STEM and Non-STEM Misconceptions About Evolution: Findings from 5 Years of Data.

Even though it is widely held that the theory of evolution is one of the pillars of the biological sciences, as we begin the third decade of the twenty-first century, it is alarming how little we know about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors and non-STEM majors' misconceptions about evolution in countries such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Greece, to name a few. The situation is even more complicated if we acknowledge that contemporary educational approaches (e.g., student-centered learning) mean that students' misconceptions are one of the multiple aspects that influence the construction of meaningful learning. Here, we present a picture of Colombian STEM/non-STEM majors' misconceptions about evolution. Participants were 547 students from different STEM/non-STEM majors (278 females and 269 males, 16-24 years old). During 5 years (10 academic semesters), data were collected from students' responses to an 11-item questionnaire administered in a Colombian university. We hypothesized that the academic semester within these 5 years in which each student completed the instrument as well as respondents' age, gender, and/or major may influence their misconceptions about evolution. Results reveal that participants had a moderate understanding of evolution. Also, we found a limited understanding of microevolution among participants. Furthermore, cross-sectional analyses of differences in undergraduates' responses across demographic variables showed that despite apparent differences, these were not reliable since the differences were not statistically significant. Implications for evolution education are discussed.

Drama as a Powerful Tool to Enrich Socio-scientific Argumentation.

Socio-scientific argumentation (SSA) is increasingly being recognized as a key aspect of scientific literacy. Much of the reason for this is that this skill is crucial for helping students to become active participants in twenty-first-century democratic societies in which the construction of informed and critical views of socio-scientific issues (e.g. climate change, COVID-19 vaccination, genetic testing) plays a fundamental role. The problem is that instructors rarely give students explicit and research-based opportunities to enrich their SSA skills. Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide evidence that drama can be used as a platform to enrich argumentation in genetic testing. The data were derived from the written responses and the audio recordings of seventy-six university students (37 females and 39 males, 16-29 years old) in Colombia during a complete drama-based teaching-learning sequence (TLS) supervised by the same instructor. The outcomes suggest that the sequence can be used to enrich argumentation in genetic testing as it effectively provided participants with explicit opportunities to produce both arguments and counterarguments about the controversy whether the use of genetic tests among people should be encouraged. This study contributes to the literature on SSA in science education by demonstrating that drama is a promising tool to enhance argumentation about science-based social issues. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10763-022-10320-3.

Using the Controversy over Human Race to Introduce Students to the Identification and the Evaluation of Arguments.

The identification and the evaluation of arguments are fundamental elements of critical thinking. However, the explicit promotion of these elements is virtually absent from university science courses. Much of the reason for this is that in most universities, across nearly all disciplines, instructors are required to see the conceptual content coverage of the syllabus as a priority. Moreover, lack of preparation and the fact that critical thinking activities are time-consuming rapidly reduce the interest of many instructors to include them in their courses. Here, we describe the use of a dialogue-based critical thinking classroom scenario (CTCS). The study used a mixed-methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative analyses of questionnaire responses. One hundred and seventeen undergraduates (73 females; 44 males; ages 16-24 years), enrolled in an introductory science course in Colombia, were asked to identify and evaluate arguments regarding a dialogue between two scientists who explore the controversial question of whether or not the concept of race is applicable to humans. It was found that the dialogue-based CTCS provided students with opportunities to identify and evaluate arguments both for and against the question and to make informed decisions about whether or not the concept of race in humans is biologically meaningful. Moreover, analyses of responses to closed-ended and open-ended questions revealed that more than half the participants were able to evaluate arguments in a fair-minded way. Practical implications for the cultivation of critical thinking skills in higher education and further research are discussed.

Towards Covid-19 Literacy: Investigating the Literacy Levels of University Students in Colombia.

Covid-19 literacy, induced by the coronavirus disease (2019), is characterized as the understanding of Covid-19 as well as informed decisions based upon this understanding. This type of literacy is closely related to health literacy, scientific literacy, and scientific media literacy. It may be obvious to say that Covid-19 literacy is a key factor for governments to effectively manage the Covid-19 transition. However, lack of literature exists about Covid-19 literacy among university students. Therefore, the current study aimed to determine the Covid-19 literacy level among 4168 students from a Colombian university. The data were derived from students' responses to a 25-item anonymous online self-reporting questionnaire. We found that 21-25-year age group, graduate students, students enrolled prior to 2015, and medical students had a significantly higher mean score. Moreover, the Internet (86.8%) was the most popular source of information from which participants gained most information regarding Covid-19. Furthermore, 58.5% of the participants considered health workers as a source that can provide accurate information. Most importantly, the findings reveal the students' knowledge about (1) the role of an eventual process of vaccination, (2) the test currently used as diagnostic for Covid-19, and (3) the fatality rate, three aspects of Covid-19 literacy that deserve more attention. The findings provide a useful basis for the formulation of policies and concrete actions in improving Covid-19 literacy.

Using Historical Scientific Controversies to Promote Undergraduates' Argumentation.

The Covid-19 pandemic is the reason why humanity is paying more attention to the importance of regular and rigorous handwashing. Interestingly, in the nineteenth century, regular and rigorous handwashing was a key (and controversial) solution proposed by the Hungarian obstetrician Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis to cut drastically cases of puerperal fever. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence that the case of Semmelweis and puerperal fever-a crucial historical scientific controversy-can be used as a springboard to promote university student argumentation. Our study was inspired by the fact that the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) stressed that more efforts and resources should be invested in promoting argumentation as an essential component for scientifically literate citizens in twenty-first century societies. However, nowadays, argument and debate are virtually absent from university science education. The data was derived from 124 undergraduates' (64 females and 60 males, 15-30 years old) written responses and audio and video recordings in a university biology course in Colombia. The findings show that the articulation of this historical controversy with decision-making, small-group debate, and whole-class debate activities can be useful for promoting undergraduates' argumentation. This study contributes to the development of a research-based university science education that can inform the design of an argumentation curriculum for higher education.