4.4 Article

Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution

期刊

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 95-121

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20449

关键词

evolution; knowledge; acceptance; belief; feeling of certainty; teachers

资金

  1. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  2. Division Of Research On Learning [1340578] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  4. Division Of Research On Learning [0909999] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We propose a new model of the factors influencing acceptance of evolutionary theory that highlights a novel variable unexplored in previous studies: the feeling of certainty (FOC). The model is grounded in an emerging understanding of brain function that acknowledges the contributions of intuitive cognitions in making decisions, such as whether or not to accept a particular theoretical explanation of events. Specifically, we examine the relationships among religious identity, level of education, level of knowledge, FOC, and level of evolutionary acceptance to test whether our proposed model accurately predicts hypothesized pathways. We employ widely used measuresthe CINS, MATE, and ORIin addition to new variables in multiple regression and path analyses in order to test the interrelationships among FOC and acceptance of evolutionary theory. We explore these relationships using a sample of 124 pre-service biology teachers found to display comparable knowledge and belief levels as reported in previous studies on this topic. All of our hypothesis tests corroborated the idea that FOC plays a moderating role in relationships among evolutionary knowledge and beliefs. Educational research into acceptance of evolutionary theory will likely benefit from increased attention to non-conscious intuitive cognitions that give rise to feeling of knowing or certainty. (c) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 49: 95121, 2012

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据