Fig 1.
Pre-, post-, and retention test scores for A), genetics knowledge B), evolution knowledge, and C) evolution acceptance (genetics knowledge—pre: n = 388, post: n = 363, retention: n = 329; evolution knowledge—pre: n = 379, post: n = 346, retention: n = 310; evolution acceptance—pre: n = 388, post: n = 365, retention: n = 329).
Fig 2.
Violin plot of the understanding of genetics for higher- and foundation-ability students, pre- and post- learning about evolution and genetics (higher pre: n = 1,354, lower pre: n = 358, higher post: n = 1,203, lower post: n = 284).
Fig 3.
Change in understanding of evolution (i.e., after teaching − before) for different topic orders (genetics first: n = 779, evolution first: n = 454).
Fig 4.
ANCOVA for change in understanding of genetics with preteaching score as a covariate for different topic orders (genetics first: n = 776, evolution first: n = 451).
Here, we employ the subset of 4 pupils who completed all pre- and all postquestionanaires. Raw data can be found in S1 and S2 Data.
Fig 5.
Acceptance of evolution for higher- and foundation-ability students, before and after learning about evolution and genetics (higher pre: n = 1,354, foundation pre: n = 358, higher post: n = 1,203, foundation post: n = 284).
Table 1.
Spearman correlations between evolution acceptance, genetics knowledge, and evolution knowledge.
All correlations are highly significant (p < .001). These pretests were done with data where students had answered all 3 preteaching questionnaires (n = 1,610). For the post-test scores, we again required all 3 assessments to be completed (n = 1,397). Raw data can be found in S1 and S2 Data.
Table 2.
Partial Spearman correlations between evolution acceptance and genetics knowledge, controlling for evolution knowledge and evolution acceptance and evolution knowledge, controlling for genetics knowledge.
All correlations are highly significant (p < .001). Raw data can be found in S1 and S2 Data.
Fig 6.
A. Relationship between acceptance of evolution and understanding of genetics, before and after learning about evolution and genetics. B. Relationship between understanding of evolution and understanding of genetics, before and after learning about evolution and genetics. C. Relationship between acceptance of evolution and understanding of evolution, before and after learning about evolution and genetics. Here, we employ the subset of data for pupils who completed all pre- and all postquestionanaires. Regression lines are for indicative purposes alone. Raw data can be found in S1 and S2 Data.
Table 3.
Proportions of higher- (n = 1,456) and foundation- (n = 430) ability students taught genetics first and evolution first.
Fig 7.
Change in understanding of evolution due to teaching for higher-ability students taught genetics first (n = 683) and evolution first (n = 372) and for foundation-ability students taught genetics first (n = 93) and evolution first (n = 79).
Data plotted here is for the subset of the data in which all students answered all pre- and postquestionnaires. Raw data can be found in S1 and S2 Data.
Table 4.
Class-level analysis of change in 3 scores as a function of teaching order.
p-Value is from a Mann Whitney U test. Ea = Evolution acceptance, gk = genetics knowledge, ek = evolution knowledge. EF = evolution first, GF = Genetics first. p-Values in bold are significant after Bonferonni correction. Raw data can be found in S1 and S2 Data.
Table 5.
Categorisation of evolution acceptance.
Table 6.
Overview of student questionnaire data collected.
Table 7.
Sample sizes for variables of key interest.