evolution research papers

Dungeons & Dragons Is Shedding ‘Race’ in Gaming. Here’s Why It Matters

The nerd culture powerhouse is rebranding its elves, dwarfs and orcs, previously referred to as races, and moving towards use of the term species

Steven Dashiell

Social Media Is Junk Food for Information Foragers

Social media exploits our evolved need for information, feeding us fluff and outright misinformation. A new science of human collective behavior can help us retake control

Carl T. Bergstrom, C. Brandon Ogbunu

A Freeze-Dried Woolly Mammoth Has Yielded the First Ever Fossilized Chromosomes

For the first time, researchers have reconstructed the 3D structure of ancient genetic material, in this case from a 52,000-year-old mammoth

Saima S. Iqbal

To Follow the Real Early Human Diet, Eat Everything

Nutrition influencers claim we should eat meat-heavy diets like our ancestors did. But our ancestors didn’t actually eat that way

Cuckoo Chicks Are Sleeper Agents in Evolutionary Arms Race

Cuckoos are “nest pirates” that lay their eggs in other birds’ nests, setting off an evolutionary arms race that leads to the development of new species

Naomi Langmore, Alicia Grealy, Clare Holleley, Iliana Medina, The Conversation US

How Did Cockroaches Reach Global Domination?

A common species of cockroach hails from Asia, according to new research that tracks its spread around the globe

Meghan Bartels

Glow-in-the-Dark Animals May Have Been around for 540 Million Years

Ancestors of so-called soft corals may have developed bioluminescence in the earliest days of deep-ocean living

How Humans Lost Their Tails

A newly discovered genetic mechanism helped eliminate the tails of human ancestors

An Evolutionary ‘Big Bang’ Explains Why Snakes Come in So Many Strange Varieties

Snakes saw a burst of adaptation about 128 million years ago that led to them exploding in diversity and evolving up to three times faster than lizards

Jack Tamisiea

‘Living Fossil’ Lizards Are Constantly Evolving—You Just Can’t See It

New research into the “stasis paradox” challenges the rules of evolution

Donavyn Coffey

New ‘Chicken from Hell’ Discovered

A newly identified “chicken from hell” species suggests dinosaurs weren’t sliding toward extinction before the fateful asteroid hit

Kyle Atkins-Weltman, Eric Snively, The Conversation US

Robotic Dinosaur Tests How Dinos (and Birds) Got Wings

Scientists built a robotic dinosaur to terrify grasshoppers, all in hopes of understanding how truly pathetic wings could offer prehistoric animals an evolutionary advantage

Human Evolution: Theory and Progress

• January 2014
• In book: Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (pp.3520-3532)
• Chapter: Human Evolution: Theory and Progress
• Publisher: Springer New York
• Editors: Claire Smith

• Monash University (Australia)

• University of Copenhagen

• University College London

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Shankar Jethani
• Puspa Ramadani

• Richard E. Green

• Adrian W. Briggs

• Douglas K. Charles
• Misia Landau

• K.E. Wilson

• EVOL ANTHROPOL

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Evotourism ®

A Smithsonian magazine special report

AT THE SMITHSONIAN

Seven new things we learned about human evolution in 2021.

Paleoanthropologists Briana Pobiner and Ryan McRae reveal some of the year’s best findings in human origins studies

Briana Pobiner and Ryan McRae

This year—2021—has been a year of progress in overcoming the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on human evolution research. With some research projects around the world back up and running, we wanted to highlight new and exciting discoveries from 13 different countries on five different continents. Human evolution is the study of what links us all together, and we hope you enjoy these stories we picked to show the geographic and cultural diversity of human evolution research, as well as the different types of evidence for human evolution, including fossils, archaeology, genetics, and even footprints!

New Paranthropus robustus fossils from South Africa show microevolution within a single species.

The human fossil record, like any fossil record, is full of gaps and incomplete specimens that make our understanding of complex evolutionary trends difficult. Identifying species and the process by which new species emerge from fossils falls in the realm of macroevolution , or evolution over broad time scales. These trends and changes tend to be more pronounced and easier to identify in the fossil record; think about how different a Tyrannosaurus rex and a saber-toothed cat are from each other. Human evolution only took place over the course of 5 to 8 million years, a much shorter span compared to the roughly 200 million years since dinosaurs and mammals shared a common ancestor. Because of this, smaller-scale evolutionary changes within a single species or lineage over time, called microevolution , is often difficult to detect.

Fossils of one early human species, Paranthropus robustus , are known from multiple cave sites in South Africa. Like other Paranthropus species, P. robustus is defined by large, broad cheeks, massive molars and premolars, and a skull highly adapted for intense chewing. Fossils of P. robustus from Swartkrans cave, just 20 miles west of Johannesburg, are dated to around 1.8 million years ago and show a distinct sagittal crest, or ridge of bone along the top of the skull, with their jaws indicating a more efficient bite force. Newly discovered fossils of P. robustus from Drimolen cave , about 25 miles north of Johannesburg, described by Jesse Martin from La Trobe University and colleagues in January, are at least 200,000 years older (2.04-1.95 million years old) and have a differently positioned sagittal crest and a less efficient bite force, among other small differences. Despite numerous disparities between fossils at the two sites, they much more closely resemble each other than any other known species of hominin. Because of this, researchers kept them as the same species from two different time points in a single lineage . The differences between fossils at the two sites highlight microevolution within this Paranthropus lineage .

Fossil children from Kenya, France, and South Africa tell us how ancient and modern human burial practices changed over time.

Most of the human fossil record includes the remains of adult individuals; that’s likely because larger and thicker adult bones, and bones of larger individuals, are more likely to survive the burial, fossilization, and discovery processes. The fossil record also gets much richer after the practice of intentional human burial began, starting at least 100,000 years ago .

In November, María Martinón-Torres from CENIEH (National Research Center on Human Evolution) in Spain, Nicole Boivin and Michael Petraglia from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany, and other colleagues announced the oldest known human burial in Africa —a two-and-a-half to three-year-old child from the site of Panga ya Saidi in Kenya. The child, nicknamed “Mtoto” which means “child" in Kiswahili, was deliberately buried in a tightly flexed position about 78,000 years ago, according to luminescence dating. The way the child’s head was positioned indicates possible burial with a perishable support, like a pillow. In December, a team led by University of Colorado, Denver’s Jaime Hodgkins reported the oldest known burial of a female modern human infant in Europe . She was buried in Arma Veirana Cave in Italy 10,000 years ago with an eagle-owl talon, four shell pendants, and more than 60 shell beads with patterns of wear indicating that adults had clearly worn them for a long time beforehand. This evidence indicates her treatment as a full person by the Mesolithic hunter-gatherer group she belonged to. After extracted DNA determined that she was a girl, the team nicknamed her “Neve” which means “snow” in Italian. Aside from our own species, Neanderthals are also known to sometimes purposefully bury their dead . In December, a team led by Antoine Balzeau from the CNRS (the French National Centre for Scientific Research) and Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in France and Asier Gómez-Olivencia from the University of the Basque Country in Spain provided both new and re-studied information on the archaeological context of the La Ferrassie 8 Neanderthal skeleton, a two-year-old buried in France about 41,000 years ago. They conclude that this child, who is one of the most recently directly dated Neanderthals (by Carbon-14) and whose partial skeleton was originally excavated in 1970 and 1973, was purposefully buried . There have also been suggestions that a third species, Homo naledi , known from South Africa between about 335,000 and 236,000 years ago, purposefully buried their dead—though without any ritual context. In November, a team led by University of the Witwatersrand’s Lee Berger published two papers with details of skull and tooth fragments of a four to six-year-old Homo naledi child fossil , nicknamed “Leti” after the Setswana word “letimela” meaning “the lost one.” Given the location of the child’s skull found in a very narrow, remote and inaccessible part of the Rising Star cave system, about a half mile from Swartkrans, this first partial skull of a child of Homo naledi yet recovered might support the idea that this species also deliberately disposed of their dead.

The first Europeans had recent Neanderthal relatives, according to genetic evidence from Czechia and Bulgaria.

Modern humans, Homo sapiens , evolved in Africa and eventually made it to every corner of the world. That is not news. However, we are still understanding how and when the earliest human migrations occurred. We also know that our ancestors interacted with other species of humans at the time, including Neanderthals , based on genetic evidence of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans alive today—an average of 1.9 percent in Europeans.

Remains of some of the earliest humans in Europe were described this year by multiple teams, except they were not fully human. All three of the earliest Homo sapiens in Europe exhibit evidence of Neanderthal interbreeding (admixture) in their recent genealogical past. In April, Kay Prüfer and a team from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History described a human skull from Zlatý kůň, Czechia, dating to around 45,000 years old . This skull contains roughly 3.2 percent Neanderthal DNA in the highly variable regions of the genome, comparable with other humans from around that time. Interestingly, some of these regions indicating Neanderthal admixture were not the same as modern humans, and this individual is not directly ancestral to any population of modern humans, meaning they belonged to a population that has no living descendants. Also in April, Mateja Hajdinjak and a team from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology described three similar genomes from individuals found in Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria, dating between 46,000 and 42,000 years old . These individuals carry 3.8, 3.4, and 3.0 percent Neanderthal DNA, more than the modern human average. Based on the distribution of these sequences, the team concluded that the three individuals each had a Neanderthal ancestor only six or seven generations back. This is roughly the equivalent length of time from the turn of the twentieth century to today. Interestingly, these three genomes represent two distinct populations of humans that occupied the Bulgarian cave—one of which is directly ancestral to east Asian populations and Indigenous Americans, the other of which is directly ancestral to later western Europeans. These findings suggest that there is continuity of human occupation of Eurasia from the earliest known individuals to present day and that mixing with Neanderthals was likely common, even among different Homo sapiens populations.

A warty pig from Indonesia, a kangaroo from Australia, and a conch shell instrument from France all represent different forms of ancient art.

Currently, the world’s oldest representational or figurative art is a cave painting of a Sulawesi warty pig found in Leang Tedongnge, Indonesia, that was dated to at least 45,500 years ago using Uranium series dating—and reported in January by a team led by Adam Brumm and Maxime Aubert from Griffith University. In February, a team led by Damien Finch from the University of Melbourne in Australia worked with the Balanggarra Aboriginal Corporation, which represents the Traditional Owners of the land in the Kimberly region of Australia, to radiocarbon date mud wasp nests from rock shelters in this area. While there is fossil evidence of modern humans in Australia dating back to at least 50,000 years ago , this team determined that the oldest known Australian Aboriginal figurative rock paintings date back to between around 17,000 and 13,000 years ago . The naturalistic rock paintings mainly depict animals and some plants; the oldest example is of a about 6.5 footlong kangaroo painting on the ceiling of a rock shelter dated to around 17,300 years ago. Right around that time, about 18,000 years ago, an ancient human in France cut off the top of a conch shell and trimmed its jagged outer lip smooth so it could be used as the world’s oldest wind instrument . A team led by Carole Fritz and Gilles Tostello from the Université de Toulouse in France reported in February that they re-examined this shell, discovered in Marsoulas Cave in 1931, using CT scanning. In addition to the modifications described above, they found red fingerprint-sized and shaped dots on the internal surface of the shell, made with ochre pigment also used to create art on the walls of the cave. They also found traces of a wax or resin around the broken opening, which they interpreted as traces of an adhesive used to attach a mouthpiece as found in other conch shell instruments.

Fossil finds from China and Israel complicate the landscape of human diversity in the late Pleistocene.

This year a new species was named from fossil material found in northeast China: Homo longi . A team from Hebei University in China including Qiang Ji, Xijun Ni, Qingfeng Shao and colleagues described this new species dating to at least 146,000 years old. The story behind the discovery of this cranium is fascinating! It was hidden in a well from the Japanese occupying forces in the town of Harbin for 80 years and only recently rediscovered. Due to this history, the dating and provenience of the cranium are difficult to ascertain, but the morphology suggests a mosaic of primitive-like features as seen in Homo heidelbergensis , and other more derived features as seen in Homo sapiens and Neanderthals . Although the cranium closely resembles some other east Asian finds such as the Dali cranium , the team named a new species based on the unique suite of features. This newly named species may represent a distinct new lineage, or may potentially be the first cranial evidence of an enigmatic group of recent human relatives—the Denisovans . Adding to the increasingly complex picture of late Pleistocene Homo are finds from Nesher Ramla in Israel dating to 120,000 to 130,000 years old , described in June by Tel Aviv University’s Israel Hershkovitz and colleagues. Like the Homo longi cranium, the parietal bone, mandible and teeth recovered from Nesher Ramla exhibit a mix of primitive and derived features. The parietal and mandible have stronger affiliations with archaic Homo , such as Homo erectus , while all three parts have features linking them to Neanderthals. Declining to name a new species , the team instead suggests that these finds may represent a link between earlier fossils with “Neanderthal-like features” from Qesem Cave and other sites around 400,000 years ago to later occupation by full Neanderthals closer to 70,000 years ago. Regardless of what these finds may come to represent in the form of new species, they tell us that modern-like traits did not evolve simultaneously, and that the landscape of human interaction in the late Pleistocene was more complex than we realize.

The ghosts of modern humans past were found in DNA in dirt from Denisova Cave in Russia.

Denisova Cave in Russia, which has yielded fossil evidence of Denisovans and Neanderthals (and even remains of a 13-year-old girl who was a hybrid with a Neanderthal mother and Denisovan father), is a paleoanthropological gift that keeps on giving! In June, a team led by Elena Zavala and Matthias Meyer from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany and Zenobia Jacobs and Richard Roberts from the University of Wollongong in Australia analyzed DNA from 728 sediment samples from Denisova Cave —the largest analysis ever of sediment DNA from a single excavation site. They found ancient DNA from Denisovans and Neanderthals… and modern humans, whose fossils have not been found there, but who were suspected to have lived there based on Upper Paleolithic jewelry typically made by ancient modern humans found in 45,000-year-old layers there. The study also provided more details about the timing and environmental conditions of occupation of the cave by these three hominin species: first Denisovans were there, between 250,000 and 170,000 years ago; then Neanderthals arrived at the end of this time period (during a colder period) and joined the Denisovans, except between 130,000 and 100,000 years ago (during a warmer period) when only Neanderthal DNA was detected. The Denisovans who came back to the cave after 100,000 years ago have different mitochondrial DNA, suggesting they were from a different population. Finally, modern humans arrived at Denisova Cave by 45,000 years ago. Both fossil and genetic evidence point to a landscape of multiple interacting human species in the late Pleistocene, and it seems like Denisova Cave was the place to be!

Fossilized footprints bring to light new interpretations of behavior and migration in Tanzania, the United States and Spain.

Usually when we think of fossils, we think of the mineralized remnants of bone that represent the skeletons of long since passed organisms. Yet trace fossils, such as fossilized footprints, give us direct evidence of organisms at a specific place in a specific time. The Laetoli footprints , for example, represent the earliest undoubted bipedal hominin, Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy’s species) at 3.6 million years ago. In December, a team led by Ellison McNutt from Ohio University announced that their reanalysis of some of the footprints from Site A at Laetoli were not left by a bear, as had been hypothesized, but by a bipedal hominin. Furthermore, because they are so different from the well-known footprints from Site G, they represent a different bipedal species walking within 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) of each other within the span of a few days! Recently uncovered and dated footprints in White Sands National Park , New Mexico, described in September by a team led by Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth University, place modern humans in the area between 23,000 to 21,000 years ago. Hypotheses as to how Indigenous Americans migrated into North America vary in terms of method (ice-free land corridor versus coastal route) as well as timing. Regardless of the means by which people traveled to North America, migration was highly unlikely, if not impossible, during the last glacial maximum (LGM), roughly 26,000 to 20,000 years ago. These footprints place modern humans south of the ice sheet during this period, meaning that they most likely migrated prior to the LGM . This significantly expands the duration of human occupation past the 13,000 years ago supported by Clovis culture and the roughly 20,000 years ago supported by other evidence. Furthermore, it means that humans and megafauna, like giant ground sloths and wooly mammoths, coexisted for longer than previously thought, potentially lending credit to the theory that their extinction was not caused by humans. Also interesting is that most of these footprints were likely made by children and teenagers, potentially pointing to division of labor within a community. Speaking of footprints left by ancient children, a team led by Eduardo Mayoral from Universidad de Huelva reported 87 Neanderthal footprints from the seaside site of Matalascañas in southwestern Spain in March. Dated at about 106,000 years ago, these are now the oldest Neanderthal footprints in Europe, and possibly in the world. The researchers conclude that of the 36 Neanderthals that left these footprints, 11 were children; the group may have been hunting for birds and small animals, fishing, searching for shellfish… or just frolicking on the seashore. Aw.

A version of this article  was originally published  on the PLOS SciComm blog.

Get the latest on what's happening At the Smithsonian in your inbox.

Briana Pobiner | READ MORE

Briana Pobiner is a paleoanthropologist with the National Museum of Natural History’s Human Origins Program . She lead's the program's education and outreach efforts. 

Ryan McRae | READ MORE

Dr. Ryan McRae is a paleoanthropologist studying the hominin fossil record on a macroscopic scale. He currently works for the National Museum of Natural History’s Human Origins Program as a contractor focusing on research, education, and outreach, and is an adjunct assistant professor of anatomy at the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

References cited.

• < Previous

Evolution: Evidence and Acceptance

Ross H. Nehm ( [email protected] ) is an associate professor of science education and evolution, ecology, and organismal biology at The Ohio State University, in Columbus. His research on evolution education was recently highlighted in Thinking Evolutionarily: Evolution Education Across the Life Sciences (National Academies Press, 2012).

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ross H. Nehm, Evolution: Evidence and Acceptance, BioScience , Volume 62, Issue 9, September 2012, Pages 845–847, https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.13

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The Evidence for Evolution. Alan R. Rogers. University of Chicago Press, 2011. 128 pp., illus. $18.00 (ISBN 9780226723822 paper).

A lthough scientists view evolution as an indisputable feature of the natural world, most Americans simply do not believe that it occurs, or they reject naturalistic explanations for biotic change. Empirical studies have revealed that students and teachers often know quite a bit about evolution but still do not accept it. This somewhat counterintuitive finding has been empirically corroborated and has led science educators to investigate this pattern in order to provide suggestions for effective evolution instruction (e.g., Rosengren et al. 2012 ). Within the lucid, compact, up-to-date, and highly readable pages of The Evidence for Evolution , author Alan R. Rogers takes an approach that most science educators have found inadequate: exclusively using logic, parsimony, and the force of evidence to precipitate conceptual change about evolutionary belief. Reactions from both supportive and dissenting readers to this nicely written text will depend on how much faith they place in the use of logic to challenge the worldviews of intelligent-design creationists.

Two premises appear to frame this short book: Biology courses and textbooks are focused on evolutionary mechanisms at the expense of the evidence for evolution, which most people are not aware of, and once disbelievers of evolution are exposed to the massive amount of evidence that exists, they will change their beliefs. I am not sure whether most biologists would agree with the first premise, given the increasingly elaborate coverage of evolution in textbooks. Indeed, having reviewed some of the best-selling introductory biology books ( Nehm et al. 2009 ), I know that many topics that Rogers discusses are, in fact, covered in these texts. I am also doubtful as to whether science educators would agree with the second premise: Empirical studies have shown that learning more about evolution often fails to precipitate a meaningful belief change.

Within the 10 chapters that form the structure of The Evidence for Evolution , the choice of topics is excellent. Also noteworthy are the use of fresh empirical examples, the integration of phylogenetic trees, and the inclusion of paleontological patterns, radiometric dating, and genomic data. The evidence for evolution is vast, and choosing appropriate examples for a short book is no small task.

Writing about evolution can be quite challenging, given that many students and teachers view teleological factors as sufficient explanations for evolutionary change. It is important, therefore, to clarify what we mean when we use such language ( Rector et al. 2012 ). At times, Rogers uses intentional or teleological language: “Every living thing must solve many engineering problems just to stay alive” (p. 34). Although biologists will understand what Rogers means, the same may not be true of novice readers. Individual organisms cannot willfully change the traits that they have (e.g., they cannot intentionally modify a phenotypic feature).

Language may also invoke ideas that are at odds with current scientific thinking, and although Rogers writes with precision and clarity, some exceptions are worth mentioning. Trait loss, for example, has been shown to be a particularly difficult concept for students and teachers to understand ( Nehm and Ha 2011 ). When describing the loss of whale limbs (“Over the next few million years, whales relied less and less on their legs,” p. 20, or “Hind limbs dwindled,” p. 22), his language may be in greater alignment with common misconceptions about use and disuse than with natural selection. When writing about evolution, scientists need to be more cognizant of readers' potential interpretations of the language that we use.

One literary device employed throughout the text is the contrast of supernatural explanations (e.g., “Perhaps we sprang from the hand of God,” p. 81) with naturalistic, evolutionary explanations. Although this approach makes the text engaging, it makes little sense from my perspective and has the potential to exacerbate readers' existing confusions about core ideas relating to the nature of science (NOS). Most students and teachers remain unaware of the ontological presuppositions that undergird the scientific process (e.g., methodological naturalism). By definition (e.g., from the National Academy of Sciences), science cannot speak to or evaluate the relative merits of supernatural explanations; no amount of evidence will ever be able to tip the scale in favor of a naturalistic explanation relative to a supernatural one or vice versa. It is not clear why Rogers takes this approach.

Students' and teachers' evolutionary acceptance levels are known to be related to their understanding of the NOS. Because many Americans are deeply confused about NOS concepts such as observation , inference , testability , theory , law , model , proof , experiment , and hypothesis ( Lederman 2007 ), addressing NOS misconceptions has become de rigueur in evolution education. I was surprised, therefore, to find that The Evidence for Evolution does not discuss what evidence is or how the term is used in evolutionary science. More problematic is the somewhat careless use of NOS terms (e.g., “this experiment proved that,” p. 12, emphasis added, and “we can also see new species forming ,” p. 16, emphasis added). In order to prevent the reinforcement of such NOS misconceptions (e.g., that scientific knowledge is certain because it is proven ; or the conflation of observation and inference ), the meanings of everyday and scientific terms must be carefully distinguished for readers.

To make the most of Rogers's important contribution, pairing The Evidence for Evolution with a textbook about the NOS (e.g., Espinoza 2012 ) is much more likely to achieve what the author admirably aspires to: an understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of evolutionary science. Facts, logic, and parsimony are unlikely, on their own, to affect most people's perceptions of the plausibility of evolution.

Espinoza F . 2012 . The Nature of Science: Integrating Historical, Philosophical, and Sociological Perspectives . Rowman and Littlefield .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Lederman NG . 2007 . Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future . Pages 831 – 880 in Abell SK Lederman NG , eds. Handbook of Research on Science Education . Erlbaum .

Nehm RH Ha M . 2011 . Item feature effects in evolution assessment . Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 : 237 – 256 .

Nehm RH Poole TM Lyford ME Hoskins SG Carruth L Ewers BE Colberg PJS . 2009 . Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses reinforce students' faulty mental models of biology and evolution? Evolution: Education and Outreach 2 : 527 – 532 .

Rector MA Nehm RH Pearl D . 2012 . Learning the language of evolution: Lexical ambiguity and word meaning in student explanations . Research in Science Education . Forthcoming. (3 July 2012; www.springerlink.com/content/4117121q46082l30 ) doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9296-z

Rosengren KS Brem SK Evans EM Sinatra GM eds. 2012 . Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution . Oxford University Press .

Author notes

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Curriculum and Education
• Open access
• Published: 04 May 2022

Correcting misconceptions about evolution: an innovative, inquiry-based introductory biological anthropology laboratory course improves understanding of evolution compared to instructor-centered courses

• Susan L. Johnston 1 ,
• Maureen Knabb 1 ,
• Josh R. Auld 1 &
• Loretta Rieser-Danner 1  

Evolution: Education and Outreach volume  15 , Article number:  6 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

3733 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Comprehensive understanding of evolution is essential to full and meaningful engagement with issues facing societies today. Yet this understanding is challenged by lack of acceptance of evolution as well as misconceptions about how evolution works that persist even after student completion of college-level life science courses. Recent research has suggested that active learning strategies, a focus on science as process, and directly addressing misconceptions can improve students’ understanding of evolution. This paper describes an innovative, inquiry-based laboratory curriculum for introductory biological anthropology employing these strategies that was implemented at West Chester University (WCU) in 2013–2016. The key objectives were to help students understand how biological anthropologists think about and explore problems using scientific approaches and to improve student understanding of evolution. Lab activities centered on scenarios that challenged students to solve problems using the scientific method in a process of guided inquiry. Some of these activities involved application of DNA techniques. Formative and summative learning assessments were implemented to measure progress toward the objectives. One of these, a pre- and post-course evolution concepts survey, was administered at WCU (both before and after the implementation of the new curriculum) and at three other universities with more standard introductory biological anthropology curricula. Evolution survey results showed greater improvement in understanding from pre- to post-course scores for WCU students compared with students at the comparison universities (p < .001). WCU students who took the inquiry-based curriculum also had better understanding of evolution at the post-course period than WCU students who took the course prior to implementation of the new curriculum (p < .05). In-class clicker assessments demonstrated improved understanding of evolution concepts (p < .001) and scientific method (p < .05) over the course of individual labs. Two labs that involved applying DNA methods received the highest percentage ratings by students as ‘very useful’ to understanding important concepts of evolution and human variation. WCU student ratings of their confidence in using the scientific method showed greater improvement pre- to post-course during the study period as compared with the earlier, pre-implementation period (p < .05). The student-centered biological anthropology laboratory curriculum developed at WCU is more effective at helping students to understand general and specific concepts about evolution than are more traditional curricula. This appears to be directly related to the inquiry-based approach used in the labs, the emphasis on knowledge and practice of scientific method, directly addressing misconceptions about evolution, and a structure that involves continual reinforcement of correct concepts about evolution and human variation over the semester.

Understanding the reality of evolution is fundamental to science education. However, many Americans deny the theory of evolution despite overwhelming evidence and uniform support from the scientific community (Nadelson and Hardy 2015 ). In 2006, Miller et al. published an enlightening study demonstrating the low acceptance of evolution in the United States compared to 34 other countries, with the US ranking second to last in acceptance of evolution. Data from the Pew Research Center’s ( 2015 ) Religious Landscape Study show that these results had not changed very much in the intervening decade; at that time, 34% of Americans reported that they reject evolution and believe that humans arrived on earth in their present form. Recent work by Miller et al. ( 2021 ) suggests this may be changing, with increased public acceptance of evolution in the last decade. Even though acceptance of evolution increases with level of education, from 20% in high school to 52% and 65% among college or postgraduates, respectively, the rejection rate of evolution from students in introductory biology classes can reach up to 50% (Brumfield 2005 ; Rice et al. 2010 ; Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa 2016 ). Even college-level instruction in evolution, then, may not increase students’ acceptance of evolution.

Perhaps more surprisingly, even when acceptance of evolution is not a factor, college-level instruction does not necessarily result in full understanding of evolution either, and numerous studies identify multiple evolution-related misconceptions held by different groups of students. For example, Cunningham and Wescott ( 2009 ) identified and evaluated biological anthropology students’ misconceptions about evolution and found that, despite acceptance of evolutionary theory, students lack understanding of the process of evolution. Tran et al. ( 2014 ) also identified similar misconceptions among advanced undergraduate biology majors. And Beggrow and Sbeglia ( 2019 ) reported that despite some differences in evolutionary reasoning and in the specific types of evolution misconceptions held by biology and anthropology majors, both populations performed poorly on a measure of evolutionary knowledge (Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection [CINS]; Anderson et al. 2002 ). Several other instruments to assess both student misconceptions about evolution and student understanding of evolution have been developed, including the Measure of the Acceptance of Evolutionary Theory (MATE; Rutledge and Sadler 2007 ) and the Inventory of Students’ Acceptance of Evolution (I-SEA; Nadelson and Southerland 2012 ) with different student populations (see also Nehm and Mead 2019 ; Furrow and Hsu 2019 ). Results of multiple studies using these instruments show that student misconceptions continue despite college-level classroom instruction (e.g., Beggrow and Sbeglia 2019 ). Use of these types of assessment instruments aids in understanding and addressing student misconceptions, but there clearly remains a need to find the most effective teaching and learning strategies for evolution education (Glaze and Goldston 2015 ).

Pobiner ( 2016 ) recently reviewed the current state of evolution teaching and learning and concluded that focusing on human examples, such as in biological anthropology courses, is an effective way to enhance student understanding and acceptance of evolution. Based on results of the "Teaching Evolution through Human Examples" project (Pobiner et al. 2015 , 2018 ), these authors suggest that the use of human examples is helpful because human examples are relevant, they increase students’ acceptance and understanding of evolution, and they help students to appreciate historical science. Numerous other investigators have supported this suggestion (e.g., see Beggrow and Sbeglia 2019 ) and some research suggests that students across multiple disciplines (majors and non-majors) actually prefer the use of human examples when learning about evolution (e.g., Pobiner et al. 2018 ; Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa 2016 ). However, even with a focus on human evolution, misconceptions continue to exist (e.g., Cunningham and Westcott 2009 ; Beggrow and Sbeglia 2019 ).

Some research suggests that instructor-centered pedagogy (lecture) is less successful in helping students recognize and correct their misconceptions about evolution (Bishop and Anderson 1990 ; Gregory 2009 ) compared to historically rich, problem-solving methods of instruction that appear to significantly improve student understanding of evolution (Jensen and Finley 1996 ). Nehm and Reilly ( 2007 ) directly compared pedagogical approaches using pre- and post-course tests and found that students taught using active-learning techniques performed better than those using a more traditional approach.

Pittinsky ( 2015 ) further suggests that firsthand experience with scientific methods, as well as interactions with real scientists, would help address some of the problems in teaching evolution. It seems that when students learn to think like a scientist and use the same actions that led to original discoveries, they gain insight into the strategies and techniques used by scientists studying evolution (Passmore and Stewart 2002 ). Scharmann et al. ( 2018 ) and Nelson et al. ( 2019 ) also suggest that Nature of Science (NOS) principles should be covered before even introducing the theory of evolution. Some research supports this suggestion. For example, DeSantis ( 2009 ) reported that introduction of a curriculum module that included inquiry-based activities that model the work of paleontologists increased interest in and acceptance of the theory of evolution among middle- and high-school age students. Might the inclusion of similar inquiry-based laboratory activities also reduce the evolution misconceptions held by students (at all levels)?

Other research suggests that the order in which concepts are introduced makes a difference in students’ understanding of evolution, at least among high school students. For example, Mead et al. ( 2017 ) reported that teaching genetics first (before evolution) improves student understanding of evolution. And, Alters and Nelson ( 2002 ) as well as Beggrow and Sbeglia ( 2019 ) further suggest that targeting naïve ideas about evolution should be an instructional goal, particularly in anthropology education. Research by Bishop and Anderson ( 1990 ) and Jensen and Finley ( 1996 ) support this suggestion, reporting that confronting students’ misconceptions directly before introducing correct conceptions is associated with significant gains in student understanding of evolution. Wingert et al. ( 2022 ) show that employing instructional activities that directly challenge students' teleological concepts about natural selection improves their acceptance and understanding of evolution. 

Taken together, these results support Nelson’s ( 2008 ) recommendation of three learning strategies to improve student understanding of evolution: (1) extensively using active learning strategies; (2) focusing on science as a process and way of knowing; and (3) identifying and directly addressing student misconceptions. We report on the effectiveness of an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum that incorporates all of these strategies in an undergraduate biological anthropology course.

Evolutionary theory is central to the discipline of biological anthropology, which is fundamentally about human evolution. At West Chester University (WCU), Biological Anthropology (ANT 101) is a general education, introductory course taken by majors and non-majors that had, traditionally, been taught using a teacher-centered approach. In 2010, assessment data indicated that many students retained common misconceptions about evolution after completion of the course. For example, responses to the question “What is evolution?” included replies such as: “…survival of the fittest, species do what they need to do to pass their genes on”; “the change that occurs in an environment over time from a change in species”; “the way an organism changes to survive in a changing environment.” Clearly course changes were needed to address these misconceptions, and it seemed a good idea to attempt to do so by actively engaging students in understanding the concepts of evolution as well as the tools used by researchers to solve problems using scientific methods. Based on previous work emphasizing the need to employ human examples using active, hands-on pedagogy that emphasizes the scientific process, we developed an innovative biological anthropology laboratory course that merges these three important components of effective teaching of evolution. Based on our results, this course not only improves overall performance in correcting misconceptions when compared to other biological anthropology courses, but it also significantly improves understanding in specific areas.

Introduction to Biological Anthropology (ANT 101) has been offered annually or more frequently at WCU for nearly two decades. It is a required course for anthropology majors, and for most of that time period non-majors have been permitted to take it to meet a general education distributive requirement. Until the fall semester of 2013, it was configured as a three-hour per week lecture course with no hands-on lab component, and the department had no access to laboratory classroom facilities. For several of those years, the instructor incorporated 3–5 virtual laboratory experiences over the semester using one lecture hour for each. While students said they enjoyed these experiences, assessment data indicated that they still had persistent misconceptions about evolution at course completion.

In fall 2013, a project team at WCU, including the course instructor (a biological anthropologist), a human physiologist experienced in inquiry curricula, an evolutionary biologist, and a psychologist with expertise in assessment and program evaluation were awarded a three-year TUES (Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM) grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF). The purpose of this award was to develop an innovative, inquiry-based laboratory curriculum targeting student misconceptions about evolution, student ability to use the scientific method, and student understanding of the investigative tools used by biological anthropologists. To accommodate this new curriculum, the course was redesigned to meet four hours per week in an integrated lecture-lab format, with roughly half of that time devoted to laboratory activities and the other half to lecture and/or discussion.

The project was submitted to the West Chester University Human Subjects Committee and received expedited approval in the summer 2013. Informed consent was obtained each semester from students enrolled in the course who wished to participate. Over the period of the project, this was all but one or two students.

During each lab period, brief instruction on methodology was provided, as appropriate to the lab, and students were presented with a challenge scenario that asked them to apply the scientific process to solving that problem using the relevant method (with the challenge scenario providing a structured context in which to do so). In a standard biological anthropology lab curriculum, students might be asked to describe and identify various casts of hominin fossil skulls using characteristics they had learned about, associate these traits with dietary differences, and receive verification of their assessments by the instructor. In the inquiry-based, structured challenge approach developed at WCU, students were given a problem to solve that required them to hypothesize the likely diet of the various hominins or hominids. They were instructed in a technique that allowed them to test one of their hypotheses, then required to state their results in an organized manner, evaluate them, indicate next steps, and so on. Thus, each lab in the curriculum is configured to (1) help students understand how biological anthropologists think about and explore problems using relevant techniques and (2) gain experience with the scientific process. The lab curriculum includes some instruction and application of basic molecular techniques (e.g., constructing simple primate phylogenies based on morphological v. genetic variation and doing a DNA fingerprinting exercise to attempt to identify a hypothetical hominin fossil), since the curriculum is also designed to help students make connections between phenotypic observations and the molecular level in service of the project goal of helping students to better understand evolution. Table 1 provides a list of the labs with descriptions of the inquiry learning activities performed.

The full lab manual can be accessed at: https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/anthrosoc_facpub/72 .

Standard assessments, including periodic exams and laboratory reports, were utilized to measure student learning. Responses to lab challenges at multiple time points were evaluated at the end of each semester using a rubric to measure individual students’ abilities to define the problem, to develop a plan to solve the problem, to analyze and present information, and to interpret findings and solve the challenge problem. Student lab teams also developed a project that they designed and implemented (from hypothesis to interpretation) using one of the methods they learned, and gave group presentations to the class. Other, more formative, measures of student learning were also introduced. For example, during each lab, students completed a pre-post assessment tool which was a modified version of the RSQC2 (Recall, Summarize, Question, Connect, and Comment) classroom assessment technique developed by Angelo and Cross ( 1993 ). Beginning in the second year of the project, pre- and post-lab clicker questions were incorporated for rapid assessment of the lab impact.

Several global surveys were administered at the beginning of each course, prior to any instruction, and again (for all but one survey) on the last day of the course. These included a survey focusing on evolution (17 items in year one, revised to 25 items in the second year) as well as surveys assessing students’ familiarity and comfort level with the scientific process, their level of motivation, and, at the end only, their overall assessment of their course experience. The evolution survey was also administered at WCU for 2 years prior to the course reorganization and lab implementation; data from this period are used for an internal comparison with survey results obtained during the implementation of the new curriculum. Biological anthropology colleagues at three other US universities (reported here as A, B, and C) also administered the evolution concepts survey to their students in introductory courses in biological anthropology, during the grant period, for comparison purposes. All of these courses were taught with some version of a more standard laboratory curriculum for this discipline (example of a standard approach described above). University ‘A’ is a large, midwestern state school (approximately 40,000 students); University ‘B’ is a sizable state school located in the south (approximately 30,000 students). University ‘C’ is a large, northeastern state school (approximately 30,000 students). At all three, introductory biological anthropology is taught in large lecture context with smaller recitation sections that meet one hour per week (i.e., two hours lecture, one hour of recitation or lab). At A and C, these recitations were used for weekly laboratory activities throughout the semester; at B, there were seven labs during the semester. Prior to 2013, the course at University A had no lab at all—only lecture.

The current report first describes the results of the evolution concepts instrument administered at the very beginning of the course and at the end of the course at WCU and across universities. Following a presentation of the results regarding changes in misconceptions we turn our attention to an examination of the specific areas of learning that we believe may have contributed to the reduction in misconceptions, including a look at specific assessments of students’ growing understanding of science as a process throughout the course.

Evolution misconceptions

Two versions of the evolution concepts instrument were used, one prior to the start of the grant period and throughout the first year following the grant award and a revised version used beginning in fall 2014. Each version included statements that students responded to on a 5-option Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, or having no opinion. This instrument was based on a published and freely available tool used by other researchers (Cunningham and Wescott 2009 ). For purposes of analysis, each item was agreed by the project team to be either true or false, such that strong agreement with a true statement and strong disagreement with a false statement were considered to be ‘correct’ responses. A scale ranging from + 2 to − 2, including 0 for ‘no opinion’ was constructed, and several variables were computed from these scores, including total score (pre, post), percent of total points earned (pre, post), number of items correct (pre, post), and percent of items correct (pre, post). The use of percent variables was necessitated by a revision of the survey after the first year of curriculum implementation (2013–2014). The initial version of the survey included 24 items, but a qualitative analysis by study consultants resulted in a set of only 17 items deemed usable for the purposes of our study. This initial survey was then revised for use beginning in fall 2014 to include the 17 items kept from the original survey with the addition of 8 new items, resulting in a set of 25 usable items. The 25-question survey can be found in Additional file 1 .

Several questions were addressed using the results of the evolution concepts instrument. First, we compared WCU student survey responses to responses from the three other institutions whose students completed the survey. We asked if student performance on the evolution concepts instrument improved from pre- to post-course for all institutions and whether the amount of improvement varied by institution. Second, we examined WCU student survey responses (both pre and post surveys) over time, asking if student performance on the evolution concepts instrument improved both prior to and during the grant implementation period. Next, we asked whether the degree of improvement changed following implementation of our new inquiry-based curriculum, relative to the academic years prior to implementation of the grant. Finally, in an attempt to understand the specifics of what evolution-related misconceptions might have improved and which did not, we conducted a qualitative analysis of survey items and compared student performance on sets of related items across universities.

WCU course assessments

A variety of measures were used to assess student learning throughout each semester at WCU and to evaluate the effectiveness of particular pedagogical approaches as well as the overall curriculum. Some of these measures were objective and direct measures of student learning. Some were indirect measures, student perceptions of what they learned and/or which laboratory sessions they believed were most helpful in their learning. In this report, we provide results of four of these measures—in-class clicker questions, laboratory challenges, RSQC2 responses, and student confidence ratings—to provide insights about the effectiveness of the curriculum in meeting its primary objectives.

In-class clicker questions

Students were presented with a set of true/false statements or multiple choice questions at the beginning and end of multiple laboratory sessions. Some items were tied directly to misconceptions about evolution, others to students’ understanding of the scientific method, while others were designed to measure more general understanding of the topics covered by the individual laboratory modules. Students responded, via clickers, to these statements presented visually in class. Responses served as an important source of formative assessment but also provided information on the effectiveness of each of the laboratory modules in correcting student misconceptions about evolution and student understanding of the scientific method.

Laboratory challenges

Laboratory modules included “challenge” activities, designed specifically to enable students to apply problem-solving skills within a structured context (Knabb and Misquith 2006 ). In each of these laboratory challenges, students were asked to state research questions or generate hypotheses, collect data, draw conclusions, report/graph their results, and reflect on those results. Each student completed a laboratory worksheet during each lab module and all worksheets were submitted as part of student lab notebooks at the end of each semester. Selected lab worksheets were reviewed by faculty involved with the grant project at the end of each semester using a developmental assessment screening tool developed by all project faculty. This screening tool underwent its own developmental process, resulting in a final tool that included four measures of scientific thinking (i.e., students’ ability to use the scientific method): Defining the Problem, Developing a Plan to Assess the Problem, Analyzing and Presenting Information, and Interpreting Findings and Solving the Problem. Each of these four areas was assessed on a scale of four developmental levels: beginning, developing, appropriately developed, and exemplary. A copy of this scoring rubric can be found in Additional file 2 . Developmental changes in these four areas of scientific thinking were assessed by comparing assigned developmental levels following an early semester laboratory module with assigned developmental levels following a later semester laboratory module.

RSQC2 (Revised)

A modified version of the RSQC2 classroom assessment technique (Angelo and Cross 1993 ) was completed by students during each laboratory session. Complete details about the multiple sections of this activity can be found in Additional file 3 . For the current report, we present data on one of the sections completed by students at the end of each laboratory session. Students were asked to rate the usefulness of each laboratory session in reaching learning outcomes. Ratings were made on a 4-point Likert scale: 4 = very useful; 3 = somewhat useful; 2 = minimally useful; 1 = not useful. Questions included: How useful was today’s laboratory session in helping you to understand the important concepts of evolution and human variation discussed in this course and used by biological anthropologists? How useful was today’s laboratory session in helping you to understand the tools used by biological anthropologists to understand the concepts of evolution and human variation?

Student confidence in using scientific method

WCU students completed a 10-item survey at both the beginning and the end of each semester asking them to rate their level of confidence in their abilities and/or understanding of several pieces of the scientific process. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = completely doubtful; 2 = somewhat doubtful; 3 = neutral; 4 = somewhat confident; 5 = strongly confident. A copy of this survey is available in Additional file 4 .

A variety of both univariate and multivariate linear model procedures were used to address questions of interest involving all student assessments, both within and across time periods and universities (where appropriate). Specifics regarding these analyses are discussed within the Results section.

Evolution misconceptions at WCU and other institutions

WCU evolution surveys were collected across all six semesters of the grant implementation period (fall 2013 through spring 2016), with a total of 105 complete survey sets (pre- and post-course). Survey responses from students at the three other universities were provided by institution instructors whenever possible: University A provided 469 complete survey sets across five terms; University B provided 273 complete survey sets across six terms; and University C provided 200 complete survey sets across three terms. Comparisons across universities were made across only the three terms for which data was provided by each university (fall 2014, spring 2015, and fall 2015). Figure  1 shows pre-course and post-course percent items correct at each university (WCU, University A, University B, and University C), collapsed across these three semesters.

Pre-course and post-course evolution concept survey ‘percent items answered correctly’ across 4 universities: WCU (n = 43); University A (n = 308); University B (n = 143); and University C (n = 200)

Significant change from pre- to post-course percent items correct was found within institutions for each of the three terms individually [as assessed after each term] and across all terms combined. Furthermore, significant change from pre- to post-course percent items correct was found across all three terms and 4 institutions, collapsed [t (693) = 25.762, p < 0.001]. Thus, significant improvement in overall performance on the evolution misconceptions instrument occurred at every institution and during each of the three terms considered here.

While there were no significant differences by term, institution, or term x institution in pre-course percent items correct, we did note a near significant effect of institution [F (3, 690) = 2.548, p < 0.10]. An informal review revealed that WCU pre-course scores were higher than pre-course percent items correct at all three other universities. Thus, comparison of post-course percent items correct included the pre-course percent items correct scores as a covariate. ANCOVA results support a significant effect of institution on post-course percent items correct, after controlling for pre-course percent items correct [F (3, 689) = 8.345, p < 0.001]. Post-hoc tests show significant differences between post-course scores at WCU and at all three other institutions. In addition, post-course percent items answered correctly at University B was significantly lower than percent items answered correctly at University C.

Internal WCU comparisons

The results reported above support statistically significant improvement in evolution misconception scores among students at all participating universities but further suggest that post-course scores are significantly higher at WCU than at any of the other three universities, even after controlling for potential differences in pre-course scores. WCU differs from these other institutions in terms of the curriculum focus (our inquiry-based approach versus other, more standard approaches), but WCU also differs from the other institutions in terms of class size. Individual class sections are smaller at WCU, resulting in smaller sample sizes both within and across semesters. If class size is the factor that explains the difference in post-course performance across universities, it should also be the case that post-course performance at WCU would not change following the introduction of the new inquiry-based curriculum. To evaluate this possibility, we compared WCU evolution survey results for pre-grant terms to evolution survey results following implementation of the inquiry-based curricular approach. Survey results are reported here for pre-grant (fall 2011 and fall 2012, N = 22 and 26, respectively), and grant implementation (fall 2013, spring 2014, fall 2014, spring 2015, fall 2015, and spring 2016; Ns = 18, 23, 12, 12, 19, and 21, respectively) (Fig.  2 ).

WCU pre- and post-course ‘percent items answered correctly’ by project phase: pre-grant (n = 48) and post-grant (n = 105)

There were no significant differences by term in pre-course percent items correct or post-course percent items correct during the pre-grant period (fall 2011 and fall 2012) or during the grant implementation period (fall 2013 through spring 2016). Significant change from pre- to post-course percent items correct was found across the pre-grant period [t (47) = 7.387, p < 0.001] and across the grant implementation period [t (104) = 14.871, p < 0.001]. Thus, significant improvement in performance on the evolution conceptions instrument was found both prior to and during the implementation of the grant. There were no significant differences in pre-course percent items correct between pre-grant and grant implementation periods [F (1, 151) = 2.145, p = 0.145]. But, a significant group difference was found in post-course percent items correct [F (1,151) = 5.600, p < 0.05], with students answering a larger percentage of items correctly (i.e., earning full 2 points) across the grant implementation period than during the pre-grant period.

Evolution concepts

The results reported above support the conclusion that our new laboratory curriculum may be more effective in improving student understanding of evolution and evolutionary concepts and may be more effective in reducing student misconceptions of evolution than the curriculums utilized at the other universities. In addition, significantly more WCU students answered certain survey items correctly at the post-course assessment than did students at any of the other three institutions (see Table 2 ), but a clear pattern was difficult to identify. Thus, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the 25 survey items that made up the revised version of the survey (the one implemented beginning fall 2014). We examined the survey results for the three terms for which data were available for all four institutions (fall 2014, spring 2015, fall 2015). This analysis resulted in four groups of items, each addressing one broad theme: (1) understanding of basic scientific evidence and the process of science (5 items); (2) understanding of evolution (from a general or “big picture” perspective) (7 items); (3) understanding of the mechanisms of evolution (i.e., natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, gene flow) (8 items); and (4) understanding of the evidence for evolution (5 items). Table 2 provides a list of all survey items and identifies which theme each item falls into.

A significant multivariate effect of institution was found when we included the four concept scores (i.e., percent of items within each concept grouping answered correctly) in a MANOVA procedure with both pre-course scores and post-course scores included as dependent variables. Univariate follow-up tests suggest a significant institution effect for Concepts #1, and #4. In both cases, pre-course scores were higher for WCU students than for students at other institutions. Thus, a set of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) procedures were conducted, one for each set of post-course concept scores (i.e., percent of items within each concept grouping answered correctly at post-course time period), with institution included as a between-subjects factor and pre-course scores for that concept included as a covariate. Results suggest a significant institution effect for three of the four concepts (#1, #2, and #3). With regard to Concept #1 (understanding of basic scientific evidence and the process of science) post-hoc tests following an overall significant effect of institution [F (3,689) = 3.919, p < 0.05] show significantly higher post-course concept scores at WCU than at any of the other three institutions. A similar result was found for Concept #2 (understanding of evolution from a general/big picture perspective) [F (3,689) = 12.899, p < 0.001]. Again, post-course scores for WCU were significantly greater than those for the other three institutions. In addition, University A post-course scores were significantly greater than those for University B. A significant effect of institution was also found for Concept #3 (understanding of the mechanisms of evolution) [F (3,689) = 7.278, p < 0.001]. Post-hoc tests reveal that WCU post-course scores are significantly greater than those of University A and University B. WCU scores are higher than those of University C but that difference did not reach statistical significance. No significant effect of institution was found for Concept #4 scores (understanding of the evidence for evolution) [F (3,689) = 1.643, p = 0.178). But, despite the lack of an overall significant effect, WCU post-course scores are greater than those of the other institutions for this concept. Descriptive statistics for the concept scores across universities can be found in Additional file 5 .

How might this inquiry-based course have aided in the reduction of evolutionary misconceptions? In an attempt to gain insight about which course components or processes were effective in this regard, we examined student responses to in-class clicker questions about evolution concepts and scientific method , their development of scientific thinking skills over the term via lab worksheets, their perceptions about each lab’s effectiveness in helping them to learn about evolution and human variation concepts, and their confidence in using the scientific method. These results are presented below.

Clicker questions were developed over the course of the second year of the grant, then revised slightly for use across the final year of the grant (Fall 2015–Spring 2016). Questions were developed for eleven laboratory modules (see Table 1 ). Some items were included within each module to measure understanding of specific laboratory content. Items measuring evolution misconceptions were also included for all modules (1, 2, or 3 items). Items measuring scientific thinking (i.e., understanding of the scientific method) were included for only three modules (1 or 2 items): Evolution and Scientific Thinking, Primate Anatomy and Locomotion, and Human Osteology and Forensics. Clicker questions were presented at the beginning and at the end of each laboratory module session. Data for the final year of grant implementation are presented here. Complete data (across all laboratory modules) were available for 24 students across both semesters.

Overall student performance (as measured by % total items answered correctly) increased significantly from 78.64% at pre-module assessment to 91.06% at post-module assessment (across all items and all laboratory modules) [t (23) = 10.89, p < 0.001]. Performance also increased within each of the laboratory modules.

Student performance also increased significantly on the items specifically designed to measure previously identified misconceptions about evolution, with percent total items answered correctly across all laboratory modules increasing from 83.85% correct to 91.93% correct (across all items and all laboratory modules) [t (23) = 4.992, p < 0.001]. Given that evolutionary misconceptions were addressed most steadily during the early part of the semester, we examined the degree to which improvement on misconception items might be different across the semester. Table 3 shows measures of student performance on evolution misconception in-class clicker items during three time periods of the semester: Early Semester (3 modules focused on basic evolutionary concepts); Mid Semester (4 modules focused on non-human primates and human evolution); and Late Semester (4 modules focused on living human biology). While some slight improvement was noted across all time periods, the only period during which a statistically significant improvement occurred was the early semester time period.

Student performance on the items specifically designed to measure student understanding of the scientific method increased significantly from 90.00% to 97.50% (across all items and all three laboratory modules that included those items) [t (23) = 2.584, p < 0.05]. When broken down by individual laboratory module, the greatest improvement in student performance appears in the later modules but is only statistically significant in the Primate Locomotion module (see Table 4 ).

Two laboratory sessions (one early- and one mid-semester) were chosen for comparison: (1) the Evolution and Scientific Thinking laboratory module was chosen for the early-semester session; and (2) the Primate Anatomy and Locomotion module was chosen for the mid-semester session. The Evolution and Scientific Thinking laboratory module was the first laboratory module students participated in and occurred during week two of the semester. The Primate Anatomy and Locomotion session occurred at about week six of the semester. Four variables were scored from the laboratory worksheets of each of these sessions across the final two semesters of the grant implementation period, fall 2015–spring 2016: Defining the Problem; Developing a Plan to Solve the Problem; Analyzing and Presenting Information; and Interpreting Findings and Solving the Problem. All were rated on a scale of 1 to 4 (Beginning, Developing, Appropriately Developed, and Exemplary). Three faculty scorers worked together to determine final scores by consensus for each variable in each laboratory worksheet. Complete data were available for a total of 42 students across both semesters (21 each semester) (see Table 5 ).

Student responses to all items of the RSQC2 classroom assessment tool were collected across the final two semesters of the grant implementation period, fall 2015–spring 2016. As outlined earlier, students were asked to rate the usefulness of each laboratory session in helping them to understand (1) the important concepts of evolution and human variation discussed in the course, and (2) the tools used by biological anthropologists to understand the concepts of evolution and human variation. Students ranked each laboratory session, as it ended, on a 4-point scale, ranging from Not Useful to Very Useful, on each of these items. Table 6 lists the laboratory session topics and the percent of students who rated each one as “Very Useful” to their understanding of the important concepts of evolution and human variation. Table 7 lists the percent of students who rated each one as “Very Useful” to their understanding of the tools used by biological anthropologists (i.e., to their understanding of the scientific method as practiced by biological anthropologists). Some differences in student ratings across the two areas of understanding are apparent.

Student ratings of their confidence in using the scientific method are reported here for the pre-grant period (fall 2011 and fall 2012 combined), and the grant implementation period (fall 2013, spring 2014, fall 2014, spring 2015, fall 2015, and spring 2016 combined) (see Table 8 ). Student ratings increased from pre- to post-course during both time periods, but improvement was greater during the grant implementation period than during the pre-grant period.

The laboratory curriculum developed and evaluated at WCU increases students’ understanding of evolution in introductory biological anthropology compared with other institutions using more standard approaches. While students taking the evolution concepts survey demonstrated improved understanding of evolution at all of the schools that employed this instrument (WCU and comparisons) from the beginning to the end of each semester, WCU students demonstrated a greater increase in percent items answered correctly from pre- to post-course (see Fig.  1 ). Significantly more WCU students answered 18 (of 25) survey items correctly at the post-course assessment than did students at any of the other three institutions (see Table 2 ). Given that WCU class sizes are smaller than those at the three comparison universities, WCU student performance on the evolution survey before the new curriculum was implemented was compared with performance during the first three years of the new, grant-funded curriculum. Students taking the survey during the grant period answered a statistically greater percentage of items correct at the post-survey than students in the pre-grant period, with pre-survey response levels showing no significant difference across these two phases (see Fig.  2 ); class sizes were comparable across the entire time frame.

Thus, we demonstrate the impact on improved student understanding of evolution is related to the new curriculum itself. In the remaining discussion, we focus on the question of what aspects of the new curriculum may be contributing to this improvement, detailing how this curriculum incorporates all three of the key learning strategies outlined by Nelson ( 2008 ): (1) extensive use of active learning approaches; (2) focus on science as a process and way of knowing; and (3) identification and direct targeting of student misconceptions.

First, the WCU curriculum is inquiry-based, engaging students actively and directly with the process of “doing science”. Active learning (also known as student-centered learning) strategies, such as problem- or inquiry-based approaches, have been shown to be superior to instructor-centered approaches (e.g., lecture) in promoting student learning about evolution (e.g., Jensen and Finley 1996 ; Nehm and Reilly 2007 ). One of the stated learning goals of this course is to help students come to understand how biological anthropologists investigate questions. We strive to accomplish this by having them learn and actually use some of the tools scientists in this field employ—both at the ‘outward’ physical (e.g., skeletal, body shape and size, etc.) and molecular/biochemical levels (e.g., gene sequence readouts, DNA fingerprinting)—in a problem-solving context. Student lab teams receive a challenge scenario and have to come up with a methodological approach (usually using techniques they have just learned, and occasionally employing techniques learned earlier in the course), collect data, and then interpret those data—in every lab. This is fundamentally different than the typical approach in an introductory biological laboratory setting, such as those used in the comparison institutions and described earlier in this paper.

We think that this bi-level approach to teaching and using relevant methods in problem-solving helps students connect the evidence for evolution and human variation with the underlying molecular basis of that variation and change over time. Student ratings of each lab on the RSQC2 question pertaining to effectiveness in helping them to learn concepts of evolution and human variation were highest for Tree-Building and Primate Classification and DNA Fingerprinting (Table 6 ). We think it telling that both of these labs involve genetic as well as phenotypic variation linked with evolution. Ratings for the question concerning lab effectiveness in helping students to learn to use the tools biological anthropologists employ to understand evolution and human variation were highest for Forensics 2: DNA Fingerprinting, followed by Human Variation: Anthropometry, Human Genetic Adaptation: ELISA, and the Tree-Building and Primate Classification labs (see Table 7 ); all but the anthropometry lab address directly both genetic/biochemical and physical traits.

Second, the WCU curriculum focuses on the scientific way of knowing and the scientific process from the first week, in both lecture and lab contexts. The first topic after the students are introduced to the discipline is the nature of science: how science seeks to understand phenomena, the meaning of ‘fact’, ‘hypothesis’, and ‘theory’ in a scientific inquiry, and how the scientific approach to understanding natural phenomena differs from others. The first lab, which occurs early in the second week, then provides an opportunity for students to try out the scientific method and to learn, in context, about generating hypotheses, developing methods, collecting data, and interpreting those observations. They also learn about bias caused by preconceptions, measurement error, and different approaches to understanding the world (e.g., science and religion). Each lab module thereafter requires students to methodically think through and structure their work using the standard methodological sequence: question/hypothesis, explication of methods, data collection and reporting, discussion, and interpretation (see Table 1 ). Further examples of how the process of science is addressed in the curriculum are described below in the discussion about addressing evolution misconceptions.

The effectiveness of this approach is supported by the qualitative evolution concepts analysis that we undertook to look for thematic patterns in the evolution survey statements (see Table 2 and associated text). Three broad concepts showed a significant effect of institution, with WCU student post-course scores being higher than those at the other institutions; the first of these was understanding of basic scientific evidence and the process of science. The in-class clicker data we analyzed (see Table 4 ) support the idea that students gained knowledge about the scientific method during lab classes. Analysis of the change in student performance on lab challenges relevant to steps of the scientific process from early to mid-semester (see Table 5 ) also supports improved student ability to develop a plan to solve the problem (Methods) and to analyze and present information (Results) from the early time point to the later one. Additionally, students’ report of their confidence in using the scientific method (see Table 8 ) indicated greater improvement from pre- to post-course during the grant implementation period than during the pre-grant period at WCU. Firsthand experience with the scientific method and opportunities to ‘think like a scientist’ have been linked with improved ability of students to understand and accept evolution (see, e.g., Pittinsky 2015 ; DeSantis 2009 ; Robbins and Roy 2007 ; Nelson 2008 ).

Third, the WCU curriculum is designed to identify and directly address student misconceptions about evolution, and it does so from early in the course (Nelson 2008 ). Students take the evolution concepts survey on the first day of class, before any instruction about evolution. This provides a baseline of their understanding, and the concepts included in the survey are among those that the curriculum proceeds to address. The order of the labs over the semester (Table 1 ) ensures that basic concepts of evolutionary theory and mechanisms, genetics, and classification/phylogeny are covered early. As part of this attention to foundational ideas, class discussions during and at the end of labs include a focus on misconceptions about evolution and, indeed, about how scientific inquiry is conducted. For example, in the Evolution and Scientific Thinking lab (the first one), students nearly always assume the male skeleton will be the taller of the two—whether or not they overtly state that as a hypothesis. This and other ideas that students mention lead to a discussion of assumption bias and how we try to avoid that in the process of “doing” science. This is followed by a dialogue (sometimes precipitated by a student-expressed view, but more often introduced by the instructor as a story) focused on the idea some people hold that the male should have one less rib than the female. We talk through whether this is a scientific hypothesis (yes, because it can be tested); how they would test it (go count the ribs); what kind of evolution mechanism this idea reflects (Lamarkism, i.e., inheritance of acquired characteristics); and what genetic assumption is also being made (that rib number is sex-linked). We also tell students that, in reality, there is a range of variation in number of rib pairs in humans. In fact, the male skeleton is shorter than the female, and this fact also fosters a framework in which to look at what kinds of factors may affect variation in height in humans, besides sex (e.g., population or individual ancestry, various environmental influences, age). In the Tree Building and Primate Classification two-part lab, we address directly the relationship among monkeys, apes, and humans. At the outset, most students think that monkeys and apes are more closely related evolutionarily than either group is to humans; this is also typically how they interpret the anatomic evidence of the comparative skulls and build their initial trees. However, when they do the counts of pairwise differences in the gene sequence for the three primate groups, they come to understand that the genetic evidence is indicating that apes and humans are more closely related than either group is to monkeys. The discussion in this lab is also focused on the conduct of science inquiry (e.g., can we say a hypothesis is “proven” based on one gene sequence or a limited set of anatomic traits?) and evolution misconceptions (e.g., that extant species differ from each other in “how evolved” or better adapted they are, based on body size or some other assumption).

In addition, we assess student understanding about common misconceptions in all labs directly via some of the in-class clicker questions administered as a formative assessment at the beginning and end of each lab module. Use of clickers allows us to assess immediately, at the conclusion of a lab module, how well students grasped the key concepts and techniques on which the lab was based, including evolution concepts. In the data presented in this paper, scores on evolution concept clicker questions improved significantly in the early lab modules analyzed as a group compared with mid-semester and later semester groupings of lab modules (see Table 3 ). In the later phases, the baseline (pre-lab) scores were higher, reflecting student mastery of evolution concepts generally over course duration. Finally, evolution misconceptions were also addressed in ‘lecture’ class discussions as well as queried on exams. In other words, the focus on correcting misconceptions occurred at multiple levels and time points in the course.

The kind of repetition and reinforcement that we describe here has been termed “spaced practice” or “varied practice” and is documented as improving student conceptual learning (Brown et al. 2014 ; Cepeda et al. 2006 ; Lang 2016 ). Spaced practice improves learning for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways, but one thing that spaced practice supports is long-term consolidation of information; practice over time and in various forms allows for the connection of new information to existing knowledge and for the strengthening of memory traces over time (Brown et al. 2014 ; Cepeda et al. 2006 ; Goode et al. 2008 ; Moulton et al. 2006 ). We think that reinforcing on a weekly basis both the scientific method and correct general and specific concepts about evolution (including the mechanisms of evolution) represents this kind of spaced and varied practice and may well be contributing to the comparative success of this curriculum. The close integration of lecture and lab is likely also a factor.

Following the project, the course instructor, in consultation with the project team, made a number of changes to the curriculum based on the promising findings described above. The steps of the scientific method were more explicitly built into all of the lab worksheets, for emphasis. Opportunities to emphasize key evolution concepts within particular labs were enhanced during post-lab discussions. Clicker questions were revised to incorporate more statements reflecting science process and understanding, as well as additional repetitions of evolution concepts (with altered wording each time). Eventually, two new labs were developed related to human physiological adaptability. The first of these was added in spring of 2017 and focused on blood pressure response to stress; this lab, done late in the semester, then became the basis for the students’ final group project (instead of the population ancestry lab). After the students conduct a pro-forma experiment assessing cardiovascular response to a stressor using the blood pressure sensor and software, they design and conduct their own experiments, which they then present orally the following week. In fall 2017, a second physiology lab was added in the first half of the course, focused on skin temperature response to cold, and provided another, and earlier, opportunity for students to develop their own experiments once they learned the technique, with an emphasis at this early stage on hypothesizing. Students present these first ‘mini’ projects briefly (focusing on hypothesis and results) the following week. We felt that it was important to provide students with two experiences that allow them to ask and answer research questions of their own, under guidance. In fall 2017 the course topic order was also altered, bringing most of the human biology material previously covered at the end (biological variability and adaptation) into the sequence immediately after evolutionary theory and genetics—thus the relevance of a temperature adaptability lab in week 5.

Conclusions and suggestions

The student-centered biological anthropology laboratory curriculum developed at WCU is more effective at helping students to understand general and specific concepts about evolution than are more traditional curricula. We argue here that this is not just a function of small class size, but is directly related to the inquiry-based approach used in the labs, the emphasis on knowledge of science and practice applying the scientific method regularly, the very intentional confronting of misconceptions about evolution starting early in the course, and the structure that allows for ‘spaced practice’, i.e., continual reinforcement of correct concepts about evolution and human variation. Inquiry-based approaches can be incorporated in lab sections of otherwise large lecture courses (Casotti et al. 2008 ) or as small-group activities within lecture-only science courses. Evidence suggests that these student-centered approaches also work well for diverse learners (Tuan et al. 2005 ).

We encourage instructors of introductory biological anthropology and other life science courses to incorporate these key elements in their curricula to support improved student understanding about science process and evolution. Three general suggestions that might be applied fairly readily based on our study would be: (1) assess students’ level of understanding of evolution and how science proceeds right at the beginning of the course or relevant unit, and again at the end—to take stock of the impact of the curriculum on student learning; (2) provide hands-on problem-solving opportunities, such as case studies, guided challenges, or self-designed experiments, that iteratively emphasize scientific method and correct understanding of evolution; (3) use human examples where possible, and look for opportunities to help students connect the phenotypic changes reflecting evolution with the underlying genetic changes. The WCU curriculum is freely available to those who are interested in more detail or who may wish to adapt and incorporate components of what we have discussed here in their own courses—e.g., specific labs, etc.—at the following link ( https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/anthrosoc_facpub/72 ); inquiries or requests for additional information may be sent directly to the first author.

Availability of data and materials

The lab manual can be accessed at the open source link: https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/anthrosoc_facpub/72 . Other materials can be obtained from the first author on request.

Abbreviations

West Chester University

Alters B, Nelson C. Perspectives: teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution. 2002;56:1891–901.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson DL, Fisher KM, Norman GJ. Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39:952–78.

Angelo TA, Cross KP. Classroom assessment techniques: a handbook for college teachers. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1993.

Google Scholar  

Beggrow EP, Sbeglia GC. Do disciplinary contexts impact the learning of evolution? Assessing knowledge and misconceptions among anthropology and biology students. Evol Educ Outr. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0094-6 .

Bishop BA, Anderson CW. Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. J Res Sci Teach. 1990;27:415–27.

Brown PC, Roediger HL III, McDaniel MA. Make it stick: the science of successful learning. Cambridge: Belknap Press; 2014.

Book   Google Scholar  

Brumfield G. Who has designs on your students’ minds? Nature. 2005;434:1062–5.

Casotti G, Rieser-Danner L, Knabb M. Successful implementation of inquiry-based physiology laboratories in undergraduate major and nonmajor courses. Adv Physiol Educ. 2008;32:286–96. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00100.2007 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cepeda NJ, Pashler H, Vul E, Wizted JT, Rohrer D. Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychol Bull. 2006;132:354–80.

Cunningham DL, Wescott DJ. Still more “fancy” and “myth” than “fact” in students’ conceptions of evolution. Evol Educ Outr. 2009;2:505–17.

DeSantis LRG. Teaching evolution through inquiry-based lessons of uncontroversial science. Am Biol Teach. 2009;71:106–11. https://doi.org/10.1662/005.071.0211 .

Furrow RE, Hsu JL. Concept inventories as a resource for teaching evolution. Evo Edu Outreach. 2019;12:2.

Glaze AL, Goldston MJUS. science teaching and learning of evolution: a critical review of the literature 2000–2014. Sci Educ. 2015;99:500–18.

Goode MK, Geraci L, Roediger HL. Superiority of variable to repeated practice in transfer on anagram solution. Psychonom Bull Rev. 2008;15:662–6.

Gregory T. Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evol Educ Outreach. 2009;2:156–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1 .

Jensen MS, Finley FN. Changes in students’ understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. J Res Sci Teach. 1996;33:870–900.

Knabb M, Misquith G. Assessing inquiry process skills in the lab using a fast, simple, inexpensive fermentation model system. Am Biol Teach. 2006;68:e25–8.

Lang JM. Small teaching: everyday lessons from the science of learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2016.

Mead R, Hejmadi M, Hurst LD. Teaching genetics prior to teaching evolution improves evolution understanding but not acceptance. PLOS Biol. 2017;15: e2002255. https://doi.org/10.1271/journal.pbio.2002255 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Miller J, Scott E, Okamoto S. Public acceptance of evolution. Science. 2006;313:765–6.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Miller JD, Scott EC, Ackerman MS, Laspra B, Branch G, Polino C, Huffaker JS. Public acceptance of evolution in the United States, 1985-2020. Public Underst Sci. 2021;31:223–38.

Moulton C-AE, Dubrowki A, Mac-Rae H, Graham B, Grober E, Reznick R. What kind of practice makes perfect? Ann Surg. 2006;244:400–9.

Nadelson LS, Hardy KK. Trust in science and scientists and the acceptance of evolution. Evol Educ Outr. 2015;8:9.

Nadelson LS, Southerland S. A more fine-grained measure of students’ acceptance of evolution: development of the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance—I-SEA. Int J Sci Educ. 2012;34:1637–66.

Nehm RH, Mead LS. Evolution assessment: introduction to the special issue. Evo Edu Outreach. 2019;12:7.

Nehm RH, Reilly L. Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. Bioscience. 2007;57:263–72.

Nelson C. Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integr Comp Biol. 2008;48:213–25.

Nelson CE, Scharmann LC, Beard J, Flammer LI. The nature of science as a foundation for a better understanding of evolution. Evol Educ Outr. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s/12052-019-0100-7 .

Passmore C, Stewart J. A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. J Res Sci Teach. 2002;39:185–204.

Paz-y-Miño-C G, Espinosa A. Measuring the evolution controversy: a numerical analysis of acceptance of evolution at America’s Colleges and Universities. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publ; 2016.

Pew Research Center. Religious Landscape Study. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/;2015 . Accessed 1 Feb 2017.

Pittinsky TL. American’s crisis of faith in science. Science. 2015;348:511–2.

Pobiner B. Accepting, understanding, teaching, and learning (human) evolution: Obstacles and opportunities. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2016;159:232–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22910 .

Pobiner B, Bertka C, Beardsley P, Watson W. The Smithsonian’s ‘Teaching evolution through human examples’ project. Themed paper set presented at the Association for Science Teacher Educator (ASTE) conference, Reno, Nevada; 2015. http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/teaching-evolution-through-human-examples

Pobiner B, Beardsley PM, Bertka CM, Watson WA. Using human case studies to teach evolution in high school AP biology classrooms. Evol Educ Outr. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0077-7 .

Rice JW, Olson JK, Colbert JT. University evolution education: the effect of evolution instruction on biology majors’ content knowledge, attitude toward evolution, and theistic position. Evol Educ Outr. 2010;4:137–44.

Robbins JR, Roy P. Identifying and correcting non-science student preconceptions through and inquiry-based, critical approach to evolution. Am Biol Teacher. 2007;69:460–6.

Rutledge ML, Sadler KC. Reliability of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution (MATE) instrument with university students. Am Biol Teach. 2007;69:332–5.

Scharmann LC. Evolution and nature of science instruction: a first-person account of changes in evolution instruction throughout a career. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning, & Teacher Education. 2018;308. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/308 .

Tran MV, Weigel EG, Richmond G. Analyzing upper level undergraduate knowledge of evolutionary processes: can class discussions help? J Coll Sci Teac. 2014;43:87–97.

Tuan H, Chin CC, Tsai CC, Cheng SF. Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. Int J Sci Math Educ. 2005;3(4):41–566.

Wingert JR, Bassett GM, Terry CE, Lee J. The impact of direct challenges to student endorsement of teleological reasoning on understanding and acceptance of natural selection: an exploratory study. Evo Edu Outreach. 2022;15:4.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The support of the (then) College of Arts and Sciences and its dean, the Provost, and the Office of Sponsored Research and Faculty Development of West Chester University are gratefully acknowledged. In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the support and counsel of the three external advisors on the project, all biological anthropologists teaching at the three other universities that provided evolution survey comparative data.

This project was supported by an NSF TUES Award (DUE-1245013) and West Chester University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

West Chester University, West Chester, PA, 19383, USA

Susan L. Johnston, Maureen Knabb, Josh R. Auld & Loretta Rieser-Danner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SLJ, MK, and JA designed the curriculum. SLJ is the instructor of record for the course and was responsible for obtaining informed consent and for implementing the curriculum. LR-D served as the project evaluator and conducted all analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors' information

SLJ is a biological anthropologist and Professor of Anthropology (Department of Anthropology and Sociology); MK is a physiologist and Emeritus Professor of Biology (Department of Biology); JA is an evolutionary biologist and Professor of Biology (Department of Biology); and LR-D is Professor of Psychology (Department of Psychology).

All are affiliated with West Chester University, West Chester, PA, 19383, USA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan L. Johnston .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

As reported in Methods section.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Revised version of the evolution survey that includes 25 items; administered at WCU and three other universities from Fall 2014 on.

Additional file 2.

Rubric used to review student laboratory worksheets. Includes 4 measures of scientific thinking (defining the problem, developing a plan to assess the problem, analyzing and presenting information, and interpretating findings and solving the problem), with each assessed on a scale of 4 developmental levels (beginning, developing, appropriately developed, and exemplary).

Additional file 3.

A modified version of the RSQC2 classroom assessment technique (Angelo and Cross, 1993 ), completed by students during and after each laboratory module.

Additional file 4.

A 10-item survey completed by WCU students at both the beginning and the end of each semester asking them to rate their level of confidence in their abilities and/or understanding of several pieces of the scientific process. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = completely doubtful; 2 = somewhat doubtful; 3 = neutral; 4 = somewhat confident; 5 = strongly confident.

Additional file 5.

Evolution survey, concept scores: descriptive statistics by institution

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Johnston, S.L., Knabb, M., Auld, J.R. et al. Correcting misconceptions about evolution: an innovative, inquiry-based introductory biological anthropology laboratory course improves understanding of evolution compared to instructor-centered courses. Evo Edu Outreach 15 , 6 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-022-00164-4

Download citation

Received : 04 February 2022

Accepted : 02 April 2022

Published : 04 May 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-022-00164-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evolution education
• Biological anthropology
• Inquiry-based laboratory
• Misconceptions
• College level
• Student-centered learning
• Human examples

Evolution: Education and Outreach

ISSN: 1936-6434

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

• Support Our Work

The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Human evolution research.

Smithsonian Human Origins Program & Field Research

The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program conducts field and lab research on the evolution of early human adaptations. Our key research partners are in East Africa and East Asia – especially in Kenya, China, and Indonesia. Our digs and studies in these regions, along with investigations by associates working in Ethiopia, Tanzania, India, Mozambique, among other countries, help generate scientific data on the long-term interaction of human ancestors with their surroundings. Curiosity about human origins drives our research. The research supports our effort to bring the latest findings to public audiences worldwide.

Climate and Human Evolution

Explore how environment change influenced evolution, and how dramatic climate instability over the past 6 million years may have shaped human adaptations.

East African Research Projects

The Human Origins Program has been conducting research in East Africa for over 25 years. Read about some of our current field projects, focused in Kenya, here.

Asian Research Projects

The Human Origins Program conducts research at a variety of sites in Asia, currently with a focus in China and Indonesia. Read about the earliest humans in China, 'hobbits' of Indonesia, and other research projects here.

The Age of Humans: Evolutionary Perspectives on the Anthropocene

• Fossil Forensics: Interactive

Scientists can study fossil bones to find clues about how early humans lived and died, and the variety of dangers they faced. Fossil animal bones can also reveal evidence of the meat-eating habits of early humans - and their competitors for animal prey, the large carnivores.

Choose a fossil bone specimen to see what scientists have learned about it by examining it up close, sometimes even under a microscope.

• What's Hot in Human Origins?

Check out the latest human origins discoveries and research findings!

Digital Archive of Ungulate and Carnivore Dentition

Members of the Human Origins Program team describe how they use cutting-edge technology in their scientific investigations.

• Climate Effects on Human Evolution
• Survival of the Adaptable
• Human Evolution Timeline Interactive
• 2011 Olorgesailie Dispatches
• 2004 Olorgesailie Dispatches
• 1999 Olorgesailie Dispatches
• Olorgesailie Drilling Project
• Kanam, Kenya
• Kanjera, Kenya
• Ol Pejeta, Kenya
• Olorgesailie, Kenya
• Evolution of Human Innovation
• Adventures in the Rift Valley: Interactive
• 'Hobbits' on Flores, Indonesia
• Earliest Humans in China
• Bose, China
• Anthropocene: The Age of Humans
• Instructions
• Carnivore Dentition
• Ungulate Dentition
• Primate Behavior
• Footprints from Koobi Fora, Kenya
• Laetoli Footprint Trails
• Footprints from Engare Sero, Tanzania
• Hammerstone from Majuangou, China
• Handaxe and Tektites from Bose, China
• Handaxe from Europe
• Handaxe from India
• Oldowan Tools from Lokalalei, Kenya
• Olduvai Chopper
• Stone Tools from Majuangou, China
• Middle Stone Age Tools
• Burin from Laugerie Haute & Basse, Dordogne, France
• La Madeleine, Dordogne, France
• Butchered Animal Bones from Gona, Ethiopia
• Katanda Bone Harpoon Point
• Oldest Wooden Spear
• Punctured Horse Shoulder Blade
• Stone Sickle Blades
• Projectile Point
• Oldest Pottery
• Pottery Fragment
• Fire-Altered Stone Tools
• Terra Amata Shelter
• Qafzeh: Oldest Intentional Burial
• Assyrian Cylinder Seal
• Blombos Ocher Plaque
• Ishango Bone
• Bone and Ivory Needles
• Carved Ivory Running Lion
• Female torso in ivory
• Ivory Horse Figurine
• Ivory Horse Sculpture
• Lady of Brassempouy
• Lion-Man Figurine
• Willendorf Venus
• Ancient Shell Beads
• Carved Bone Disc
• Cro-Magnon Shell Bead Necklace
• Oldest Known Shell Beads
• Ancient Flute
• Ancient Pigments
• Apollo 11 Plaque
• Carved antler baton with horses
• Geometric incised bone rectangle
• Tata Plaque
• Mystery Skull Interactive
• Shanidar 3 - Neanderthal Skeleton
• One Species, Living Worldwide
• Human Skin Color Variation
• Ancient DNA and Neanderthals
• Human Family Tree
• Swartkrans, South Africa
• Shanidar, Iraq
• Walking Upright
• Tools & Food
• Social Life
• Language & Symbols
• Humans Change the World
• Introduction to Human Evolution
• Nuts and bolts classification: Arbitrary or not? (Grades 6-8)
• Comparison of Human and Chimp Chromosomes (Grades 9-12)
• Hominid Cranial Comparison: The "Skulls" Lab (Grades 9-12)
• Investigating Common Descent: Formulating Explanations and Models (Grades 9-12)
• Fossil and Migration Patterns in Early Hominids (Grades 9-12)
• For College Students
• Why do we get goose bumps?
• Chickens, chimpanzees, and you - what do they have in common?
• Grandparents are unique to humans
• How strong are we?
• Humans are handy!
• Humans: the running ape
• Our big hungry brain!
• Our eyes say it!
• The early human tool kit
• The short-haired human!
• The “Nutcracker”
• What can lice tell us about human evolution?
• What does gut got to do with it?
• Why do paleoanthropologists love Lucy?
• Why do we have wisdom teeth?
• Human Origins Glossary
• Teaching Evolution through Human Examples
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Recommended Books
• Exhibit Floorplan Interactive
• Print Floorplan PDF
• Reconstructions of Early Humans
• Chesterfield County Public Library
• Orange County Library
• Andover Public Library
• Ephrata Public Library
• Oelwein Public Library
• Cedar City Public Library
• Milpitas Library
• Spokane County Library
• Cottage Grove Public Library
• Pueblo City-County Library
• Springfield-Greene County Library
• Peoria Public Library
• Orion Township Public Library
• Skokie Public Library
• Wyckoff Free Public Library
• Tompkins County Public Library
• Otis Library
• Fletcher Free Library
• Bangor Public Library
• Human Origins Do it Yourself Exhibit
• Exhibit Field Trip Guide
• Acknowledgments
• Human Origins Program Team
• Connie Bertka
• Betty Holley
• Nancy Howell
• Lee Meadows
• Jamie L. Jensen
• David Orenstein
• Michael Tenneson
• Leonisa Ardizzone
• David Haberman
• Fred Edwords (Emeritus)
• Elliot Dorff (Emeritus)
• Francisca Cho (Emeritus)
• Peter F. Ryan (Emeritus)
• Mustansir Mir (Emeritus)
• Randy Isaac (Emeritus)
• Mary Evelyn Tucker (Emeritus)
• Wentzel van Huyssteen (Emeritus)
• Joe Watkins (Emeritus)
• Tom Weinandy (Emeritus)
• Members Thoughts on Science, Religion & Human Origins (video)
• Science, Religion, Evolution and Creationism: Primer
• The Evolution of Religious Belief: Seeking Deep Evolutionary Roots
• Laboring for Science, Laboring for Souls:  Obstacles and Approaches to Teaching and Learning Evolution in the Southeastern United States
• Public Event : Religious Audiences and the Topic of Evolution: Lessons from the Classroom (video)
• Evolution and the Anthropocene: Science, Religion, and the Human Future
• Imagining the Human Future: Ethics for the Anthropocene
• Human Evolution and Religion: Questions and Conversations from the Hall of Human Origins
• I Came from Where? Approaching the Science of Human Origins from Religious Perspectives
• Religious Perspectives on the Science of Human Origins
• Submit Your Response to "What Does It Mean To Be Human?"
• Volunteer Opportunities
• Submit Question
• "Shaping Humanity: How Science, Art, and Imagination Help Us Understand Our Origins" (book by John Gurche)
• What Does It Mean To Be Human? (book by Richard Potts and Chris Sloan)
• Bronze Statues
• Reconstructed Faces

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Saudi J Biol Sci
• v.23(1); 2016 Jan

Biology and evolution of life science

1. introduction.

Biology literally means “the study of life”. Life Sciences attempts to untie the living things mysteries from the working of protein ‘machines’, to the growth of organism from a single cell to the majesty and intricacy of whole ecosystem. Questions about life sciences are as diverse and fascinating as life itself like; how a single cell knows to build up complex organism? How interpretation of genetic information takes place?

How the properties of organism are affected due to gene mutation? How ecosystem changes due to climate?

What can human genetic variation tell us about the history of human evolution and migration? Evolution is the change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every biological organization level. All life on earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor. In the mid-19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, while in the early 20th century the modern evolutionary synthesis integrated classical genetics with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. Evolution is a cornerstone of modern science, accepted as one of the most reliably established of all facts and theories of science, based on evidence not just from the biological sciences but also from anthropology, psychology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines, as well as behavioral and social sciences.

2. Theory of evolution on Earth

Today life diversity on earth is the result of evolution. On Earth life began at least 4 billion years ago and it has been evolving every year. In the beginning all living things on earth were single celled organism, after several years multicellular organism evolved after that diversity in life on earth increased day by day. Here in the figure shows the history of life on earth ( Fig. 1 ).

Timeline for history of life on Earth.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the double helix structure shown in Fig. 2 . Its duplicate copies have coded information coiled up in almost all of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) cells in your body. In human DNA has 46 segments; 23 segments received from father and 23 from mother. Each DNA contains exclusive information that determines what you look like, your personality and how your body cell is to function throughout your life.

Depictions of Saturn, DNA, and the Ark.

If one cell whole DNA was uncoiled and stretched out then it would be six feet long. Its detailed structure could not be seen due to its thin structure even under electron microscope. If all the coded information from one cell of one person were printed on books then it would fill a library of four thousand books and if the whole body DNA were positioned continuously, it would extend from here to Moon more than 500,000 times. If one set of DNA from each individual who still lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin.

3. Generic information

Different Scientists gave different information about genetic evolution like; Carl Sagan who showed by using simple calculation that how one cell’s value of genetic information approximates four thousand books of written information while volume of each book would have 50 cubic inches ( Sagan, 1977 ). 1014 cells are present in each adult individual. About 800 cubic miles have been worn from the Grand Canyon. According to that if each cell in one individual’s body was reduced to four thousand books then they would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.

From earth the moon is 240,000 miles. If the human cell DNA were prolonged out and linked, it would be more than 7 feet long. If the entire DNA in one individual’s body were located back-to-back, it would enlarge to the moon 552,000 times.

The weight of DNA in human cell is 6.4 × 10 −12  g and almost less than fifty billion individuals lived on earth, if one copy of DNA from living individual were taken it is enough to define the physical characteristics of all those inhabitants in microscopic aspect and would weigh only, which is less than the weight of 1 aspirin.

According to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, biochemical systems are exceptionally composite, so much so that the possibility of their being shaped from side to side haphazard shuffling of simple organic molecules is remarkably small, to a position certainly where it is inertly different from zero ( Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1999 ). Life cannot have a random beginning, like monkey’s troops thundering on typewriter could not be able to produce Shakespeare work. For the realistic cause entire visible universe is not vast adequate to hold the essential monkey hordes, essential typewriters, and surely the baskets for waste paper required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for the living matter.

The simple truth is not mentioned by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that even a few correct words typed by monkey’s hordes would decompose long before a whole sentence of Shakespeare was completed. In the same way, a small number of correct amino acids sequences would decay long before a protein was completed, not to point out that thousands of proteins must be at their proper place in a living cell. At last the most composite condition of all is the occurrence of working DNA ( Vogel, 2001 ). They also state that our intelligence must reflect a vastly superior intelligence, even the tremendous idealized limit of God. They also believe that life was created by some intelligence somewhere in outer space and latter was transported to the Earth. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it ( Storz, 2002 ).

As Murray Eden reported that it is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic opinion, then the randomness assumption is greatly improbable and a sufficient scientific theory of evolution has to wait for the finding and clarification of new natural laws like physical, physico-chemical, and biological ( Eden, 1967 ). I. After clearing up the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was similar with the possibility that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

According to Ohno’s likable term is junk DNA that traps and no doubt dispirited a generation of researchers from studying the huge amount of important “junk” DNA that did not code for proteins ( Ohno, 1972 ). This study made an insightful point that if all the DNAs of human, mice and other organisms were useful then after so many mutations that build up in hundreds of millions of years then those species become extinct.

In different species non coding DNA differs more as compared to protein coding DNA. If we find a particular protein coding gene in human then we find nearly the same gene in mice and that rule just does not work for narrow elements. The biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology is the failure to recognize the importance of introns ( Mattick, 2003 ).

In transcription regulation, replication, RNA processing, translation and protein degradation non coding RNAs play an important role. Recent studies show that non coding RNAs are more important and abundant as compared to those initially imagined. The term junk DNA which is used is the reflection of our ignorance, non gene sequence also has their regulatory role ( Birney, 2012 ).

Fig. 3 shows that macroevolution would need a rising change in the complication of definite traits and organs while the microevolution is involved only in horizontal changes with no rising complications. Most of the creationists agree that natural selection occurs but it does not result in macroevolution.

Macroevolution vs. microevolution.

Today, the most accepted theory of life on Earth is evolution, and there is a vast amount of evidence supporting this theory. However, this was not always the case. Evolution can be described as a change in species over time. Dinosaur fossils are significant evidence of evolution and of past life on Earth. Before taking into consideration that how life began, first of all we understand the term organic evolution. It is naturally occurring and beneficial change that produces rising and inheritable complication. If the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs then this is called macroevolution, but the microevolution does not increase the complexity. By one or more mutation only size, shape and color are altered ( Taubes, 2009 ). Microevolution can be thought of as horizontal change, while macroevolution would involve vertical beneficial change in complexity. So the combination of microevolution and time will not produce macroevolution. Evolutionists have the same opinion that microevolution takes place. Since the start of history a minor change has been observed. But become aware of how frequently evolutionists give confirmation for microevolution to hold up macroevolution. It is macroevolution which requires new abilities and rising complication, resulting from new genetic information and is the center of the creation-evolution argument ( Maher, 2012 ).

4. The key parts of the theory of evolution

• • Charles Darwin’s observations and how they support the theory of evolution and the idea of natural selection.
• • The role of natural selection in adaptation.
• • Characteristics of micro evolutionary and macro evolutionary processes.

4.1. Top 5 misconceptions about evolution

4.1.1. it is just a theory.

In everyday language theory’ might mean a hunch or a guess. For scientists theory refers to a well supported explanation.

Scientific theories and scientific laws are often confused.

• * Evolution – The observation that organisms, including plants, bacteria and even molds change over time- depends on theory for explanation.
• * The most well know theory of evolution is the theory of natural selection.

4.1.2. Fittest survival

Is this accurate for Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection?

Fact 1 – Population tends to remain stable.

Fact 2 – Organisms reproduce more offspring than could be supported.

Interference 1 – Not all the offspring live long enough to reproduce.

Fact 3 – Resources are limited

Fact 4 – Individuals within population differ in individuality.

Fact 5 – Inherited characteristics are more.

Interference 2 – There will be differential survival and reproduction.

This is Natural Selection.

Interference 3 – Over time these differences will shift the makeup of the population.

This is decent with modification. Evolution will occur.

• * ‘Fit’ organisms will live & thrive to pass their genetic material to the next generation.
• * Fitness depends on reproducing & ensuring the survival of population rather than strength, speed or length.

4.1.3. Humans descend from Apes

• * Evolution holds that all life on Earth share common Ancestry.
• * Decent with modification means that human are unique as species, and we share many characteristics with other species.
• * Primates share 90% DNA sequence identity with humans.

4.1.4. No one was there and It cannot be Proven

• * Scientists operate like detectives.
• * With a few pieces of evidence about an event the investigator searches for clues that would legitimize or refute a claim.
• * Where is the support evidence coming from?

Evidence of evolution

• - Biochemistry (DNA).
• - Bones and fossils.
• - Comparative anatomy and physiology.
• - Computer modeling.
• - Modern experiments.
• - Developmental biology.

Journals publish evidence

• * Before publishing, a journal will send a manuscript to other scientists who review and critique it.
• * Peer review process often rejects manuscripts because there is not enough evidence to support the claims of the author. Science publishes less than 7% of submissions.
• * This level of organized skepticism is unique to Science.
• * Scientists become famous for overturning ideas and expanding paradigms.

4.1.5. Darwin was wrong

• * Darwin lived in a different time. He constructed the theory of Natural Selection from observing the finches in the Galapagos Islands and many other species across the world.
• * Genes was an unfamiliar term to that world.
• * Cells were seen but not manipulated.
• * Darwin’s mechanism continues to unify all biology – a contribution comparable to those of Newton or Einstein.
• * Today we define evaluation as changes in allelic frequency over time.
• * If we map different forms of genes (alleles) of a population and after a few generations the frequency changes, evolution has occurred.
• * This description is the best to date that captures the over-changing living world.
• * There are still many questions to ask and answer.
• * How do genes play a role in producing the features of organisms?
• * Why do mutations accumulate with different rates?
• * How do we protect our crops if pests evolve?
• * Evolution does not explain what started life, only how it persists, adapts, and changes.
• * Life need only begin once for evolution to occur.

4.2. The origins of life

In the process of evolution a series of natural changes cause species to arise, familiarize yourself to the environment, and turn out to be extinct.

Evolution   =   Change

By the process of biological evolution all species originated. The term species refers to a group who can reproduce their fertile offspring. Scientist classify the species with two scientific name first is genus name and second is species name like humans referred as Homo sapiens. In populations, there are variations or differences between individual members because of the variety of genes (alleles). Examples are skin color in humans, coat color in foxes. When there is a change in genes inherited from parents to offspring in different proportions then evolution occurs. These variations in genes arose for either (1) recombination of alleles when they sexually reproduce or (2) mutations.

Mechanism of evolution occurs by different ways

• 1. Natural selection.
• 2. Biased mutation.
• 3. Genetic drift.
• 4. Gene flow.

Recombining genetic material can happen in three ways.

• 1. Independent assortment.
• 2. Crossing over during meiosis.
• 3. Combining egg and sperm when fertilization occurs.

Mutations are usually neutral or harmful. Sometimes they can be beneficial if the environment is under a state of change.

• 1. Point mutation – In this there is change in a single base pair in DNA.
• 2. Frame shift – a single base pair is added or deleted from DNA.
• 3. Chromosome mutations – mistakes that affect the whole chromosome.
• 4. Deletion mutation – chromosome segments break off and do not reattach itself à new cell lacks genes carried by the segment that broke off.
• 5. Duplication or insertion mutation – Chromosome segments attach to a homologous chromosome that has lost the complementary segment. Result one chromosome carries two copies of one gene.
• 6. Inversion mutations – A segment of chromosome breaks off and then reattaches itself to the original chromosome backwards.
• 7. Translocation mutations – A chromosome segment attaches itself to a nonhomologous chromosome.

These variations lead to adaptations. Adaptations are traits that aid a population’s chance of survival and reproduction ( Hoyle, 1981 ).

A single individual does not change by the result of evolution, while it causes the change by inherited means of growth and development that are specified for a population. When the parent inherits these changes to the offspring then they become common in that population and as a result offspring inherit those genetic characteristics for probability of survival, capability to give birth which will work until the environment changes. Eventually, the genetic changes can modify a species overall way of life, like what it eats, how to grow, how it can live. As new genetic variations in early ancestor population’s preferential new abilities to become accustomed to environmental changes and so altered the human behavior causes the human evolution ( John, 2007 ).

5. Conclusion

Science should forever support conclusions on what is seen and reproducible. So what is observed? We see variations in lizard and birds. If macroevolution occurred in between forms they never as fossils.

An alert viewer can typically see astonishing discontinuities in these claimed upward changes, as well as in the drawing above. From the time of Darwin, different excuses made by evolutionists that why the world and our fossil museums are not spilling over with intermediates. Evolution is a scientific theory in biological sciences, which explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and present. Evolution accounts for the conspicuous patterns of similarities and differences among living things over time and across habitats through the action of biological processes such as mutation, natural selection, symbiosis and genetic drift. Evolution has been subjected to scientific testing for over a century and has been again and again confirmed from different fields.

Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

• Birney E. vol. 307. Scientific American; 2012. pp. 82–90. (Journey to the Genetic Interior). [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eden, M., 1967. Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory, mathematical challenges to the Neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution, p. 109.
• Hoyle F. Hoyle on evolution. Nature. 1981; 294 :105–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoyle F., Wickramasinghe C. Biochemist. 1999; 21 (6):11–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• John M. Encyclopaedia of humble DNA. Nature. 2007; 447 :782–790. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maher B. The human encyclopedia. Nature. 2012; 489 :46–48. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mattick J.S. vol. 289. Scientific American; 2003. pp. 49–50. (The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk). [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ohno S. So much ‘Junk’ DNA in our genome. The Brookhaven Symposium on Biology. 1972; 23 :366–370. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sagan C. Ballatine Books; New York: 1977. The Dragons of Eden; pp. 190–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Storz G. An expanding universe of noncoding RNAs. Science. 2002; 296 :1260–1280. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taubes G. RNA revolution. Discover. 2009:47–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vogel G. Why sequence the junk? Science. 2001; 291 :1184. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Biotechnology Research Viewed With Caution Globally, but Most Support Gene Editing for Babies To Treat Disease

Majorities say scientific research on gene editing is a misuse – rather than an appropriate use – of technology. But public acceptance of gene editing for babies depends on how it will be used, and views often differ by age and religion.

How Many Creationists Are There in America?

A new survey shows the number can vary considerably depending how you ask questions about evolution

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

Tuesday is the 210th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults say humans have evolved over time.

How highly religious Americans view evolution depends on how they’re asked about it

Evolution remains a contentious issue. When asked about it, highly religious Americans’ responses can vary depending on how the question is asked.

The Evolution of Pew Research Center’s Survey Questions About the Origins and Development of Life on Earth

Measuring public opinion on evolution has never been an easy task for survey researchers.

Darwin in America

Almost 160 years after Charles Darwin publicized his groundbreaking theory on the development of life, Americans are still arguing about evolution. In spite of the fact that evolutionary theory is accepted by all but a small number of scientists, it continues to be rejected by many Americans.

The Scientific and Ethical Elements of Human Enhancement

Human enhancement may be just around the corner. How do Americans view these emerging technologies that may one day enhance our human capabilities?

U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities

Americans are more worried than enthusiastic about using gene editing, brain chip implants and synthetic blood to change human capabilities

Video: Are science and religion in conflict with each other?

A majority of the public says science and religion often conflict, but fewer say science conflicts with their own beliefs. And highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science.

Appendix A: About the Survey

The bulk of the analysis in this report stems from a Pew Research Center survey conducted by telephone with a national sample of adults (18 years of age or older) living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The results are based on 2,002 interviews (801 respondents were interviewed on a landline […]

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

• Cary Funk (22)
• Lee Rainie (15)
• David Masci (4)
• Brian Kennedy (2)
• Alec Tyson (1)
• Courtney Johnson (1)
• Elizabeth Podrebarac Sciupac (1)
• Michael Lipka (1)
• Tom Rosentiel (1)

Research Teams

• Internet and Technology (23)
• Religion (23)
• Science (21)
• Methods (1)

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

The evolution of fertility in Greece since the 1960s: a joinpoint regression analysis

• Original Research
• Published: 13 August 2024
• Volume 41 , article number  23 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Konstantinos N. Zafeiris   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2587-6565 1 ,
• Georgios Kontogiannis 2 &
• Byron Kotzamanis 3  

In this paper, we use the joinpoint regression analysis to examine the fertility transition in Greece from 1960 to 2020 after constructing period fertility rates, such as the total annual fertility rates, age-specific fertility rates and mean age of mothers at childbearing for the overall number of births and by birth order. The sources of the empirical data used are the Hellenic Statistical Authority and the European Demographic Observatory database. Results indicate the complex nature of the recent fertility transition in Greece, which occurred in several subsequent cycles. Each of these cycles is examined in this paper, and it describes a population’s transition from a relatively higher fertility regime compared with contemporary standards to a lowest-low one, to an increasing period, and finally to the most recent era of low fertility. After examining all of these, it is evident that the application of this method on any demographic data is robust and efficient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Greece’s gross domestic product (GDP) started showing zero or close to zero growth rates since the fourth quarter of 2007 (Kondilis et al., 2013 ), unemployment rose in 2009 (Tapia Granados & Rodriguez, 2015 ) and the sovereign Greek debt crisis began in the fourth quarter of 2009 (Daouli et al., 2017 ).

It shall be underlined that the classification of births by birth order and age was available for the period-1961–2019.

The contribution of women from Asian and African countries was more important than that of other groups (e.g. Albanians) as their fertility was higher.

https://www.protothema.gr/greece/article/1267092/upovoithoumeni-anaparagogi-eftasan-tis-10000-oi-genniseis-stin-hora-mas-ti-dietia-2018-2019/

https://health4u.gr/gynaikologia/ypovoithoymeni-anaparagogi-genniseis/

Adsera, A. (2011). Where are the babies? Labor market conditions and fertility in Europe. European Journal of Population, 27 (1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-010-9222-x.Where

Article   Google Scholar  

Ariès, P. (1980). Two successive motivations for the declining birth rate in the west. Population and Development Review, 6 (4), 645–650.

Bagavos, C. (2010). Education and childlessness: The relationship between educational field, educational level, employment and childlessness among Greek women born in 1955–1959. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 8 , 51–75.

Bagavos, C. (2017). Do different educational pairings lead to different fertility outcomes? A cohort perspective for the Greek case. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 1 , 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1553/POPULATIONYEARBOOK2017S215

Bagavos, C., & Tragaki, A. (2017). The compositional effects of education and employment on Greek male and female fertility rates during 2000–2014. Demographic Research, 36 (47), 1435–1452.

Bagavos, C., Verropoulou, G., & Tsimbos, C. (2018). Assessing the contribution of foreign women to period fertility in Greece, 2004–2012. Population, 73 , 115–129.

Google Scholar  

Barrio, G., Pulido, J., Bravo, M. J., Pablo Lardelli-Claret, P., Jiménez-Mejías, E., & Luis de la Fuente, E. (2015). An example of the usefulness of joinpoint trend analysis for assessing changes in traffic safety policies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 75 , 292–297.

Bernhardt, E. (2004). Is the second demographic transition a useful concept for demography? Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 2 , 25–28.

Billari, F. C., & Kohler, H.-P. (2004). Patterns of low and lowest low fertility in Europe. Population Studies, 58 (2), 161–176.

Breidenbach, A. L. (2018). Constrained from leaving or comfortable at home? Young people’s explanations for delayed home-leaving in 28 European countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 59 (4), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715218807261

Calot, G., & Sardon, J.-P. (2003). Méthodologie relative au calcul des indicateurs démographiques d’Eurostat .

Chatenoud, L., Garavello, W., Pagan, E., Bertuccio, P., Gallus, S., La Vecchia, C., Negri, E., & Bosetti, C. (2016). Laryngeal cancer mortality trends in European countries. International Journal of Cancer, 138 (4), 833–842. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29833

Cherlin, A., Cumberworth, E., Morgan, P. P., & Wimer, C. (2013). The effects of the great recession on family structure and fertility. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 650 (1), 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716213500643

Comolli, C. L. (2017). The fertility response to the great recession in europe and the United States: Structural economic conditions and perceived economic uncertainty. Demographic Research, 36 (1), 1549–1600. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2017.36.51

Daouli, J., Demoussis, M., Giannakopoulos, I., & Laliotis, N. (2017). The wage curve before and during the Greek economic crisis. Empirical Economics, 52 , 59–77.

Dyvesether, S. M., Nordentoft, M., Forman, J. L., & Erlangsen, A. (2018). Joinpoint regression analysis of suicides in Denmark during 1980–2015. Danish Medical Journal, 65 (4), A5477.

Eurostat. (2021). Population and Social Conditions . https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database

Gavalas, V. (2008). Marriage patterns in Greece during the twentieth century. Continuity and Change, 23 (3), 509–529.

Gavalas, V., & Baltas, P. (2022). Reproduction in the archipelago of the Aegean 1920–2016: long-term trends and recent upturns. Journal of Family History, 47 (1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/03631990211022283

Gavalas, V. S., Rontos, K., & Salvati, L. (2014). Who becomes an unwed mother inGreece? Sociodemographic and geographical aspects of an emerging phenomenon. Population, Space and Place, 20 , 250–263.

Goldstein, J., Karaman Örsal, D. D., Kreyenfeld, M., & Jasilioniene, A. (2013). Fertility reactions to the “great recession” in Europe. Demographic Research, 29 (July), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.4054/demres.2013.29.4

Hardouvelis, G. A., Karalas, G., Karanastasis, D., & Samartzis, P. (2018). Economic Policy Uncertainty, Political Uncertainty and the Greek Economic Crisis . SSRN.

Ifanti, A. A., Argyriou, A. A., Kalofonou, F. H., & Kalofonos, H. P. (2013). Financial crisis and austerity measures in Greece: Their impact on health promotion policies and public health care. Health Policy, 113 (1–2), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.05.017

Van de Kaa, D. (2002). The Idea of a Second Demographic Transition in Industrialised Countries. In Sixth Welfare Policy Seminar of the National Institute of Population and Social Security , 1–34.

Kaldi-Koulikidou, T. (2014). The family strengths in Greece then and now. Strong Families around the World: Strengths-Based Research and Perspectives, 4929 (2007), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v41n03

Kim, H.-J., Chen, H.-S., Byrne, J., Wheeler, B., & Feuer, E. J. (2022). Twenty years since Joinpoint 1.0: Two major enhancements, their justification, and impact. Statistics in Medicine, 41 (16), 3102–3130. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.9407

Kim, H.-J., Fay, M. P., Feuer, E. J., & Midthune, D. N. (2000). Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Statistics in Medicine, 19 , 335–351.

Kohler, H.-P., Billari, F. C., & Ortega, J. A. (2002). The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Population and Development Review, 28 (4), 641–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00641.x

Kondilis, E., Giannakopoulos, S., Gavana, M., Ierodiakonou, I., Waitzkin, H., & Benos, A. (2013). Economic crisis, restrictive policies, and the population’s health and health care: The Greek case. American Journal of Public Health, 103 (6), 973–980.

Kontogiannis, G. (2022). Demo, Dirap (2022): Divorces and divortiality in Greece since the early 1970s (in Greek). Flash News: Research Project Demographic Imperatives in Research and Practices in Greece, Supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) , 8 , 2. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19456265.v1

Kotzamanis, B., & Sofianopoulou, K. (2009). Fertility and Reproduction in Greece since WWII (in Greek). EKE , 124A’ , 3–38.

Kotzamanis, B., Kostaki, A., Bergouignan, Christophe Zafeiris, K., & Baltas, P. (2016). The population of Greece in 2050, an overview of the field, First Report (in Greek) . http://www.demography-lab.prd.uth.gr/TheReports/FIRST_REPORT.pdf

Kotzamanis, B., & Sardon, J. (2018). La fecondite en Grece : tendances lourdes et ruptures. In B. Kotzamanis & A. Parant (Eds.), Regards sur la population de l’Europe du Sud-est/ Viewpoints on the population of SE Europe (Issue October). DEMOBALK.

Kotzamanis, B., Balourdos, D., Kostaki, A., & Tragaki, A. (2018). Report submitted to the Hellenic Parliament concerning demographic developments in Greece .

Kotzamanis, B. (2021). Demographic developments and challenges (in Greek) . IME-GSVEE.

Kotzamanis, B., Baltas, P., & Kostaki, A. (2017). The trend of period fertility in Greece and its changes during the current economic recession. Population Review, 56 (2), 30–48.

Kotzamanis, B., & Duquenne, M.-N. (2004). Les disparités démographiques départementales en Grèce : Convergence ou divergence ? Espace Populations Sociétés, 2004 (3), 641–664. https://doi.org/10.4000/eps.3458

Kotzamanis, B., & Kostaki, A. (2015). The implications of the recent economic crisis on fertility in Greece. European Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 1 (3), 154–171.

Kousi, T., Mitsi, L. C., & Simos, J. (2021). The early stage of COVID-19 outbreak in Greece: A review of the national response and the socioeconomic impact. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010322

Kreyenfeld, M., Andersson, G., & Pailhé, A. (2012). Economic uncertainty and family dynamics in Europe. Demographic Research, 27 , 835–852. https://doi.org/10.4054/demres.2012.27.28

Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review, 36 (2), 211–251.

Lesthaeghe, R. (2011). The “second demographic transition”: A conceptual map for the understanding of late modern demographic developments in fertility and family formation. Historical Social Research, 36 (2), 179–218.

Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111 (51), 18112–18115.

Lutz, W., & Skirbekk, V. (2005). Policies addressing the tempo effect in low-fertility countries. Population and Development Review, 31 (4), 699–720.

Mariolis, T., Rodousakis, N., & Soklis, G. (2021). The COVID-19 multiplier effects of tourism on the Greek economy. Tourism Economics, 27 (8), 1848–1855. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816620946547

Matsaganis, M. (2013). The Greek crisis : social impact and policy responses. In Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (Issue November).

Mills, M., Rindfuss, R. R., McDonald, P., & te Velde, E. (2011). Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update, 17 (6), 848–860. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr026

Ní Bhrolcháin, M., & Beaujouan, É. (2012). Fertility postponement is largely due to rising educational enrolment. Population Studies, 66 (3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00324728.2012.697569

Nicoletti, C., & Tanturri, M. L. (2008). Differences in delaying motherhood across European countries: Empirical evidence from the ECHP. European Journal of Population, 24 (2), 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-008-9161-y

Pierce, N., & Mocanu, E. (2018). Female age and assisted reproductive technology. Global Reproductive Health, 3 (2), e9–e9. https://doi.org/10.1097/grh.0000000000000009

Rea, F., Pagan, E., Compagnoni, M. M., Cantarutti, A., Pugni, P., Bagnardi, V., & Corrao, G. (2017). Joinpoint regression analysis with time-on-study as time-scale: Application to three Italian population-based cohort studies. Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health., 14 (3), e12616-1-e12616-7. https://doi.org/10.2427/12616

Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in western europe: persistent contrasts. Population and Development Review, 24 (2), 203–234.

Rontos, K. (2007). Prospects for a new family formation and for its impact on fertility: Some research evidences from Greece. Statistical Review, 3 (1), 49–67.

Sobotka, T. (2008). Overview chapter 6: The diverse faces of the second demographic transition in Europe. Demographic Research, 19 (December), 171–224. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.8

Sobotka, T., Skirbekk, V., & Philipov, D. (2011). Economic recession and fertility in the developed world. Population and Development Review, 37 (2), 267–306.

Tapia Granados, J. A., & Rodriguez, J. M. (2015). Health, economic crisis, and austerity: A comparison of Greece. Finland and Iceland. Health Policy, 119 (7), 941–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.04.009

Tragaki, A., & Bagavos, C. (2019). Fertility variations in the recession context: The case of Greece. Genus, 75 , 18.

Van Bavel, J., & Reher, D. S. (2013). The baby boom and its causes: What we know and what we need to know. Population and Development Review, 39 (2), 257–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00591.x

Van de Kaa, D. (1987). Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, Population Reference Bureau Inc, 42 (1), 1–59.

Vignoli, D., Guetto, R., Bazzani, G., Pirani, E., & Minello, A. (2020). A reflection on economic uncertainty and fertility in Europe: The narrative framework. Genus . https://doi.org/10.1186/s41118-020-00094-3

Wilson, L., Bhatnagar, P., & Townsend, N. (2017). Comparing trends in mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer in the United Kingdom, 1983–2013: Joinpoint regression analysis. Population Health Metrics, 15 (1), 23.

Zafeiris, K. N. (2006). Sigkritiki Analisi ton Biologikon kai Koinokikon domon Apomonomenon Plithismon tou Nomou Rhodopis. (Comparative Analysis of Biological and Demographic Structures of Isolated Populations in the Department of Rhodopi). Ph.D. thesis (In Greek).

Zafeiris, K. N. (2023). Greece since the 1960s: the mortality transition revisited: A Joinpoint Regression Analysis. Journal of Population Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-023-09301-2

Zafeiris, K. N., & Hatzisavva, K. X. (2015). Fertility in the Vlachic population of Greece: A demo-anthropological approach of Metsovo, 1930–1999 with the application of a genealogy-based method of analysis. Genus, 1 , 61–78.

Zafeiris, K. N., & Kaklamani, S. (2019). Completed fertility during the twentieth century: An example from six settlements in Northern Greece. Journal of Biosocial Science, 51 (1), 118–137.

Zafeiris, K. N., Kostaki, A., Kontogiannis, G., & Tsoni, A. (2021). Factors affecting fertility in the multicultural environment of Thrace in Northern Greece. Communications in Statistics Case Studies Data Analysis and Applications . https://doi.org/10.1080/23737484.2021.1969297

Zafeiris, K. N., & Tsoni, A. (2021). Clustering of the demographic regimes of Europe at the national level: A methodological assessment. Population Review, 60 (1), 26–51.

Zafeiris, K. N., & Xirotiris, N. (2002). Roma from Aratos: demographic and genealogical research. In E. P. Alexakis, E. D. Koppasi-Oikonomea, M. Papapavlou, & M. Papachristoforou (Eds.), Roma in Greece. Greek society fot Ethnology.

Zambon, Ii., Rontos, K., & Salvati, L. (2018). Demographic dynamics, urban-rural divides and the (changing) mother’s age at birth in Greece: A regional analysis, 1980–2016. Studia Demograficzne, 10 , 355–385.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of the Research Project  Demographic Imperatives in Research and Practices in Greece , supported by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (H.F.R.I.) under the “1st Call for H.F.R.I. Research Projects to support Faculty Members & Researchers and the Procurement of high-cost research equipment grant” (project number 2988).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laboratory of Physical Anthropology, Department of History and Ethnology, Democritus University of Thrace, P. Tsaldari 1, 69132, Komotini, Greece

Konstantinos N. Zafeiris

Department of History and Ethnology, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece

Georgios Kontogiannis

Laboratory of Demographic and Social Analyses, Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

Byron Kotzamanis

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantinos N. Zafeiris .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Human and animal rights

No animals/humans were used for studies that are the basis of this research.

Consent for publication

Additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zafeiris, K.N., Kontogiannis, G. & Kotzamanis, B. The evolution of fertility in Greece since the 1960s: a joinpoint regression analysis. J Pop Research 41 , 23 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-024-09343-0

Download citation

Accepted : 01 August 2024

Published : 13 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-024-09343-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Fertility transition
• Period fertility analysis
• Joinpoint analysis
• Cluster analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Center for Financial Research
• Researchers
• Research Fellows
• Senior Advisor
• Special Advisor
• 2023 Fellows
• 2022 Fellows
• Visiting Scholar

Working Papers

• 23rd Bank Research Conference
• Conference Videos
• Speaker Information
• Poster Videos
• Poster Session Videos
• Previous Conference Programs
• Other Conferences
• 2021-2022 FDIC Academic Challenge
• 2020-2021 FDIC Academic Challenge
• Prior Years
• Research Assistants
• Internships
• Visiting Scholars

The FDIC is a preeminent banking research institution. The FDIC established the Center for Financial Research to promote research on topics important to the FDIC's mission including deposit insurance, bank supervision, making large and complex financial institutions resolvable, and resolution of failed financial institutions. The Center has an active seminar series and maintains contacts with preeminent scholars in the industry, academics, and the public sector. Its research follows banking industry developments, risk measurement and management methods, regulatory policy, and related topics. The Center sponsors an annual Bank Research Conference, hosts short-term visiting scholars, and manages a Visiting Scholars Program. The work of our researchers helps the FDIC maintain a safe, sound, and vibrant banking sector.

Papers, Studies, and Survey Reports

The Center publishes working papers, staff studies, survey reports, and other analyses to prompt discussion among the FDIC's many stakeholders to expand knowledge and understanding of issues that affect the banking system.

The Center hosts an annual Bank Research Conference and other events throughout the year to foster dialogue among banking regulators and supervisors, academics, and the private sector.

The Center includes a team of highly qualified economists and researchers, who conduct and publish empirical and theoretical research on the banking industry, bank regulation, and deposit insurance. They also develop statistical and financial models to support FDIC operations. The Center is also supported by advisors, scholars, and fellows who advise senior management and coauthor research papers with economists.

Career opportunities are available for interns, fellowships, and economists.

For additional information about the FDIC Center for Financial Research, please contact us .

Have a Paper You Want to Present at the FDIC?

The FDIC offers a seminar series to present interesting and informative papers. If you would like to present a paper, please e-mail your paper and available presentation dates to [email protected] .

Presenters will be reimbursed for their travel expenses.

About the Symposium

Staff Studies

September 19-20, 2024

Last Updated: May 20, 2024

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Evolutionary genetics articles from across Nature Portfolio

Evolutionary genetics is the study of how genetic variation leads to evolutionary change. It includes topics such as the evolution of genome structure, the genetic basis of speciation and adaptation, and genetic change in response to selection within populations.

A new type of non-Mendelian segregation

An analysis of whole genomes of mothers and daughters of the clonal raider ant Ooceraea biroi shows non-random segregation of chromosomes during meiosis, which enables the species to maintain heterozygosity while still recombining because crossover products are faithfully coinherited.

• Caroline Blanc
• Marie Delattre

Latest Research and Reviews

The chromosome-level genome assembly of the red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii

• Mingcong Liao

Origin and evolution of the bread wheat D genome

Analysis of 46 newly sequenced or re-sequenced Tausch’s goatgrass ( Aegilops tauschii ) accessions establishes the origin of the bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) D genome from genetically and geographically discrete Ae. tauschii subpopulations.

• Emile Cavalet-Giorsa
• Andrea González-Muñoz
• Simon G. Krattinger

Continuously fluctuating selection reveals fine granularity of adaptation

Natural environmental and ecological shifts impose sufficiently strong selection to drive exceptionally rapid, parallel and fluctuating adaptive tracking in a Drosophila melangaster mesocosm.

• M. C. Bitter
• D. A. Petrov

The genomes of all lungfish inform on genome expansion and tetrapod evolution

We find that massive genome expansion seems to be related to a reduction of PIWI-interacting RNAs and C2H2 zinc-finger and KRAB-domain protein genes that suppress transposable element expansion, and lungfish chromosomes still conservatively reflect the ur-tetrapod karyotype.

• Manfred Schartl
• Joost M. Woltering

Allopolyploidization from two dioecious ancestors leads to recurrent evolution of sex chromosomes

How different parental sex chromosome systems affect allopolyploidization is yet unknown. Here, the authors assemble the genomes of a female allotetraploid weeping willow ( Salix babylonica ) and a male diploid S. dunnii , and explore the transition from XY system to ZW system following allopolyploidization.

Diversity and specificity of molecular functions in cyanobacterial symbionts

• Ellen S. Cameron
• Santiago Sanchez
• Robert D. Finn

News and Comment

Reconstructing generation intervals over time

In this Tools of the Trade article, Pablo Librado describes a novel computational method to infer the time between successive generations from genomic data, including ancient genomes, which offers new insights into the timing of evolutionary and demographic events.

• Pablo Librado

An updated framework for SARS-CoV-2 variants reflects the unpredictability of viral evolution

The World Health Organization framework for tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants has been updated to reflect the continued evolution of the virus; this framework could be adapted for other emerging respiratory diseases with epidemic and pandemic potential.

• Lorenzo Subissi
• James Richard Otieno
• Maria D. Van Kerkhove

Understanding human uniqueness in the pre-genomic era

In this Journal Club article, Jenny Tung reflects on a 1975 paper from King and Wilson that emphasized the importance of gene regulatory changes in human evolution.

Tissue specificity follows gene duplication

A comparative transcriptomic analysis of eight tissue types in twenty bilaterian species reveals the long-lasting effects of genome duplication on the evolution of novel tissue-specific gene-expression patterns.

• Anamaria Necsulea

Building a catalogue of short tandem repeats in diverse populations

Reflecting on the importance of short tandem repeats (STRs) in population genetics, Ning Xie highlights a 2023 publication that characterized genome-wide STR variation in global human genomes to expand our understanding of STR genetic diversity within and across populations.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• DOI: 10.31539/costing.v7i5.11727
• Corpus ID: 271788394

The Evolution of Branding: Navigating the New Landscape of Consumer Trust

• Firman Syah Noor , Yongky Ade Prahasta , Hermanto Hermanto
• Published in Journal of Economic Bussines… 1 August 2024

Tables from this paper

22 References

How can perceived consistency in marketing communications influence customer–brand relationship outcomes, the influence of brand experiences on consumer-based brand equity, inferring brand integrity from marketing communications: the effects of brand transparency signals in a consumer empowerment context, the effect of brand identity-cognitive style fit and social influence on consumer-based brand equity, relationship analysis among apparel brand image, self-congruity, and consumers’ purchase intention, understanding consumers’ trust in social media marketing environment, effects of transparent brand communication on perceived brand authenticity and consumer responses, seller marketing capability, brand reputation, and consumer journeys on e-commerce platforms, exploring youtube marketing communication: brand awareness, brand image and purchase intention in the millennial generation, a trust-based peer-to-peer digital brand equity (p2p-dbe) model, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A bibliometric review of intrusion detection research in iot: evolution, collaboration, and emerging trends.

1. Introduction

• Comprehensive Overview of Research Trends: By analyzing publication trends from 2017 to 2023, our study provides a detailed overview of the growth and evolution of research in IoT intrusion detection. This helps in understanding how interest in this field has developed over time.
• Visualization of Collaborative Networks: To analyze collaboration networks, examine the patterns of collaboration among researchers, institutions, and nations, and identify the research groups that have contributed the most in this field.
• Keyword Analysis: To find out the most frequently used keywords in the field of IoT intrusion detection.
• Emerging Trends and Future Directions: To identify emerging trends and technologies in the field of IoT intrusion detection, particularly focusing on the latest developments as of 2024. This provides valuable insights into future research directions and potential areas of innovation.

2. Methodology

2.1. data gathering, 2.2. search strategy, 2.3. analytical approach, 2.4. data visualization, 3. publication structure analysis, 3.1. analysis of publications year over year, 3.2. publications category, 3.3. source of publication, 3.4. productive organizations and researchers, 3.5. trends in countries, 3.6. popular research areas, 3.7. web of science categories and indexed publications, 3.8. funding agencies, 3.9. access type, 4. co-authorship analysis, 4.1. author-based co-authorship analysis, 4.2. organization-based co-authorship analysis, 4.3. country-based co-authorship analysis, 5. analysis of co-occurrence, 5.1. all keyword-based co-occurrence analysis, 5.2. author’s keyword-based co-occurrence analysis, 6. citation analysis, 6.1. documents-based citation analysis, 6.2. source-based citation analysis, 6.3. author-based citation analysis, 6.4. organization-based citation analysis, 6.5. country-based citation analysis, 7. burst detection analysis, 7.1. keyword burst detection, 7.1.1. trends from 2017–2023, 7.1.2. trends in 2024, 7.1.3. comparative analysis of keyword trends: 2017–2023 vs. 2024, 7.2. references burst detection, 7.2.1. trends from 2017–2023, 7.2.2. trends in 2024, 7.2.3. comparative analysis of reference trends: 2017–2023 vs. 2024, 8. conclusions and future directions.

• From 2019 onwards, WoS published more than 200 articles pertaining to IoT intrusion detection.
• The majority of these publications consist of research articles, accounting for 72.01%.
• The majority of intrusion detection in IoT papers (80) from WoS were published in the journal IEEE Access.
• The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB) of Egypt has published the greatest number of papers, with a total of 49.
• Moustafa N from Australia has authored the highest number of publications (19) on intrusion detection in IoT, serving as the first author.
• Researchers from the USA published the greatest number of publications from 2018 to 2020. Since 2021, India has been the top source for publication output.
• Computer science is the predominant field of research with the highest number of papers (893) on intrusion detection in IoT.
• The majority of the WoS IoT intrusion detection publications (791) belong to the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED).
• The majority of IoT intrusion detection publications in the WoS database are categorized under ‘Computer Science Information Systems’, with a total of 553 publications, followed closely by the category of ‘Engineering Electrical Electronic’, which has 465 publications.
• The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is the leading funding agency in IoT intrusion detection research, with a significant contribution of approximately 5.68%.
• Approximately half of the total records consist of Open Access publications.
• Kumar, Prabhat from India holds the highest co-authorship-based TLS of 16 with 12 co-author links and 16 publications.
• The co-authorship-based TLS of Princess Nourah Bint Abdul Rahman University is the highest among all, with a score of 26. This university has established co-author linkages with 43 other organizations.
• Saudi Arabia boasts the highest co-authorship-based TLS of 482, establishing strong collaborative connections with 44 other nations.
• Intrusion Detection has the highest co-occurrence-based TLS of 482 with links to 489 other author-defined keywords indexed in WoS.
• Intrusion detection has the highest co-occurrence-based TLS of 324 with links to 346 other author-defined IoT intrusion detection keywords.
• IEEE Access has the maximum citation-based TLS of 558, with citation linkages to 2606 journals.
• Moustafa, Nour (Australia) has the highest citation-based TLS of 668, with citation links to 1632 intrusion detection in IoT researchers.
• The University of New South Wales (Australia) has the highest citation-based TLS (428), with citation links to 1327 institutions.
• India has the highest citation-based TLS of 2651, with citation links to 3925 nations.
• During 2022–2023 the keywords ‘deep neural network’, ‘network intrusion detection system’, ‘deep learning (dl)’, and ‘iot network’ obtained burst strengths of 4.03, 3.43, 3.43, and 2.57, respectively.
• The document published by Chaabouni N. et al. [ 7 ] witnessed a burst strength of 16.08 during 2021–2023.
• During 2021–2023, the National Institute of Technology (NIT System) and SRM Institute of Science and Technology Chennai witnessed burst strengths of 4.43 and 3.78, respectively.

9. Limitations, Scope, and Future Work

Author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Gyamfi, E.; Jurcut, A. Intrusion Detection in Internet of Things Systems: A Review on Design Approaches Leveraging Multi-Access Edge Computing, Machine Learning, and Datasets. Sensors 2022 , 22 , 3744. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Internet of Things (IoT) and Non-IoT Active Device Connections Worldwide from 2010 to 2025. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101442/iot-number-of-connected-devices-worldwide/ (accessed on 29 May 2024).
• Sanju, P. Enhancing intrusion detection in IoT systems: A hybrid metaheuristics-deep learning approach with ensemble of recurrent neural networks. J. Eng. Res. 2023 , 11 , 356–361. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thakkar, A.; Lohiya, R.A. Review on Machine Learning and Deep Learning Perspectives of IDS for IoT: Recent Updates, Security Issues, and Challenges. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021 , 28 , 3211–3243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, D.; Mittal, R.; Sekhar, R.; Shah, P.; Renz, M. A bibliometric analysis of cyber security and cyber forensics research. Results Control. Optim. 2023 , 10 , 100204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koroniotis, N.; Moustafa, N.; Sitnikova, E.; Turnbull, B. Towards the Development of Realistic Botnet Dataset in the Internet of Things for Network Forensic Analytics: Bot-IoT Dataset. arXiv 2018 , arXiv:1811.00701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chaabouni, N.; Mosbah, M.; Zemmari, A.; Sauvignac, C.; Faruki, P. Network Intrusion Detection for IoT Security Based on Learning Techniques. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2019 , 21 , 2671–2701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsaedi, A.; Moustafa, N.; Tari, Z.; Mahmood, A.; Anwar, A. TON-IoT telemetry dataset: A new generation dataset of IoT and IIoT for data-driven intrusion detection systems. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 165130–165150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrag, M.A.; Maglaras, L.; Moschoyiannis, S.; Janicke, H. Deep Learning for Cyber Security Intrusion Detection: Approaches, Datasets, and Comparative Study. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2019 , 50 , 102419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moustafa, N.; Turnbull, B.; Choo, K.-K.R. An Ensemble Intrusion Detection Technique Based on Proposed Statistical Flow Features for Protecting Network Traffic of Internet of Things. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019 , 6 , 4815–4830. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pajouh, H.H.; Javidan, R.; Khayami, R.; Dehghantanha, A.; Choo, K.-K.R.A. Two-Layer Dimension Reduction and Two-Tier Classification Model for Anomaly-Based Intrusion Detection in IoT Backbone Networks. IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. 2019 , 7 , 314–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ullah, I.; Mahmoud, Q.H. Design and Development of a Deep Learning-Based Model for Anomaly Detection in IoT Networks. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 103906–103926. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Almi’ani, M.; Abughazleh, A.; Al-rahayfeh, A.; Atiewi, S.; Razaque, A. Deep Recurrent Neural Network For IoT Intrusion Detection System. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2019 , 101 , 102031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swarna Priya, R.M.; Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Parimala, M.; Koppu, S.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Chowdhary, C.L.; Alazab, M. An effective feature engineering for DNN using hybrid PCA-GWO for intrusion detection in IoMT architecture. Comput. Commun. 2020 , 160 , 139–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verma, A.; Ranga, V. Machine Learning Based Intrusion Detection Systems for IoT Applications. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2020 , 111 , 2287–2310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diro, A.; Chilamkurti, N. Distributed attack detection scheme using deep learning approach for Internet of Things. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018 , 82 , 761–768. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bogaz Zarpelão, B.; Miani, R.; Kawakani, C.; Alvarenga, S. A Survey of Intrusion Detection in I nternet of Things. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2017 , 84 , 25–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kolias, C.; Kambourakis, G.; Stavrou, A.; Voas, J. DDoS in the IoT: Mirai and Other Botnets. Computer 2017 , 50 , 80–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moustafa, N.; Slay, J. UNSW-NB15: A comprehensive data set for network intrusion detection systems (UNSW-NB15 network data set). In Proceedings of the Military Communications and Information Systems Conference (MilCIS), Canberra, ACT, Australia, 10–12 November 2015; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Fuqaha, A.; Guizani, M.; Mohammadi, M.; Aledhari, M.; Ayyash, M. Internet of Things: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Protocols, and Applications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2015 , 17 , 2347–2376. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hodo, E.; Bellekens, X.; Hamilton, A.; Dubouilh, P.-L.; Iorkyase, E.; Tachtatzis, C.; Atkinson, R. Threat analysis of IoT networks using artificial neural network intrusion detection system. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC), Yasmine Hammamet, Tunisia, 11–13 May 2016; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferrag, M.A.; Friha, O.; Hamouda, D.; Maglaras, L.; Janicke, H. Edge-IIoTset: A New Comprehensive Realistic Cyber Security Dataset of IoT and IIoT Applications for Centralized and Federated Learning. IEEE Access 2022 , 10 , 40281–40306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maseer, Z.K.; Yusof, R.; Bahaman, N.; Mostafa, S.A.; Foozy, C.F.M. Benchmarking of Machine Learning for Anomaly Based Intrusion Detection Systems in the CICIDS2017 Dataset. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 22351–22370. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Otoum, Y.; Liu, D.; Nayak, A. DL-IDS: A deep learning–based intrusion detection framework for securing IoT. Trans. Emerg. Telecommun. Technol. 2022 , 33 , e3803. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anthi, E.; Williams, L.; Słowińska, M.; Theodorakopoulos, G.; Burnap, P. A Supervised Intrusion Detection System for Smart Home IoT Devices. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019 , 6 , 9042–9053. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Goranin, N.; Hora, S.K.; Čenys, H.A. A Bibliometric Review of Intrusion Detection Research in IoT: Evolution, Collaboration, and Emerging Trends. Electronics 2024 , 13 , 3210. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13163210

Goranin N, Hora SK, Čenys HA. A Bibliometric Review of Intrusion Detection Research in IoT: Evolution, Collaboration, and Emerging Trends. Electronics . 2024; 13(16):3210. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13163210

Goranin, Nikolaj, Simran Kaur Hora, and Habil Antanas Čenys. 2024. "A Bibliometric Review of Intrusion Detection Research in IoT: Evolution, Collaboration, and Emerging Trends" Electronics 13, no. 16: 3210. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13163210

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals