a significant relationship between



teachers’ acceptance of evolutionary theory and teachers’ understanding of bothNOS and evolutionary theory. In contrast to these survey research results, an inter-vention study of science teachers by Nehm and Schonfeld (2007) found that signif-icant evolutionary knowledge gains (including gains in NOS) were not associatedwith significant changes in evolutionary beliefs. The question remains as towhether the abundant research on American science teachers is representative ofteachers internationally. Indeed, is ambivalence or antipathy toward evolution auniquely American problem?

International Research on Science Teachers’ Evolutionary Views

In order to situate our empirical research on Korean science teachers’ evolutionaryviews within a broader international context, we review the comparatively few stud-ies (relative to the USA) that have investigated science teachers’ acceptance andunderstanding of evolutionary theory around the world.

Turkey, Lebanon, North Africa, and the Mediterranean Region

Perhaps the most comprehensive international study of science teachers’evolutionary worldviews is that of Deniz et al. (2008); they examined factorsrelated to the acceptance of evolutionary theory in Turkish pre-service biologyteachers. They found that biology teachers’ thinking dispositions (e.g., opennessto belief change, cognitive flexibility, etc.), their understanding of evolutionarytheory, and their parents’ educational level were positively (but very weakly)correlated with the acceptance of the theory of evolution (less than 10% of allvariance). Measures of both knowledge and acceptance of evolution were verylow in their sample, with average MATE (Measure of Acceptance of the Theoryof Evolution) evolutionary acceptance scores of 51/80 (64%) and average evolu-tionary knowledge scores of 9.3/21 (<50%). More recently, reported results fromTurkey (Curry, 2009) likewise indicate that nearly 75% of students rejected thetheory of evolution.

In Lebanon, Hokayem and BouJaoude (2008) qualitatively investigated 11 collegestudents’ perceptions of science, religion, and the nature of causality according tothe levels of students’ acceptance of the theory of evolution. Their results indicatedstudents’ perceptions of the theory of evolution ranged from complete acceptance touncertainty and complete rejection of evolution, and these perceptions of the theoryof evolution were affected by students’ personal beliefs. Similarly, Dagher andBouJaoude (1997) explored Lebanese students’ views of the theory of biologicalevolution. Participants’ religious affiliations were primarily Christian or Islamic. Theopen-ended responses distinguished those students in support of evolution (48%),against evolution (34%), compromise (15%), or neutral (3%), and the studysuggested that the opportunity to discuss students’ beliefs in relation to scientificknowledge—as well as teaching about the NOS—facilitated students’ evolutionaryunderstanding.



Likewise, unpublished but recently reported work (Curry, 2009) indicates thatover half of the biology teachers in Senegal, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, and Alge-ria agreed with the statement: ‘it is certain that God created life.’ However, theseresults—apparently based upon the recent work by Clément, Quessada, Laurent,and Carvalho (2008)—must be interpreted with caution, as it is not clear that thecategory ‘biology teacher’ is equivalent among these and Western nations; universityand government preparation requirements differ markedly. The results are, never-theless, suggestive of ambivalence or antipathy toward evolutionary knowledge inteachers from these regions (Clément et al., 2008).

Additional studies from southern Europe confirm that ‘antievolutionism’ is aserious issue for many science teachers. In a study of 111 Greek secondary biologyteachers, Prinou, Halkia, and Skordoulis (2005) found that while the majority of theteachers were supportive of the teaching of evolution in schools, 16% supported theexclusion of evolution from the curriculum. The study also found that those teachersprepared in biology did not display a greater understanding of evolution than thoseprepared in other disciplines (as was also found by Crawford et al., 2005 in a smallsample of American science teachers).

Europe and the United Kingdom

Research on the evolutionary beliefs of science teachers and the general public fromWestern Europe also suggests that ambivalence or antipathy toward evolutionaryknowledge may be more widespread than is generally acknowledged (Kutschera,2008; reviewed in Curry, 2009). The near failure of a vote in the Council of Europeattempting to adopt the position that it firmly opposes the teaching of creationism asa scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution is suggestive ofambiguous views toward evolution in Western Europe (Curry, 2009). Indeed,empirical data are emerging that corroborate such conjecture: Kutschera (2008)found that approximately 40% of Germans were adherents to creationist doctrine(or that of ‘intelligent’ design). Likewise, in a study of 1,228 German students plan-ning to become teachers, Graf (2009) found that 20% of prospective biology teach-ers employed ‘Lamarckian’ explanations for evolutionary change and less than 33%were able to answer questions regarding the key concepts of natural selection.(Approximately 20% of the general public in Germany harbors strictly creationistviews; Curry, 2009.) ‘Young earth’ creationists number approximately 21.8% inSwitzerland, 20.4% in Austria, and 19.1% in Germany (Numbers, 2009). InSweden, Zetterqvist’s (2003) study suggests that teachers there lack the ability toteach evolutionary biology to achieve deep conceptual understanding. Recent politi-cal debates regarding creationism in Italy are also suggestive of ambivalence towardevolution in Europe (Curry, 2009).

Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Russia, and Ukraine),after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has also dealt with creationist movements(Numbers, 2009). Notably, the minister of education in Serbia informed schoolteachers that their students do not need to read the chapter on Darwinism in the



commonly used eighth-grade biology textbook (Numbers, 2009). But in general,little has been published about science teachers from these regions.

Studies in England, Scotland, and Wales have revealed levels of evolutionaryacceptance not appreciably different from those of the USA. A BBC poll in 2006revealed that 40% of respondents thought that creationism should be taught inschools. In the same survey, only 48% of respondents considered ‘evolution’ as thebest explanation for the origin and development of life on earth. Cleaves and Toplis(2007), in a qualitative study of British science teachers, found that 31% of ‘experi-enced’ and ‘trainee’ teachers had encountered student creationist challenges. Whilethe majority of the teacher sample was supportive of the teaching of evolution,several of the teachers interviewed considered evolution ‘just a theory’ and eight ofthe 64 teachers preferred to present evolutionary ideas as ‘controversial’ tostudents.

A recent study of 923 teachers from England and Wales reported that ‘37% of therespondents agreed that creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolu-tion.’ Among biology teachers from the same sample, 30% held the same view. In astudy of Scottish biology students, Downie and Baroon (2000) asked whether evolu-tion occurred on earth and whether they accepted or rejected evolution. They founda general tendency to associate evolutionary rejection with a literal interpretation ofthe Bible by Christians and that a high proportion of Muslim students rejectedevolution. In Northern Ireland, studies have apparently been completed on pupils aswell as pre-service science teachers, and these results corroborate previous work(Francis & Greer, 1999; McCrory & Murphy, 2009). Francis and Greer (1999)specifically found that 48% of 2,129 pupils accept the view that ‘God created theworld as described in the Bible.’ Interestingly, 30% of the respondents from North-ern Ireland cited in Francis and Greer (1999) agreed with the statement ‘Sciencedisproves the Bible account of creation.’ McCrory and Murphy (2009) asked pre-service teachers, ‘What should be taught in science?’ About 21% of participantsindicated a preference for evolution only, 8% of them selected either creationism orintelligent design, and 68% chose a middle-ground option.

Papua New Guinea, Australia, and New Zealand

Research in Papua New Guinea (PNG), a self-declared ‘Christian country’(Brunton & Colqhoun-Kerr, 1984), provides additional insight into the globalteacher antievolutionism. As is the case in the USA, ‘Science per se is often regardedas being antagonistic to religion, even by university science students’ (Vlaardinger-broek & Roederer, 1997, p. 364). Interestingly, in a study of PNG trainee teachers,Vlaardingerbroek and Roederer (1997) found that while a majority of teachersthought that basic evolutionary concepts should be introduced in school science, amajority also thought that the Biblical story of creation should be taught as ‘a truescientific account’ in PNG schools. This study also found no significant correlationbetween teachers’ attitude scores toward evolution and their knowledge of evolution.Similar to many studies of American teachers, Vlaardingerbroek and Roederer



(1997) found that mainstream Christians often held a ‘dual acceptance’ position,while approximately 60% of religious fundamentalists rejected it.

In Australia, creationism was initially viewed as an insignificant and transient‘American import’ (Price, 1992), but its roots have since grown deep. Pervasive pro-creationist constituencies have influenced school education, most notably efforts toprovide ‘equal time’ for creationism and evolutionary biology (reviewed inNumbers, 2004). In terms of the NOS, in Queensland schools evolution was taughtas ‘only a theory’ (Numbers, 2004). Creationism was briefly a part of the Queen-sland syllabus for secondary schools, and its teaching ‘flourished’ in private schoolsduring the 1980s (Numbers, 2004). But the problem also extended to Australianteachers. According to the Australian Institute of Biology national poll, 12.6% offirst-year biology students at Australian universities believed that ‘God created manwithin the last 10,000 years’ (Price, 1992). Creationist frequencies were muchhigher in Sydney (20%) and less than 40% of a sample of 688 university sciencestudents considered evolutionary patterns to be devoid of supernatural causes (e.g.,divine intervention). In this study, all Australian states and universities sampledcontained ‘young earth’ creationists (Price, 1992). While the frequencies ofcreationist beliefs in Australian university students are relatively high, they are muchlower than those reported for the Australian general public; in 1986, a sample of30,000 Australians revealed that 65% believed that God created the world in sixdays (Numbers, 2004). Numbers (2009) argues that creationism is similarly wide-spread in New Zealand.

Asia

In Singapore, Lee, Izard, and Yeoh (1998) studied 70 secondary school and juniorcollege teachers’ knowledge and attitudes toward evolution. They found that lowerability teachers had greater difficulty answering questions about evolution relative toecology; that a quarter of teachers felt that evolution was ‘based on speculation’ andapproximately 17% of teachers thought of evolution as ‘purposeful striving’ alongwith other misconceptions. Lee et al. (1998) conclude that ‘teachers displayed afairly good understanding of the subject matter,’ even though their sample ofSingaporean teachers’ average evolutionary knowledge scores were 69% (mean of 25out of 36 items).

To our knowledge, there are only a few studies that have examined teachers’perceptions of the theory of evolution in East Asian countries such as Korea. WhileMiller et al.’s (2006) study reported data from Japan and found high levels ofevolutionary acceptance among the general public, there were no data reportedfrom many Asian countries. Recently, however, a Korean broadcast poll revealedthat 62.6% of the public believed in evolutionary theory, while 30.6% of the publicdid not (the remaining percentage of people said they were not sure). Althoughvery little research concerning antievolutionism in Korea has been completed,according to Im, Cho, and Hong (2007), 49.2% of college students agreed that thetheory of evolution counts as ‘science’ and that creationism is a form of religion,



whereas 25.6% did not. Similarly, Ha, Lee, and Cha (2006) reported that 41.4%of high school students agreed or strongly agreed that evidence supports the theoryof evolution, while 20.4% of them disagreed or strongly disagreed (others wereneutral). Even though many students tended to believe the evidence for evolution,both Korean students and teachers possessed evolutionary misconceptions. Ha andCha (2009), for example, reported that Korean pre-service teachers commonlyemployed evolutionary explanations invoking scientifically inaccurate ‘use anddisuse’ explanatory models. Similarly, Lee and Lee (2006) examined students’conceptions of evolution across grade levels (e.g., 9th, 12th, and pre-service teach-ers), and found that, regardless of grade levels, students often possessed‘Lamarckian’ explanatory models. Overall, this limited body of research suggeststhat Korean secondary students and teachers possess many of the evolutionarymisconceptions documented in American samples (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007) andthat moderate percentages of the population display antievolutionary preferences.But no research to our knowledge has explored Korean science teachers’ evolution-ary acceptance in relation to knowledge of evolution and the NOS and religiosity.Such knowledge would help science teacher educators more accurately conceptual-ize the purportedly unique problem of American science teacher antievolutionismas well as understand how knowledge and belief relationships are manifested indifferent cultural contexts.

Our review of science teachers’ evolutionary knowledge and beliefs from aroundthe world has revealed that disparate sampling methods, measurement instruments,analysis categories, and research foci make precise international comparisons nearlyimpossible. Indeed, while meaningful comparisons of samples require the use ofstandardized instruments and measures among nations and/or cultural contexts, theevolution education research community has largely failed to generate internation-ally agreed-upon measures. What we can conclude—albeit tentatively—is thatambivalence or antipathy toward evolutionary knowledge is not merely an Americanproblem (contra Miller et al., 2006); every region of the world that we reviewed isstruggling with the issue of evolution education. Many regions and nations,however, remain to be studied.

Our literature review has also revealed that remarkably little empirical research hastargeted pre-service science teachers from Asia in general and South Korea in partic-ular. Similarly, many Asian countries have been excluded from internationalcomparisons of the evolutionary worldviews of the general public (e.g., Miller et al.,2006). In order to facilitate further international comparative work, we translateseveral of the most commonly used instruments for measuring evolutionary knowl-edge and acceptance in American science teachers into Korean. We exploredwhether American and Korean pre-service science teachers differ in their: (1) degreeof acceptance of the theory of evolution, (2) magnitude of evolutionary contentknowledge, (3) magnitude of knowledge of evolution in relation to the NOS, and (4)degree of informed views about the NOS. We answered these questions by partition-ing our dataset by teacher content specialization area (biology vs. non-biology), reli-gion (Christian vs. non-Christian), and gender (male vs. female). Finally, we situate



our findings on Korean science teachers within the broader international contextrevealed by our literature review.

Socio-Cultural Context: South Korea

South Korea is a small nation—approximately the size of the American state of Indi-ana—but contains a population approaching 49 million (US Department of State,2008). A highly literate nation (98%), Korea has experienced considerable economicgrowth in the past 30 years and has recently emerged as the 13th largest economy inthe world. Culturally, Korea is one of the most ethnically and linguistically homoge-nous nations in the world, with most citizens sharing a common cultural and linguis-tic heritage (US Department of State, 2008). High religiosity and/or fundamentalistbeliefs are closely tied to antievolutionary and creationist worldviews (Coyne, 2009),and so it is notable that only half of the Korean population actively practicesreligion. Among those practicing, Christianity (49%) and Buddhism (47%)comprise Korea’s dominant religions. While only 3% of Koreans self-identify asConfucians, ‘Korean society remains highly imbued with Confucian values andbeliefs’ (US Department of State, 2008). In Korea, therefore, various religions (e.g.,Buddhism, Christianity, and Confucianism) have coexisted together, representing amulti-religious tradition, and have contributed significantly to Korean society. Thisreligious pluralism has enabled Korean society to adopt both Eastern and Westerncultural traditions (Kim, 2002).

In Korea, a secondary science teacher certificate is typically acquired through afour-year Bachelor of Education program or a Bachelor of Science program with anadditional two-year Master of Education program. Even though the curriculumvaries among universities, pre-service teachers typically take content knowledgecourses (general biology/chemistry/physics/earth science), pedagogical contentknowledge courses, and general education courses in a four-year Bachelor of Educa-tion program. Students complete additional in-depth content courses particular totheir major (e.g., students enrolled in a biology education major may completeanimal/plant physiology, genetics, microbiology, etc.). Students usually learn aboutevolution in general biology courses.

Evolution is included in the Korean national curriculum (seventh edition) at boththe middle and high school levels. Ninth-grade students are required to learn theevidence that supports the scientific concept of evolution and the theories explainingthe causes and processes of evolution. At the high school level, students learn aboutthe origin of species and evolution in greater depth. Particularly, the seventh Koreannational curriculum mandates that creationism is not to be mentioned when dealingwith evolution.

Sample

A total of 84 Korean pre-service teachers (49 men, 35 women) with a mean age of22.94 (ranging from 18 to 31) who were enrolled in a college of education at a



Korean university participated in this study. All the participants were in their secondor third year of undergraduate studies and enrolled in a program specificallydesigned for secondary science teachers. Their majors were biology (n = 33), chem-istry (n = 17), physics (n = 12), and earth science education (n = 22). Their religionswere self-identified as Christian (n = 15), Buddhism (n = 9), and no religion (n =54) (others did not respond). Data were collected in a general biology experimentcourse which is required for all teachers regardless of subject area specialization.Students in this course were engaged in various experiments (e.g., observations ofbone structures, muscles, human blood; dissection of frogs; DNA extraction) tolearn basic biology knowledge and basic experimental skills in order to use theseskills and knowledge in secondary schools. The instruments were administered atthe beginning of the course. Among those enrolled in the course, approximately 95%of teachers completed the survey sufficiently for analysis.

Instruments and Measures

In addition to the collection of basic demographic variables, we administered fourinstruments (e.g., Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution [Rutledge &Warden, 1999]; Evolution Content Knowledge [Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007]; Evolu-tion and the Nature of Science [Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007], and Views of the Natureof Science [Abd-El-Khalick, 1998]) that have been utilized in evolution educationstudies in the USA. These instruments were translated into Korean and reviewed foraccuracy by two bilingual education specialists. We discuss the salient attributes ofeach instrument below.

MATE (Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution)

Korean pre-service teachers’ acceptance of evolution was assessed using Rutledgeand Warden’s (1999) MATE. This measure consists of 20 items on a five-pointLikert scale (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, strongly disagree). Theinstrument includes items such as ‘There is a significant body of data that supportsevolutionary theory,’ ‘Evolutionary theory is supported by factual historical andlaboratory data,’ ‘Evolution is a scientifically valid theory,’ and ‘Evolutionary theorygenerates testable predictions with respect to the characteristics of life.’ Rutledgeand Warden (1999) reported that the content validity of the MATE was establishedby a committee of five university professors with expertise in the fields of evolution-ary biology, science education, and philosophy of science. Cronbach’s α for oursample was 0.84, which is slightly lower than that reported in previous studies ofAmerican samples (Rutledge & Sadler, 2007; α = 0.94).

ECK (Evolution Content Knowledge)

ECK is a composite variable designed to measure evolution content knowledge inscience teachers (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007). This measure consists of eight items



such as ‘Fossil species have been found that are intermediate between humans andapes,’ ‘Radiometric dating of rocks indicates that the earth is billions of years old,’and ‘Chance cannot be a key factor in the origin of complex organisms.’ Nehm andSchonfeld (2007) reported that the validity of ECK was established by examiningthe correlation of ECK scores with a separately administered exam essay that askedparticipants to explain the processes (mechanisms) that cause patterns of evolution-ary change. The Cronbach’s α for our sample was 0.58, which is lower than thatreported for American teacher samples (0.72 and 0.77; Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007).

ENOS (Evolution and the Nature of Science)

ENOS was developed by Nehm and Schonfeld (2007) and is a composite variablethat was used to measure teachers’ knowledge about the NOS in relation to evolu-tion. This measure consists of nine items such as ‘Evolution is weak because it is atheory,’ ‘Evolution cannot be observed because it is outside the realm of science,’and ‘Evolution cannot be refuted by any observation.’ The authors reported that thevalidity of this instrument was established by the significant correlation of ENOSscores with essay responses that evaluated participant knowledge of the NOS relat-ing to evolution. The ENOS yielded the Cronbach’s α of 0.52 for our sample, whichis much lower than that reported for American teacher samples (0.62; Nehm &Schonfeld, 2007). Further research should be devoted to the dimensionality of thisconstruct given its moderate internal consistency measure.

VNOS (Views of the Nature of Science)

We used Abd-El-Khalick’s (1998) VNOS-version C to measure Korean pre-serviceteachers’ views of the NOS. VNOS-C consists of 10 open-ended questions such as‘Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Illustrate youranswer with an example,’ and ‘After scientists have developed a scientific theory(e.g., atomic theory, evolutionary theory), does the theory ever change?’ A panel ofexperts established the face and content validity of the VNOS-C (Abd-El-Khalick,1998). Even though there are some disagreements among science educators, scien-tists, and philosophers regarding the appropriate views of the NOS, there isconsensus in the science education community (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman,2000). A coding scheme, based on informed views of NOS (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002), was used to code the VNOS data. Six categoriesof NOS views were delineated: (1) tentative (scientific knowledge is subject tochange), (2) creative and imaginative (scientists utilize their creativity and imagina-tion), (3) social and cultural (science is socially and culturally embedded), (4)theory laden (science is subjective), (5) inference (science is based on human infer-ence), and (6) theory and law (the scientific differences between theories and laws)(Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). These six categories were examined in orderto determine whether or not students possessed informed views for each NOS cate-gory. Two independent coders made judgments regarding student responses. The



initial agreement was about 92%. Disagreements were resolved through discussionsbetween scorers.

For the MATE, ENOS, and ECK, an ANOVA (analysis of variance) wasperformed to examine the score differences among genders, certification subjectareas, and religions. In addition, the Mann–Whitney U-tests were utilized toinvestigate VNOS score differences among genders, subject areas (biology vs. non-biology), and religions (Christian vs. non-Christian). Finally, Pearson correlationcoefficients were used to examine the associations among VNOS, ENOS, ECK, andMATE scores.

Results

Our study explored Korean pre-service science teachers’ knowledge of evolution andthe NOS, and their acceptance of evolution in relation to gender, religion, andscience certification subject area, and compared these results to American scienceteachers. One of the most widely used measures of evolutionary acceptance isRutledge and Sadler’s (2007) MATE, which has five categories of acceptance: veryhigh (89–100), high (76–88), moderate (65–75), low (53–64), and very low (<52).Korean Christian female biology teachers in our sample displayed ‘low acceptance’MATE scores, whereas Korean science teachers from the other certification subjectsdisplayed ‘moderate acceptances’ (Table 1, Figure 1). No group of Korean scienceteachers was found to display ‘very high’ acceptance levels of evolution as measuredby the MATE.

The MATE scores of our Korean teacher sample were compared with MATEscores for American life science teacher samples from Indiana (Rutledge & Warden,2000), Oregon (Trani, 2004), and Ohio (Korte, 2003), as well as samples of collegeundergraduates from Ohio (Figure 1). Our sample of Korean science teachers had

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of knowledge and belief measures for Korean science teachers

MATE ENOS ECK

TeachersChristian vs. non-Christian Gender Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Biology Christian Male 79.60 3.66 28.40 1.36 33.60 1.53Female 54.00 5.79 24.00 2.16 29.00 2.42

Non-Christian Male 75.64 2.47 31.18 0.92 31.64 1.03Female 75.00 2.11 30.07 0.79 32.47 0.88

Non-biology Christian Male 73.40 3.66 26.20 1.36 34.00 1.53Female 74.50 5.79 27.00 2.16 30.00 2.42

Non-Christian Male 73.86 1.75 28.00 0.65 33.64 0.73Female 74.21 2.19 26.93 0.79 31.20 0.88

Note. See the text for descriptions of the MATE, ENOS, and ECK measures. Biology (n = 33), Non-biology (n = 44), Christian (n = 14), Non-Christian (n = 63).



an average MATE score of 73.79 (SD = 9.2) which was very similar to the Indianascience teachers from Rutledge and Warden’s study (mean = 77.59, SD = 19.8);both groups displayed ‘moderate’ acceptance levels (Rutledge & Sadler, 2007).Korean science teachers displayed lower MATE scores than the ‘high’ evolutionaryacceptance values for biology teachers from Oregon and Ohio, however (Oregonmean MATE = 85.9, SD = 17.48; Ohio mean MATE = 87, SD = 17.24). MATEdata from samples of college undergraduates from Ohio (J. Ridgway, personalcommunication, 2009) also revealed evolutionary acceptance levels comparable toor higher than our sample of Korean science teachers. A sample of 224 undergradu-ate biology majors had mean MATE values of 80.79 (SD = 15.80) and a sample of374 undergraduate non-majors had mean MATE values of 77.90 (SD = 14.40).Finally, Deniz et al. (2008) also employed the MATE instrument in a sample ofTurkish science teachers and found average values of 64. Overall, Korean scienceteachers appear to have levels of evolutionary acceptance comparable to or less thanAmerican science teachers but higher than Turkish science teachers.Figure 1. Average MATE scores compared among teachers and students from different subject areas and nationalities. Error bars represent one standard deviation. Data sources listed on the left (from top to bottom): Korea (all data were gathered in the present study, see “Methods” section); USA (Ohio non-majors and Ohio biology majors) data from Ridgway, personal communication, 2009; USA (Ohio biology teachers) data from Korte (2003); USA (Oregon biologyteachers) data from Trani (2004); USA (Indiana biology teachers) data from Rutledge and Warden (2000); Turkey (teachers, total) data from Deniz et al. (2008)

Figure 1. Average MATE scores compared among teachers and students from different subject areas and nationalities. Error bars represent one standard deviation. Data sources listed on the left (from top to bottom): Korea (all data were gathered in the present study, see ‘Methods’ section); USA (Ohio non-majors and Ohio biology majors) data from J. Ridgway, personal communication, 2009; USA (Ohio biology teachers) data from Korte (2003); USA (Oregon biology teachers) data

from Trani (2004); USA (Indiana biology teachers) data from Rutledge and Warden (2000); Turkey (teachers, total) data from Deniz et al. (2008)



In addition to the overall MATE scores, Table 2 displays specific item responsesfor Korean and American (Indiana, from Rutledge & Warden, 2000) science teach-ers.1 Several similarities and differences between the samples are noteworthy. Forexample, while only 6.3% of American biology teachers agreed that ‘much of thescientific community doubts if evolution occurs,’ approximately 40% of Korean biol-ogy teachers agreed with this statement. Similarly, about 80% of American biologyteachers agreed that ‘most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be scientificallyvalid,’ whereas approximately 60% of Korean teachers responded similarly. Overall,Korean science teachers appear to be more likely to believe that the scientific commu-nity is uncertain about the validity of evolutionary theory.

In contrast to the American science teachers, Korean teachers appear more likelyto dispute strictly ‘biblical’ accounts of creation. Specifically, very few of the Koreanbiology teachers (as well as Korean non-biology teachers) agreed that ‘The theory ofevolution cannot be correct since it disagrees with the Biblical account of creation’(<3%), whereas more than 10% of American biology teachers did (Table 2). Like-wise, 15.6% of American biology teachers agreed that ‘With few exceptions, organ-isms on earth came into existence at about the same time,’ while only 3% of Koreanbiology teachers responded similarly. In addition, none of the Korean teachers (biol-ogy or non-biology) agreed that ‘The age of the earth is less than 20,000 years old’ incontrast to 12.5% of American biology teachers. Overall, then, our sample ofKorean science teachers displays moderate evolutionary acceptance levels that arecomparable to or less than some American samples; reports considerable doubtregarding the acceptance of evolution by the scientific community; and differs fromAmerican samples in the near absence of acceptance of some of the tenants of‘young earth’ creationism.

We examined the effects of gender, religion, and science certification area onKorean teacher MATE scores using an ANOVA. The ANOVA revealed that therewas a significant main effect of gender on MATE scores (F[1, 68] = 5.47, p < 0.05),indicating that males’ MATE scores were significantly higher than females’ scores.In contrast, there were no significant main effects for religion (Christian vs. non-Christian; F[1, 68] = 2.640, p > 0.05), or certification subject area (biology vs. non-biology; F[1, 68] = 1.228, p > 0.05). Significant interaction effects were foundbetween gender and religion (F[1, 68] = 5.224, p < 0.05), as well as among gender,religion, and certification area (F[1, 68] = 5.890, p < 0.05; see Figures 2 and 3).Overall, these analyses indicate that gender was one of the most significant associa-tions with Korean pre-service teachers’ magnitudes of evolutionary acceptance asmeasured by the MATE.Figure 2. Korean pre-service teachers’ score differences by gender and religion (Christian vs. non-Christian)In terms of Korean science teachers’ evolution content knowledge as measured byECK, there was again a significant main effect of gender (F[1, 69] = 5.321, p <0.05), with male ECK scores higher than female ECK scores (Figures 2 and 3). Forexample, male students presented higher mean scores than females in the items suchas ‘Radiometric dating of rocks indicated that the earth is billions of years old,’‘Fossil species have been found that are intermediate between humans and apes,’and so on. However, there were no significant main effects of religion (F[1, 69] =



Table 2. Comparison of MATE score of Korean and American teachers

% of (agree + strongly agree)

Question

Biology teachers (Rutledge &

Warden, 2000) (n = 551–552)

Korean biology teachers (n = 33)

Korean non-biology

teachers (n = 51)

1. Evolution is a scientifically valid theory. 75.0 81.8 80.42. Organisms existing today are the result of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years.

76.3 60.6 76.5

3. The theory of evolution is based on speculation and not valid scientific observation and testing.

13.6 36.3 29.4

4. Modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years.

68.1 48.5 76.4

5. There is a considerable body of data that support evolutionary theory.

77.0 72.7 54.9

6. Most scientists accept evolutionary theory to be a scientifically valid theory.

79.3 60.6 62.7

7. The theory of evolution is incapable of being scientifically tested.

17.6 24.3 23.5

8. The theory of evolution cannot be correct since it disagrees with the Biblical account of creation.

12.1 3.0 2.0

9. With few exceptions, organisms on earth came into existence at about the same time.

15.6 3.0 0.0

10. The age of the earth is less than 20,000 years. 12.5 0.0 0.011. The theory of evolution brings meaning to the diverse characteristics and behaviors observed in living things.

76.1 84.8 78.4

12. Evolutionary theory generates testable predictions with respect to the characteristics of life.

61.8 60.6 56.8

13. Organisms exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have.

15.1 21.2 17.6

14. Evolution is not a scientifically valid theory. 12.7 15.1 7.815. Much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs.

6.3 42.4 37.2

16. Current evolutionary theory is the result of sound scientific research and methodology.

71.0 84.8 70.6

17. Evolutionary theory is supported by factual, historical, and laboratory data.

70.7 69.7 68.6

18. Humans exist today in essentially the same form in which they always have.

19.9 21.2 17.6

19. The age of the earth is approximately 4–5 billion years.

69.7 87.9 82.3

20. The available evidence is ambiguous as to whether evolution actually occurs.

17.6 21.3 39.2



0.280, p > 0.05) or subject area (F[1, 69] = 0.232, p > 0.05) on ECK scores(Figures 2 and 3). Finally, no significant interaction effects were found amonggender, religion, and subject area (F[1, 69] = 8.954, p > 0.05). Overall, femaleKorean Christian biology teachers displayed the lowest ECK scores among allgroupings (Table 1).Figure 3. Korean pre-service teachers’ score differences by certification subject area (biology vs. non-biology) and religion (Christian vs. non-Christian)We used two instruments to measure Korean science teachers’ knowledge of theNOS: the closed response ENOS and the open response VNOS (see ‘Instrumentsand Measures’ section). Our ANOVA of ENOS scores uncovered a significant maineffect for religion (Christian vs. Non-Christian) (F[1, 69] = 7.213, p < 0.01). Specif-ically, the Non-Christian group displayed higher mean ENOS scores than the Chris-tian group (see Figure 3), although there were no significant main effects of gender(F[1, 69] = 2.153, p > 0.05) or certification subject (biology vs. non-biology) (F[1,69] = 1.959, p > 0.05) on ENOS scores. Finally, no significant interaction effectswere found among gender, religion, or subject area (F[1, 69] = 15.894, p > 0.05). As

Figure 2. Korean pre-service teachers’ score differences by gender and religion (Christian vs. Non-Christian)



we found with ECK scores (see above), female Korean Christian biology teachersdisplayed the lowest ENOS scores among groups.

The VNOS instrument was also used to measure Korean science teachers’perspectives on the NOS. Table 3 provides exemplars of what our raters coded as‘informed’ and ‘naïve’ views of NOS from our teacher participants. Mann–WhitneyU-tests demonstrated that there were no significant differences between teachers’understandings of NOS by subject area (biology vs. non-biology) (U = 736.00, p >0.05), religion (Christian vs. non-Christian) (U = 426.00, p > 0.05), or gender (malevs. female) (U = 602.50, p > 0.05). Notably, biology teachers’ scores on inferencewere higher than non-biology teachers’ scores (e.g., B26 mentioned that ‘The struc-ture of the atom cannot be directly observed through our senses. We cannot actuallysee them, so scientists use indirect evidences to conjecture the structure of atom’),whereas non-biology teachers’ scores on theories and laws were higher than biologyteacher’ scores. These biology teachers are more likely to think that a theory is aguess, while a law is a proved truth.

Figure 3. Korean pre-service teachers’ score differences by certification subject area (Biology vs. Non-biology) and religion (Christian vs. non-Christian)



Tab

le 3

.E

xem

plar

s of

Kor

ean

scie

nce

teac

hers

’ inf

orm

ed a

nd n

aïve

vie

ws

of t

he n

atur

e of

sci

ence

Info

rmed

vie

wN

aïve

vie

w

Infe

renc

eS

cien

tist

s co

njec

ture

d th

e st

ruct

ure

of a

tom

thr

ough

ex

peri

men

ts. R

uthe

rfor

d’s

gold

foi

l exp

erim

ent

wit

h al

pha

part

icle

mad

e it

pos

sibl

e to

pre

dict

the

exi

sten

ce o

f an

ato

mic

nu

cleu

s. (

C15

)

Sci

enti

sts

are

sure

abo

ut t

he s

truc

ture

of

the

atom

. The

y ob

serv

ed it

usi

ng m

icro

scop

es. (

E13

)

The

orie

s an

d la

ws

A s

cien

tifi

c th

eory

exp

lain

s th

e ph

enom

ena,

whi

le a

sci

enti

fic

law

gen

eral

izes

phe

nom

ena

thro

ugh

expe

rim

ents

. (C

15)

A s

cien

tifi

c th

eory

is o

nly

a gu

ess

wit

hout

evi

denc

e, w

hile

a

law

is a

n ev

iden

t tr

uth.

(B

23)

Ten

tati

veA

sci

enti

fic

theo

ry is

cha

ngea

ble

due

to t

he d

evel

opm

ent

of

tech

nolo

gy. F

or e

xam

ple,

ato

mic

the

ory

has

chan

ged

so fa

r …

A

sci

enti

fic

theo

ry w

ill n

ever

be

‘per

fect

’. (

P7)

A s

cien

tifi

c th

eory

has

evi

denc

e th

at c

ould

be

belie

vabl

e. F

or

exam

ple,

pla

te t

ecto

nics

has

vis

ible

evi

denc

e re

late

d to

pla

te

mov

emen

ts a

nd p

late

bou

ndar

ies.

The

refo

re t

he s

cien

tifi

c th

eory

ref

lect

s tr

uth

and

cann

ot b

e ch

ange

d. (

E10

)C

reat

ive

and

imag

inat

ive

To

scie

ntis

ts, c

reat

ivit

y an

d im

agin

atio

n ar

e es

sent

ial

elem

ents

. Cre

atin

g ne

w id

eas

is v

ery

impo

rtan

t du

ring

in

vest

igat

ion

so t

hat

they

dis

cove

r ne

w o

nes.

(C

4)

Sci

enti

sts

do n

ot u

se c

reat

ivit

y an

d im

agin

atio

n. E

xper

imen

ts

and

inve

stig

atio

ns a

re a

pro

cess

whi

ch p

rodu

ces

obje

ctiv

e da

ta

to p

rove

a h

ypot

hesi

s. I

f sc

ient

ists

use

cre

ativ

ity

or

imag

inat

ion,

a p

roce

ss t

o pr

ove

a hy

poth

esis

is n

ot r

atio

nal

due

to t

heir

sub

ject

ive

thin

king

. (B

2)S

ubje

ctiv

e an

d th

eory

la

ded

Eve

n th

ough

the

sam

e da

ta a

re u

sed,

sci

enti

sts’

vie

wpo

ints

di

ffer

whe

n sc

ient

ists

ana

lyze

dat

a. (

E21

)D

ue t

o la

ck o

f dat

a. S

ince

it w

as lo

ng t

ime

ago,

we

don’

t ha

ve

enou

gh d

ata

to p

redi

ct t

he c

ircu

mst

ance

s. T

here

fore

, the

re is

a

limit

atio

n in

a c

lose

exa

min

atio

n. (

B11

)S

ocia

l and

cu

ltur

alS

cien

ce r

efle

cts

soci

al/c

ultu

ral v

alue

s. E

very

cou

ntry

or

soci

ety

has

diff

eren

t in

tere

st a

reas

. Acc

ordi

ng t

o so

cial

/cul

tura

l va

lues

, the

deg

ree

of s

cien

tifi

c de

velo

pmen

t di

ffer

s. F

or

exam

ple,

sin

ce e

very

soc

iety

has

dif

fere

nt e

thic

al c

rite

ria,

ste

m

cell

rese

arch

cou

ld p

rodu

ce d

iffe

rent

sci

enti

fic

resu

lts.

(C

6)

Sci

ence

is u

nive

rsal

. Sci

ence

is in

depe

nden

t of s

ocia

l, cu

ltur

al,

and

polit

ical

val

ue. S

cien

ce is

eff

ecti

ve in

eve

ryth

ing;

eve

ry

tim

e an

d ev

ery

plac

e. (

E5)



We compared Korean pre-service science teachers’ ENOS and ECK scores totwo groups of American biology teachers from Nehm and Schonfeld’s (2007)study: Teacher group 1 (those who preferred students to be taught evolutionexclusively in school) and Teacher group 2 (those who preferred students to betaught both creationism and evolution in school). ENOS and ECK scores for thetwo groups of American teachers were collected both before and after the comple-tion of a 14-week course on evolution and the NOS. Korean Non-Christianscience teachers demonstrated slightly higher ENOS scores than Korean Christianteachers (means 28.8 vs. 26.8, respectively), whereas no differences were noted inECK scores between Christian and Non-Christian teachers (Table 4). Overall,these comparisons revealed that ENOS measures from Korean Non-Christianteachers and post-test ENOS measures from American Group 1 teachers werevery similar, whereas for ECK measures, Korean science teachers (both Christianand Non-Christian) demonstrated higher average scores than American scienceteachers.

VNOS results for Korean science teachers were compared to those of a compa-rable American sample (from Abd-El-Khalick, 2005). Since the Korean pre-servicescience teachers in our sample had already completed a course on the philosophyof science (e.g., covering the ideas of Kuhn, Popper, and Lakatos; scientific meth-odology; empiricism vs. realism; and the development of scientific knowledge), ourresults were compared to the post-instruction scores of Abd-El-Khalick’s (2005)American sample. As shown in Table 5, Korean pre-service teachers appear toharbor less informed views of NOS relative to American pre-service teachers in thecategories of ‘theories and laws’ and ‘creative and imaginative’ aspects of NOS. Incontrast, a greater percentage of Korean than American pre-service scienceteachers responded with what have been termed ‘informed views’ of NOS in thecategories of ‘tentative’ and ‘theory-laden’ NOS. Regarding the category of ‘infer-ential, social, and cultural’ aspects of NOS, comparable percentages of Korean andAmerican science teachers displayed ‘informed’ views of NOS (Table 5).

Finally, we explored the interrelationships among our knowledge and beliefmeasures in Korean science teachers. Specifically, Pearson correlation coefficientsquantified the associations among VNOS, ENOS, ECK, and MATE (seeTable 6). The strongest correlation (r = 0.51, p < 0.01) was found between

Table 4. Comparison of ENOS and ECK scores of Korean and American teachers

ENOS mean ECK mean

American(Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007)

Group 1 Pre 25.53 28.58Post 28.60 29.15

Group 2 Pre 17.46 16.28Post 16.26 15.78

Korean(Current study)

Christian 26.79 32.57Non-Christian 28.79 32.43



ENOS and MATE; the pre-service teachers with higher scores of knowledge aboutthe NOS in relation to evolution were more likely to accept the theory of evolu-tion. Compared to the relationship between ENOS and MATE, there was asignificant but low association between ECK scores and MATE scores (r = 0.22,p < 0.05); thus, evolution content knowledge was less associated with acceptanceof the theory of evolution than knowledge about NOS in relation to evolution.Overall, there were significant relationships among most of the variables wemeasured: between ENOS and MATE, ECK and MATE, VNOS and MATE,and ENOS and ECK, even though the magnitudes of correlation coefficients werelow in several cases (Table 6). Our data clearly demonstrate that Korean scienceteachers’ knowledge of the NOS is significantly related to their acceptance ofevolutionary theory.

Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficients and significance values among measured knowledge and attitude measures (VNOS, ENOS, ECK, and MATE; see ‘Instruments and Measures’ section for

details on these measures)

VNOS ENOS ECK MATE

VNOS Pearson correlation 1 .192 .121 .237*Significant (two-tailed) — .088 .285 .036

ENOS Pearson correlation 1 .231* .510**Significant (two-tailed) — .036 .000

ECK Pearson correlation 1 .223*Significant (two-tailed) — .045

MATE Pearson correlation 1

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).Note. VNOS, Views of the Nature of Science; ENOS, Evolution and the Nature of Science; ECK, Evolution Content Knowledge; MATE, Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution.

Table 5. Comparison of VNOS of Korean American pre-service teachers

KoreanAmerican

(Abd-El-Khaklick, 2005)

NOS aspect % of informed views% of informed views of NOS

group post-instruction

Theories vs. laws 26.2 53.6Tentative 92.9 58.9Inferential 71.4 71.4Creative and imaginative 14.3 60.7Theory laden 71.4 35.7Social and cultural 69.0 60.7



Discussion

A burgeoning literature on evolution education in the USA has revealed widespreadantipathy or ambivalence toward evolution, pervasive misconceptions, and staunchresistance to the teaching of evolution in schools, students, and science teachersalike (Nehm, Kim, et al., 2009; Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007). Such ‘antievolutionism’has been described as a particularly ‘American’ phenomenon (Miller et al., 2006;Scott, 2009) despite a paucity of research on many important populations—includ-ing science teachers—from different regions of the world (such as Korea). Addition-ally, recent international work has begun to suggest that antievolutionary thinking isa more global problem than has been widely appreciated (e.g., Clément et al., 2008;Curry, 2009; Kutschera, 2008). This raises two important questions: (1) AreAmerican science teachers in fact unique in their evolutionary worldviews relative tothe rest of the world? (2) Do the evolutionary knowledge and belief interrelation-ships documented in American teachers characterize other populations? Our studyaddressed these questions by performing a literature review of teachers’ evolution-ary views from around the world and empirically investigating a sample of pre-service science teachers from South Korea using comparable instruments andmeasures as those used on American science teachers (i.e., MATE, ENOS, ECK,and VNOS).

Acceptance of Evolution

Our study of Korean pre-service science teachers revealed that they had lower levelsof evolutionary acceptance than all the samples of American science teachers andundergraduate science (and non-science) students that have been collected using theMATE instrument. While Korean science teachers’ MATE scores fell withinRutledge and Sadler’s (2007) ‘moderate’ acceptance level, and all of our Americansamples fell within the ‘high’ acceptance level, the variation among samples indicatesthat the two groups do not differ appreciably in their degree of evolutionary accep-tance (Figure 1). Although Turkish science teachers’ MATE scores were not directlycomparable to other samples because of an altered Likert scale (i.e., for an unknownreason only four—rather than the typical five—choices were used). Nevertheless,Korean science teachers did have higher re-scaled average MATE scores than theTurkish science teachers from Deniz et al. (2008).

While it is impossible to directly compare the results from the more than 20 othernations that we reviewed because of different measures, samples, and survey methods(see ‘Introduction’ section), it is clear that science teacher antipathy or ambivalencetoward evolution is by no means a problem restricted to the USA (Clément et al.,2008; Curry, 2009; Deniz et al., 2008; Downie & Barron, 2000; Fulljames et al., 1991;Ha et al., 2006; Hokayem & BouJaoude, 2008; Kutschera, 2008; Lee et al., 1998;Lee & Lee, 2006; Maldonado-Rivera, 1998; Prinou et al., 2005; Vlaardingerbroek &Roederer, 1997; Zetterqvist, 2003). Further cross-cultural studies using comparablemeasures—such as the MATE—would bolster science teacher educators’ efforts to



characterize and combat this global problem (Curry, 2009). Efforts to develop,validate, and implement an evolutionary knowledge and belief instrument that isagreeable to the international research community should be supported.

Gender

Despite considerable emphasis on gender-related issues within the Americanscience education community (e.g., Barton, 1998; National Science TeachersAssociation [NSTA], 2003), remarkably few cross-cultural studies of evolution-ary knowledge and belief relationships have attended to gender (Cao, Forgasz, &Bishop, 2007). Recently, Brotman and Moore (2008) comprehensively reviewedstudies regarding gender and science attitudes. They found that while in generalmost studies found that females’ attitudes toward science were less positive thanthose of males, in regard to science achievement, gender differences were notconsistent from study to study. They went on to suggest that contextual factors(e.g., ethnicity, ability level) may explain some of the gender difference patternsthey reviewed. Furthermore, Greenfield (1996) found that ethnicity accountedfor more variance in science attitude and achievement differences than didgender. Notably, little work has explored associations among religious world-views, gender, and science attitudes. For this reason, further studies of genderrelationships in evolution education should incorporate both ability-level andethnicity measures.

Because gender roles and socially mediated gender constructs differ significantlyacross cultures and nations, one might hypothesize varying degrees of influence.Regardless of its cause, however, some research suggests—like our findings inKorean pre-service science teachers—that females as a group may possess greaterambivalence toward evolution than males. Kutschera (2008), for example, alsofound greater acceptance rates for creationism and intelligent design—and loweracceptance rates of naturalistic evolution—among women than men across severalregions of Germany. Similarly, Francis and Greer (1999) also found a gender effectin their work in the UK: being a young female (along with being a devout churchattendee) was associated with higher levels of creationist belief. Likewise, femaleChristian Korean pre-service science teachers in our sample displayed significantlygreater preferences for creationist or antievolutionary perspectives than males. Addi-tionally, Clément et al.’s (2008) study of biology teachers (whose science contentpreparation was difficult to surmise but appeared remarkably low) also found thatwomen appeared to be less knowledgeable about evolutionary processes than men.Moreover, our study found that gender was of greater significance than religionwhen accounting for Korean pre-service teachers’ evolution content knowledge.

Unfortunately, most studies investigating evolutionary knowledge and belief rela-tionships have not attended to gender associations. Clearly, accounting for theimpact of gender in different cultural contexts is a profitable avenue for furtherempirical and theoretical work. Whether these patterns are robust or widespread—and the reasons responsible for them—remain to be established.



Religion

In Korea, among the approximately half of the citizenry practicing religion, Chris-tianity and Buddhism dominate nearly equally (see ‘Socio-Cultural Context’section). In our sample, pre-service teachers mostly self-identified as Christians oras having no religious affiliation. Korean pre-service teachers did not exhibitdifferences in understanding of NOS by religious group (as measured by VNOS).We did, however, find differences between religious groups in knowledge aboutthe NOS in relation to evolution (as measured by ENOS). Christiansdemonstrated less knowledge about the NOS in relation to evolution than Non-Christians. This result suggests that these Christian Korean pre-service teachersseem to understand evolution content knowledge but tend not to deepen theirunderstanding of NOS aspects of evolutionary theory. The finding of no differ-ence of VNOS results further indicates that the theory of evolution may beunique compared to other scientific theories in that religion should not beignored when students learn the theory of evolution (Meadow, Doster, & Jackson,2000). Religious beliefs, however, do not appear to be strongly associated withdiminished evolution content knowledge. In other words, understanding of evolu-tion is not significantly related to religious belief. Similar results were reported byNehm, Kim, et al., (2009).

These findings further support earlier studies that have highlighted the tenuousrelationship between evolutionary knowledge and belief (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007;Southerland & Sinatra, 2003). Indeed, Nehm and Schonfeld (2007) argued thatknowledge gain alone is unlikely to solve the problem of science teachers’ antipathyor ambivalence toward evolutionary ideas. The present study likewise suggests thatreligion needs to be addressed in science teacher preparation (and perhaps whenteaching evolution as well). How this realistically can be achieved is a difficult issue,but recent work employing NOS readings, reflections, and activities (Clough, 2006;Lombrozo et al., 2008; Scharmann, 2005) has been found to diminish personalconflict about religion and science (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007).

Nature of Science Knowledge

Many authors have noted that a weak understanding of the NOS may constrainevolutionary understanding (e.g., Clough, 1994, 2006; Dagher & BouJaoude, 1997;Lombrozo et al., 2008; Scharmann, Smith, James, & Jensen, 2005). Along this lineof reasoning, explicit NOS instruction—coupled with opportunities for meaningfulreflection—appears to enhance or facilitate students’ learning of evolution (Dagher& BouJaoude, 1997; Scharmann et al., 2005). Similarly, Clough (1994) maintainsthat increasing student understanding of the NOS decreases resistance to evolution-ary theory (note that resistance and the absence of knowledge are two often relatedbut different issues). Like Scharmann et al. (2005), Clough (2006) went on to arguefor the importance of including discussions of ‘context’ when teaching about scien-tific knowledge and the NOS.



In the present study, we found a stronger correlation between ENOS and MATEscores than VNOS and MATE scores. In addition, the ECK scores were morestrongly correlated to ENOS scores than VNOS scores (see Table 6). Since theENOS comprises context-specific items (in this case, evolution), it is reasonable thatits constituent scores display a stronger relationship to the MATE. Within context-specific situations (e.g., in this study, biological evolution), it is necessary forstudents to have an opportunity to reflect upon how specific scientific knowledgewas generated as well as how the scientific community has come to reach consensusregarding the acceptance of particular forms of knowledge. Providing opportunitiesfor students to discuss the scientific validity of evolutionary theory—in particular,how evolutionary theory effectively explains natural phenomena (Aroua, Coquide, &Abbes, 2009)—would be one useful instructional strategy. Similarly, Dagher andBouJaoude (1997) emphasized the need for classroom discussions of scientificknowledge in relation to students’ beliefs and worldviews, which they argued shouldfoster deeper understanding of the theory of evolution.

In line with much of this work—and similar to the recent empirical results ofLombrozo et al. (2008)—we found that indeed there was a significant associationbetween Korean pre-service science teachers’ knowledge about evolution in relationto the nature of science (ENOS) and their acceptance of the theory of evolution(MATE) (r = 0.510, p < 0.01). Interestingly, this correlation coefficient was strongerthan the correlation coefficient between teachers’ NOS knowledge as measuredusing the VNOS (see ‘Instruments and Measures’ section); nevertheless, in both thecases the relationship was significant, bolstering previous theoretical and empiricalwork establishing a strong connection between acceptance of evolution and knowl-edge of the NOS. While in hindsight it may not be surprising that this relationship—established primarily from research with American samples—also exists in Koreanteachers, it is useful and important to have evidence to validate such conjecture. Inother international contexts, Aroua et al. (2009) also argued for the importance ofincluding NOS instruction along with teaching evolution to Tunisian Muslimstudents. In summary, our findings—along with previously published work fromaround the world—support the perspective that understanding NOS may facilitateevolutionary understanding (in addition to American contexts; Scharmann, 2005).

Limitations of the Study and Further Research

This study has several limitations. First, some of our measures (i.e., ENOS andECK) were characterized by marginal Cronbach’s α values. Alpha values for(ENOS + ECK) were higher than the respective individual variable scores(combined α = 0.67, excluding one of the items), but we chose not to combine thescores because Pearson correlation coefficients indicated that ENOS and ECKscores were not highly correlated for the overall sample (r = 0.231); this suggeststhat the two measures may be capturing different constructs. Further work shouldbe devoted to improving these measures—such as investigating instrument dimen-sionality and item properties—or employing alternatives. Second, although we



expended considerable effort in having the translated instruments reviewed byseveral experts, it is difficult to ensure that the interpretations of items acrosscultural contexts were, in fact, identical (e.g., Cao et al., 2007). Nevertheless,instrument standardization is a worthy first step if we hope to better understand theevolutionary worldviews of teachers across cultural boundaries. Furthermore,comparing the results of measures requires sample standardization by age, gender,content background, and other variables. While the Korean teachers in our samplewere most similar to those in Nehm and Schonfeld’s (2007) study, they differedfrom the American samples of Rutledge, Trani, and Korte (see above) in that theKorean sample was slightly younger, had little or no teaching experience, and hadvariable content preparation. Thus, our comparisons should be interpreted withcaution. Finally, many of our quantitative measures attempted to capture constructsthat are remarkably complex and amorphous; additional qualitative interviewswould likely enrich our results and lend greater validity to the interpretations. Forexample, the science teachers in our sample provided very limited characterizationsof their religious beliefs and yet magnitudes of religiosity are known to matter.Nevertheless, our quantitative measures revealed a relatively consistent portrait ofKorean science teachers that calls into question the assumption that Americanscience teacher attitudes toward evolution are unique from an internationalperspective and bolsters the strong connection between NOS understanding andacceptance of evolution in Korean science teachers.

Conclusions

A literature review of science teachers’ evolutionary worldviews from more than 20nations challenges the purported uniqueness of American science teachers’ ambiva-lence and antipathy toward evolution. It also revealed that comparatively little workhas explored Asian teachers’ evolutionary worldviews in general or Korean scienceteachers in particular. Our empirical work filled this gap by focusing on Korean pre-service science teachers. As indicated by the widely used MATE instrument, Koreanscience teachers displayed ‘moderate’ levels of evolutionary acceptance comparableto samples of American science teachers from Indiana, lower scores than Oregonianand Ohioan science teachers, and lower scores than American undergraduate biol-ogy students.

While gender has received minimal attention in evolution education research, wefound it to be significantly associated with Christian Korean pre-service teachers’evolution content knowledge and acceptance of the theory of evolution. Severalinternational studies that we reviewed also make note of significant gender effects onevolutionary acceptance, highlighting a potential cross-cultural pattern worthy offurther investigation.

Finally, as documented in American science teachers, Korean science teachers’understanding of the NOS was significantly related to their acceptance and under-standing of evolution. This relationship appears to be robust and transcends culturalboundaries.



Acknowledgments

We thank Minsu Ha for help with literature and translations, Judy Ridgway foraccess to data, and David Haury for constructive reviews of the manuscript.

Note

1. Trani (2004) and Korte (2003) did not publish MATE item response data suitable forcomparisons.

References

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of thenature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University.

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of the nature of science: Theimpact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instruc-tional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15–42.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courseson students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10),1057–1095.

Affannato, F. E. (1986). A survey of biology teachers’ opinions about the teaching of evolutionary theoryand/or the creation model in the United States in public and private schools. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Iowa.

Aguillard, D. (1998). An analysis of factors influencing the teaching of biological evolution in Louisianapublic secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University andAgricultural & Mechanical College.

Aguillard, D. (1999). Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: A decade followingEdwards v. Aguillard. The American Biology Teacher, 61(3), 182–188.

Aldrich, K. J. (1991). Teachers attitudes towards evolution and creationism in Kansas biologyclassrooms. Kansas Biology Teacher, 8, 20–21.

Archer, M. (1987). Evolution as science: One aspect of a very large universe. In D. R. Selkirk &F. J. Burrows (Eds.), Confronting creationism: Defending Darwin (pp. 14–26). Kensington: NewSouth Wales University Press.

Aroua, S., Coquide, M., & Abbes, S. (2009). Overcoming the effect of the socio-cultural context:Impact of teaching evolution in Tunisia. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 474–478.

Barton, A. C. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.Bergman, J. (1979). The attitude of university students toward the teaching of creation and

evolution in the schools. Origins, 6, 60–70.Berkman, M. B., Pacheco J. S., & Plutzer, E. (2008). Evolution and creationism in America’s

classrooms: A national portrait. Public Library of Science Biology, 6(5), e124.Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. E. (2003). The perceived consequences of evolution:

College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. ScienceEducation, 87, 181–206.

Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the scienceeducation literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.

Brown, J. A. (2000). Unifying concepts in the high school biology curriculum, one or many: An investiga-tion of rural, suburban, and urban schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofWashington.

Brunton, B., & Colquhoun-Kerr, D. (1984). The annotated constitution of Papua New Guinea.Papua New Guinea: University of Papua New Guinea Press.



Buckner, E. M. (1983). Professional and political socialization: High school science teacher attitudes oncurriculum decisions, in the context of the “scientific” creationism campaign. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Georgia State University.

Burnett, W. R. (1941). Science teachers’ opinions on social issues. Curriculum, 4, 175–177.Cao, Z., Forgasz, H., & Bishop, A. (2007). Doing surveys in different cultures. In B. Atweh,

M. Borba, A. C. Barton, N. Gough, & C. Keitel (Eds.), Internationalisation and globalisa-tion in mathematics and science education (pp. 303–320). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chuang, H. C. (2003). Teaching evolution: Attitudes and strategies of educators in Utah. TheAmerican Biology Teacher, 65(9), 669–674.

Cleaves, A., & Toplis, R. (2007). In the shadow of intelligent design: The teaching of evolution.Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 30–35.

Clément, P., Quessada, M. P., Laurent, C., & Carvalho, G. (2008, September 21–26). Scienceand religion: Evolutionism and creationism in education. A survey of teachers conceptions in14 countries. Submitted to XIII IOSTE Symposium, Izmir, Turkey, 1–15.

Clough, M. P. (1994). Diminish students’ resistance to biological evolution. The American BiologyTeacher, 56, 409–415.

Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerationsfor effective nature of science instruction. Science Education, 15, 463–494.

Coyne, J. A. (2009). Seeing and believing. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://www.tnr.com/article/books/seeing-and-believing

Crawford, B., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospectiveteachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry based tasks.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613–637.

Curry, A. (2009). Creationist beliefs persist in Europe. Science, 323(27), 1159.Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of college

students: The case of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5),429–445.

Deniz, H., Donnelly, L. A., & Yilmaz, I. (2008). Exploring the factors related to acceptance ofevolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: Toward a more informativeconceptual ecology for biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4),420–443.

Donnelly, L. A., & Boone, W. J. (2007). Biology teachers’ attitudes toward and use of Indiana’sevolution standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 236–257.

Downie, J. R., & Barron, N. J. (2000). Evolution and religion: Attitudes of Scottish first yearbiology and medical students to the teaching of evolutionary biology. Journal of BiologicalEducation, 34(3), 139–147.

Eglin, P. G. (1983). Creationism vs. evolution: A study of the opinions of Georgia science teachers.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.

Evans, E. M. (2005). Teaching and learning about evolution. In J. Diamond (Ed.), The virus andthe whale: Explore evolution in creatures small and large (pp. 25–40). Arlington, VA: NSTAPress.

Eve, R. A., & Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology, and creationism in the classroom?Evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology life science teachers. TheAmerican Biology Teacher, 52(1), 10–21.

Fahrenwald, C. R. (1999). Biology teachers’ acceptance and understanding of evolution and the natureof science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota.

Firenze, R. F. (1998). The identification, assessment, and amelioration of perceived and actualbarriers to teachers’ incorporation of evolutionary theory as a central theme in life science classesthrough a two-week institute and follow-up studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, SUNYBinghampton.

Fisher, R. T. (1989). The effects of education on creationist beliefs among high school science teachers.Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Texas.



Francis, L. J., & Greer, J. E. (1999). Attitudes towards creationism and evolutionary theory: Thedebate among secondary pupils attending Catholic and Protestant schools in NorthernIreland. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 93–103.

Fulljames, P., Harry, M., Gibson, L., & Francis, J. (1991). Creationism, scientism, Christianity andscience: A study in adolescent attitudes. British Educational Research Journal, 17(2), 171–190.

Graf, D. (2009). Noah’s Arc or the Beagle? Creationism, the theory of evolution, and education.Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://www.goethe.de/ges/phi/dos/her/mod/en2850820.htm

Greenfield, T. A. (1996). Gender, ethnicity, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 33(8), 901–933.

Griffith, J., & Brem, S. (2004). Teaching evolutionary biology: Pressures, stress, and coping.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 791–809.

Groves, F. H. (1990). A qualitative study of the beliefs and professional backgrounds of secondary levelscience teachers in a public school and a protestant Christian school in Colorado. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.

Ha, M., & Cha, H. (2009). Pre-service teachers’ synthetic view on Darwinism and Larmarckism. Paperpresented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, California.

Ha, M., Lee, J., & Cha, H. (2006). A cross-sectional study of students’ conceptions on evolutionand characteristics of concept formation about it in terms of the subjects: Human, animalsand plants. Journal of Korea Association for Research in Science Education, 26(7), 813–825. (InKorean)

Hokayem, H., & BouJaoude, S. (2008). College students’ perceptions of the theory of evolution.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 395–419.

Im, E., Cho, J., & Hong, H. (2007). College students’ views about origins of life and evolution.Journal of Science Education, 31, 11–26. (In Korean)

Johnson, K. L. (1991). Factors affecting curriculum decisions of San Diego seventh and eighth-gradescience teachers regarding the creation–evolution issue. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Northern Arizona University.

Johnson, R. L., & Peeples, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in college: Studentacceptance of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 49, 93–96.

Jorstad, S. (2002). An analysis of factors influencing the teaching of evolution and creation by Arizonahigh school biology teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.

Kim, C. (2002). Religious pluralism of Korea today. Seoul Journal of Korean Studies, 15, 153–175.Korte, S. E. (2003). The acceptance and understanding of evolutionary theory among Ohio secondary

science teachers. Unpublished master of education thesis, Ohio University.Kraemer, K. A. (1995). A comparative study of Minnesota teachers’ attitudes toward the teaching of

evolution and creationism. Unpublished master of education thesis, Bemidji State University.Kutschera, U. (2008) Creationism in Germany and its possible cause. Evolution Education and

Outreach, 1, 84–86.Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of

science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions ofnature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

Lee, M., & Lee, K. (2006). Analysis of student conceptions in evolution based on science history.Journal of Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 26(7), 813–825. (In Korean)

Lee, Y. J., Izard, J., & Yeoh, O. C. (1998). Teacher knowledge of biological evolution from the perspec-tives of classical test and item response theory. Unpublished research report, ERIC ClearinghouseNo. ED440110.

Lerner, L. S. (2000). Good science, bad science: Teaching evolution in the states. Washington, DC:Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Lombrozo, T., Thanukos, A., & Weisberg, M. (2008). The importance of understanding thenature of science for accepting evolution. Evolution Education and Outreach, 1, 290–298.

Maldonado-Rivera, J. G. (1998). An examination of the factors affecting the teaching and learning ofevolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.



McCrory, C., & Murphy, C. (2009). The growing visibility of creationism in Northern Ireland:Are new science teachers equipped to deal with the issues? Evolution: Education and Outreach,2, 373–385.

Meadow, L., Doster, E., & Jackson, D. F. (2000). Managing the conflict between evolution andreligion. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 102–107.

Miller, E. (1990). Attitudes of Alabama biology teachers toward the teaching of evolution andcreationism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama.

Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Science communication: Public acceptance ofevolution. Science, 313, 765–766.

Moore, R. (2003). Legal issues surrounding evolution and creationism. The Science Teacher, 70(8),68–69.

Moore, R. (2008). Creationism in the biology classroom: What do teachers teach and how do theyteach it? The American Biology Teacher, 70(2), 79–84.

Moore, R., & Kraemer, K. (2005). The teaching of evolution and creationism in Minnesota. TheAmerican Biology Teacher, 67(8), 457–466.

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2003). Position statement on gender equity in science.Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/genderequity.aspx

Nehm, R. H., Kim, S., & Sheppard, K. (2009). Academic preparation in biology and advocacy forteaching evolution: Biology versus non-biology teachers. Science Education, 93(6), 1122–1146.

Nehm, R. H., Poole, T. M., Lyford, M. E., Hoskins, S. G., Carruth, L., Ewers, B. E., et al.(2009). Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses rein-force students’ faulty mental models of biology and evolution? Evolution: Education andOutreach, 2, 527–532.

Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolutionand the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools?Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(5), 699–723.

Newport, F. (2009). On Darwin’s birthday, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution. Retrieved March 18,2009, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

Numbers, R. L. (2004). Creationists and their critics in Australia: An autonomous culture or“the USA with kangaroos?” In S. Coleman & L. Carlin (Eds.), The culture of creationism:Anti-evolutionism in English-speaking countries (pp. 109–124). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Numbers, R. L. (2009). That creationism is a uniquely American phenomenon. In R. L. Numbers(Ed.), Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion (pp. 215–223). Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Osif, B. A. (1997). Evolution and religious beliefs: A survey of Pennsylvania high school teachers.The American Biology Teacher, 59(9), 552–556.

Plutzer, E., & Berkman, M. B. (2008). Trends: Evolution, creationism and the teaching of humanorigins in schools. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 540–553.

Price, B. (1992). The AIB national poll of first year biology students in Australian. The Skeptic, 12,26–31.

Prinou, L., Halkia, L., & Skordoulis, C. (2005). Teaching the theory of evolution: Secondary teachers’attitudes, views and difficulties. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://www.ihpst2005.leeds.ac.uk/papers/Prinou_Halkia_Skordoulis.pdf

Riddle, O. (1942). Preliminary impressions and facts from a questionnaire on secondary schoolbiology. The American Biology Teacher, 3(5), 151–159.

Roelfs, F. C. (1987). Academic factors affecting the status of the teaching of evolution in Arkansas andMissouri. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Rutledge, M. L., & Mitchell, M. A. (2002). High school biology teachers’ knowledge structure,acceptance, and teaching of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 64, 21–27.

Rutledge, M. L., & Sadler, K. C. (2007). Reliability of the measure of acceptance of the theory ofevolution (MATE) instrument with university students. The American Biology Teacher, 51,275–280.



Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (1999). Development and validation of the measure ofacceptance of the theory of evolution instrument. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 13–18.

Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (2000). Science and high school biology teachers: Criticalrelationships. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 23–31.

Scharmann, L. C. (2005). A proactive strategy for teaching evolution. The American BiologyTeacher, 67, 12–16.

Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature ofscience instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellology. Journal of Science TeacherEducation, 16(1), 27–41.

Scott, E. C. (2009). American antievolutionism: Retrospect and prospect. In M. Ruse & J. Travis(Eds.), Evolution: The first four billion years (pp. 237–255). Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Shankar, G. (1989). Analysis of factors influencing the teaching of evolution and creationism in Texaspublic high school biology classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University.

Shankar, G., & Skoog, G. (1993). Emphasis given evolution and creationism by Texas high schoolbiology teachers. Science Education, 77(2), 221–233.

Soto Sonera, J. (2006). Implicaciones educativas de las creencias religiosas de las docentes de ciencia en laenseñanza del tema “evolución biológica”: un estudio de caso. [Educational implications of thereligious beliefs of science teachers at the 15th year of the subject “biological evolution”: Acase study]. Disertación doctoral, Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Puerto Rico, RíoPiedras.

Southerland, S., & Sinatra, G. (2003). Learning about biological evolution: A special case ofintentional conceptual change. In G. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptualchange (pp. 317–345). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Strauss, J. (2008). Preservice teachers: Future first responders in the evolution versus intelligent designbattle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University.

Tatina, R. (1989). South Dakota high school biology teachers and the teaching of evolution andcreationism. The American Biology Teacher, 51(5), 275–280.

Taylor, K. (1999). The teaching of evolution in North Carolina: A study of teacher beliefs andcurriculum decision-making. In L. P. McCoy (Ed.), Studies in teaching 1999 research digest(ERIC Document: ED443814) Winston Salem, NC: Wake Forest University.

Trani, R. (2004). I won’t teach evolution: It’s against my religion. The American Biology Teacher,66, 419–427.

Troost, C. J. (1966). An analysis of factors influencing the teaching of evolution in the secondary schoolsof Indiana. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

US Department of State. (2008). Republic of Korea. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1018.html

Van Koevering, T. E., & Stiehl, R. B. (1989). Evolution, creation and Wisconsin biology teachers.The American Biology Teacher, 51, 4200–202.

Vlaardingerbroek, B., & Roederer, C. J. (1997). Evolution education in Papua New Guinea:Trainee teachers’ views. Educational Studies, 23(3), 363–375.

Weld, J., & McNew, J. C. (1999). Attitudes toward evolution. The Science Teacher, 66, 27–31.Zetterqvist, A. (2003). Ämnesdidaktisk kompetens i evolutionsbiologi. En intervjuundersökningmed

no/biologilärare [Didactic expertise in evolutionary biology]. Göteborg Studies in EducationalSciences, 197. Göteborg, Sweden: ACTA Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Zimmerman, M. (1987). The evolution–creation controversy: Opinions of Ohio high schoolbiology teachers. Ohio Journal of Science, 87(4), 115–125.


a cross-cultural comparison of korean and american science teachers' views of evolution and the...

Documents

nehmbof science education

nature of science nos

acceptance of evolution

understandings of evolution

francis international

international comparisons

research report

pusan national university