c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 63 Relationships between Epistemological Beliefs and Conceptual Understanding of Evolution by Natural Selection Andreani Baytelman* 1 , Theonitsa Loizou 2 and Salomi Hadjiconstantinou 3 • This study researches relationships between 12th-grade students’ episte - mological beliefs towards science and their conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection. Forty-two 12th-grade students in a subur - ban high school in Cyprus, who participated in a biology course, complet - ed measures of their: (a) epistemological beliefs towards science before the intervention of being taught evolution (b) conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection after evolution intervention, (c) episte - mological beliefs towards science after evolution intervention. Based on previous research, we hypothesised there would be a significant relation - ship between students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptual un - derstanding of evolution by natural selection after the evolution interven - tion. We also hypothesised that inquiry-based intervention on evolution by natural selection would foster students’ epistemological beliefs. Our results indicate that participants’ initial epistemological beliefs predict very modestly and statistically non-significant learning achievements on conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection. However, our results show a significant improvement in participants’ epistemological beliefs after engagement in an inquiry-based intervention on evolution by natural selection. The educational significance of this and its implications are discussed. Keywords: conceptual understanding; epistemological beliefs; evolution by natural selection; inquiry-based teaching and learning, students 1 *Corresponding Author. Department of Education at University of Cyprus, Cyprus; baytel@ucy.ac.cy. 2 Lykeio Paralimniou, Cyprus. 3 Paralimni high school, Famagusta, Cyprus. doi: 10.26529/cepsj.1484 64 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... Razmerja med epistemološkimi verjetji in pojmovnim razumevanjem evolucije z naravno selekcijo Andreani Baytelman, Theonitsa Loizou in Salomi Hadjiconstantinou • Študija se usmerja na odnose med epistemološkimi verjetji srednješol - cev 12. razreda do znanosti in njihovim pojmovnim razumevanjem evo - lucije z naravno selekcijo. 42 srednješolcev 12. razreda primestne srednje šole na Cipru, ki so sodelovali pri pouku biologije, je opravilo meritve: a) epistemoloških verjetij do znanosti pred predstavitvijo evolucije; b) pojmovnega razumevanja evolucije z naravno selekcijo po intervenciji evolucije; c) epistemološka verjetja do znanosti po intervenciji evoluci - je. Na podlagi prejšnjih raziskav smo domnevali, da obstaja pomemb - na povezava med epistemološkimi verjetji srednješolcev in njihovim pojmovnim razumevanjem evolucije z naravno selekcijo po vpeljavi evolucije. Prav tako smo predpostavljali, da bi tovrstna intervencija na temo evolucije z naravno selekcijo, ki temelji na raziskovanju, spodbu - dila epistemološka verjetja srednješolcev. Izsledki kažejo, da izhodiščna epistemološka verjetja udeležencev napovedujejo zanemarljive in stati - stično nepomembne učne dosežke o pojmovnem razumevanju evolucije z naravno selekcijo, vendar pa naši izsledki dokazujejo znatno izbolj - šanje epistemoloških prepričanj udeležencev po izvedeni intervenciji, ki temelji na raziskavah o evoluciji z naravno selekcijo. Nazadnje se v prispevku razpravlja o izobraževalnem pomenu omenjenega in pripa - dajočih posledicah. Ključne besede: pojmovno razumevanje, epistemološka verjetja, evolucija z naravno selekcijo, poučevanje in učenje na podlagi poizvedovanja, srednješolci c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 65 Introduction Evolution by natural selection is the central and overarching theory in biology. Educating students about evolution by natural selection is vitally important because it is one of the most consistent and unifying theories, ca - pable of explaining a large number of natural phenomena at different levels (Dobzhansky, 1973; National Research Council (NRC), 2012). While in every - day conversations, the term ‘theory’ often indicates the absence of data and well-supported explanations, in science, a theory, according to the US National Academy of Science (NAS), ‘is a wellsubstantiated [sic] explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses’. In this sense, evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory, representing a sophisticated body of explanations for the fact of evolu - tion (Gregory, 2008; NAS, 1984, p. 15; NAS, 2008, p. 53). Natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution and is responsible for the evolution of adaptive features. Without an understanding of natural selection, it is impossible to explain how or why living organisms that exist on the earth have come to exhibit their wide diversity and complexity. An understanding of natural selection also is getting more and more important in other contexts, in - cluding agriculture, resource management and medicine. In particular, evolution by natural selection improves our understanding of various public health issues such as vaccinations, epidemiology, and antibiotic resistance, biological impacts of climate change, ecological issues such as invasive species, and other environ - mental impacts of human activity such as climate change and pesticide resistance, as well as food security and similar issues. (Dunk & Wiles, 2018). Despite the importance of the evolutionary theory by natural selection, it remains one of the most widely misunderstood concepts of contemporary science (Miller et al., 2006; To et al., 2017). In addition, although various sci - entific concepts present challenges for students, evolutionary theory by natu - ral selection is considered to be particularly difficult to understand (Gregory, 2009) and is more likely to be rejected for religious, emotional, and ideological reasons than other scientific theories (Gregory, 2009). Several studies suggest that students, teachers, and the public have a variety of resistant misconcep - tions about evolution by natural selection (Baytelman, 2022; Harms & Reiss, 2019; Newbrand & Harms, 2017); sparse research and knowledge exist on edu - cational approaches and teaching strategies that can effectively change the ex - isting situation (Harms & Reiss, 2019). Previous research suggests the association between students’ epistemo - logical beliefs and their understanding of evolutionary theory (Cho et al., 2011; 66 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... Kizilgunes et al., 2009; Sinatra et al., 2003). This indicates that the investigation of the interrelationship of epistemological beliefs and conceptual understand - ing of evolution is an important issue for research. However, existing research on students’ epistemological beliefs and understanding of evolution by natural selection is rare, and the results are inconclusive (Athanasiou & Papadopoulou, 2015; Borgerding et al., 2017; Deniz et al., 2008; Sinatra et al., 2003; Southerland et al., 2001; Southerland et al., 2005;). That means that more research is needed in this field (To et al., 2017). Our aim in this study is to explore the relationships between 12 th -grade students’ epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection. To this end, answers to the following research questions were sought: 1. What are the 12 th -grade students’ epistemological beliefs before and after inquiry-based intervention on evolution? 2. To what extent does inquiry-based intervention on evolution improve 12 th -grade students’ epistemological beliefs? 3. To what extent do 12 th -grade students’ initial epistemological beliefs pre - dict their learning achievements regarding the conceptual understand - ing of evolution by natural selection after inquiry-based intervention? By doing this, we hope to gain a better understanding of the relation - ships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding of evolu - tion by natural selection and contribute to the development of a relevant theo - retical framework. Evolution by natural selection and education Evolution by natural selection is the unifying theme of all biology, through which living organisms and communities can be understood most clearly (Dobzhansky, 1973). This framework for the life sciences is reflected in the strong acceptance of evolutionary theory amongst biologists (AIBS, 1994, p.29; Lynn et al., 2017). However, acceptance of evolution is not nearly as uni - versal amongst members of the general public as it is in the scientific commu - nity ( Branch & Scott, 2008; Miller et al., 2006; Rosengren et al., 2012). Furthermore, several studies indicate that evolution by natural selec - tion remains poorly understood by students (Greene, 1990; Nehm & Reilly, 2007; Nehm et al., 2009; Shtulman, 2006; Spindler & Doherty, 2009), science teachers (Baytelman, 2022; Nehm et al., 2009), and the general public (Evans et al., 2010). This lack of understanding has been attributed to diverse cognitive, c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 67 epistemological, emotional, and religious factors (Reiss, 2018; Rosengren et al., 2012). At the core of many of these misunderstandings is a teleological concept in students’ reasoning about natural selection. In general, teleological thinking is the assumption that things happen for a reason. According to Kampourakis: […] on the one hand, teleological explanations can be based on inten - tional design, that is, one can state that a feature exists because it was intentionally created for a purpose. On the other hand, teleological ex - planations can be based on functionality, that is, one can state that a feature exists in order to perform a function that is useful for the whole to which this feature belongs. (2020, p.3) Several studies have shown that students believe that living organisms have the traits that they currently possess because those traits perform func - tions that aid survival (Jensen & Finley, 1995; Pedersen & Halldén, 1994; Tamir & Zohar, 1991). Another conceptual bias is anthropomorphism, meaning to attribute human reasoning to non-human beings (Tamir & Zohar, 1991). Studies suggest that anthropomorphism is positively related to teleological beliefs about bio - logical phenomena and facilitates them (Kelemen & Diyanni, 2005; Kelemen et al., 2013). Yet, as suggested by Gregory (2009), anthropomorphism is inti - mately tied to the misconception that individual organisms evolve in response to challenges imposed by the environment rather than recognising evolution as a population-level process. Additional student misconceptions about the theory of evolution by natural selection include the following: organisms change because of the use or disuse of organs or because acquired traits can be transmitted to offspring (Kampourakis & Zogza, 2008); organisms change because of need (Shtulman, 2006; Sinatra et al., 2003; Sinatra et al., 2008); all mutations are harmful (Nehm & Reilly, 2007); sources other than mutations and recombinations are respon - sible for genetic diversity (Hallden, 1988); humans are not subject to evolution (Sinatra et al., 2003). These misconceptions are often very resistant to learn - ing about evolution (Ferrari & Chi, 1998; Gregory, 2009; Jensen & Finley, 1995; Kampourakis & Zogza, 2008; Nehm & Reilly, 2007; Spindler & Doherty, 2009). This knowledge about evolution misconceptions is an invaluable resource for further research on evolution education in order to address students’ miscon - ceptions and foster their conceptual understanding. Moreover, biology teachers also have problems understanding evolu - tion-related topics (Baytelman, 2022; Reiss, 2018; Sinatra et al., 2003; Yates & 68 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... Marek, 2014). Evidence suggests that the lack of subject content knowledge by biology teachers can be a reason for the development of students’ misconcep - tions about evolution and poorer knowledge after teaching it than before (Y ates & Marek, 2014). In addition, teachers face many challenges in engaging stu - dents in designing and carrying out investigations and analysing data about evolutionary processes in the classroom. One such challenge is the long time - scales for evolution to occur in most species. In particular, since evolution takes place over long periods and the geological notion of ‘deep time’ is one that is difficult to understand and teach, it forms one of the major cognitive difficul - ties that students have in learning about evolution by natural selection (Reiss, 2018). Other challenges include the fact that observing changes in populations does not necessarily help students to understand the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection (Sinatra et al., 2003). Technically demanding and cost-pro - hibitive materials are further challenges (Sinatra et al., 2003). Students’ Epistemological beliefs Epistemology is ‘an area of philosophy concerned with the nature and justification of human knowledge’ (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 , p. 88). Epistemologi - cal beliefs refer to individuals’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the na - ture of knowing (Baytelman et al., 2020a; Greene et al., 2016; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Muis et al., 2015; Schiefer et al., 2022; Sinatra et al., 2003). Researchers in the field of epistemology have proposed a variety of mod - els for conceptualising and examining epistemological beliefs (Baytelman et al., 2020a). Early studies focused on the way in which epistemological beliefs de - veloped. Perry (1970) proposed a model that described nine levels in epistemo - logical beliefs, ranging from the belief that knowledge is objective to the belief that knowledge is radically subjective, and finally, to the belief that knowledge has objective and subjective aspects. This type of model represents a develop - mental model of epistemological beliefs (Baytelman et al., 2016a, 2020a; Kuhn, 1991, 2001; Kuhn et al., 2000; Scheifer et al., 2022). Based on Perry’s model, Kuhn and her colleagues (2000) developed a framework for the development of epistemological beliefs, describing different stages: realist, absolutist, multiplist, and evaluativist (Kuhn et al., 2000, p. 311; Scheifer et al., 2022). Specifically, Kuhn and her colleagues (2000, p. 311) suggested that pre- schoolers can be described as realists but already show some epistemological awareness (assuming that assertions are copies of external reality; reality is di - rectly knowable and knowledge comes from an external source and is certain) Children at the elementary school level are described as absolutists (assuming c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 69 that assertions are correct and incorrect in their representation of reality, it is directly knowable and, knowledge is absolute, certain, non-problematic, right or wrong). Between middle and late childhood, students can be described as multi - plistic (assuming that assertions are opinions freely chosen, reality is not directly knowable, and knowledge is generated by humans, is uncertain and might be considered as opinion). The later level of epistemological understanding is the evaluativist level, achieved usually in adulthood. Evaluativists reintegrate the ob - jective dimension of knowing by acknowledging uncertainty without forsaking evaluation (assuming that assertions are judgments that can be evaluated, reality is not directly knowable, and knowledge is generated by humans and is uncer - tain) (Kuhn et al., 2000; Scheifer et al., 2022). They believe that there are ‘shared norms of inquiry and knowing, and some positions may be reasonably more sup - ported and sustainable than others’ (Mason, 2016, p. 376). Later studies showed epistemological beliefs to be multi-dimensional (Hofer, 2016; Schommer, 1990; Schommer et al., 1992; Schommer-Aikins, 2004), proposing a dimensional model. Although there is consensus on the existence of multiple more-or-less independent dimensions of epistemological beliefs (Hofer, 2016), a debate about the specific dimensions of the construct has evolved (Baytelman et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2020a, 2022). Schommer (1990) proposed that epistemological beliefs should be described as a system of ba - sically independent beliefs (epistemological dimensions), conceptualised as beliefs about the simplicity (related to the structure of knowledge), certainty (related with the stability of knowledge), and source of knowledge, as well as beliefs about the speed and ability of knowledge acquisition (Baytelman et al., 2020a; 2022) While the dimensions of simplicity, certainty, and source in Schommer’s conceptualisation fall under the more generally accepted defini - tion of epistemological beliefs (known as beliefs about the nature of knowledge (simplicity, certainty) and knowing (source) (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Hofer, 2016)) the speed and ability dimensions are controversial because they mainly concern beliefs about learning (speed) and intelligence (ability) (Baytelman et al., 2020a; 2022). As suggested by Hofer and Pintrich (1997), epistemological beliefs should be defined with two dimensions regarding the nature of knowledge and two dimensions concerning the nature of knowing. The two dimensions con - cerning the nature of knowledge (what one believes knowledge is) are (i) Sim - plicity of Knowledge, ranging from the belief that knowledge consists of an ac - cumulation of more or less isolated facts to the belief that knowledge consists of highly interrelated concepts; and (ii) Certainty of Knowledge, ranging from the belief that knowledge is absolute and unchanging, to the belief that knowledge 70 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... is tentative and evolving). The two dimensions regarding the nature of know - ing (how one comes to know) are (iii) Source of Knowledge, ranging from the conception that knowledge originates outside the self and resides in external authority from which it may be transmitted to the conception that knowledge is actively constructed by the person in interaction with others; and (iv) Justifica - tion for Knowing, ranging from the justification of knowledge claims through observation and authority or on the basis of what feels right, to the use of rules of inquiry and the evaluation and integration of different sources (Baytelman et al., 2016a; 2016b; 2020a; 2022). In addition, Conley and her colleagues (2004) proposed a new epistemo - logical dimension under the dimensions concerning the nature of knowledge, which they named ‘Development of Knowledge’ . Although the developmental and multidimensional models have various differences, according to Pinitrich, (2002, p. 400), ‘the fairly well-established trend is that individuals move from some more objectivist perspective through a relativistic one, to a more balanced and reasoned perspective on the objectivist–relativistic continuum, with this latter position reflecting a more sophisticated manner of thinking’ (Baytelman et al., 2020a, 2022). Later, epistemological beliefs were examined for their impact on learn - ing (Schommer, 1990). Researchers have reported that epistemological beliefs are related to academic performance, comprehension, conceptual change and conceptual understanding, views of science, innate learning and choosing sci - ence as a career, conceptions of teaching, self-efficacy beliefs, students’ motiva - tion, and higher levels of self-concept and self-efficacy (Chen, 2012; Cheng et al., 2009; Mason et al., 2013; Trevors et al., 2017). Additionally, studies argue that students’ epistemological beliefs have a direct impact on the selection of learn - ing strategies or approaches, the process of shaping conceptions and problem- solving (Chan et al., 2011) and the individual’s ability to generate alternative arguments and counterarguments (Baytelman et al., 2020a). Given the great importance of epistemological beliefs in education, vari - ous attempts have been made to foster students’ epistemological beliefs at differ - ent levels of education (Muis et al., 2016; Schiefer et al., 2020; Baytelman et al., 2020a, 2022). Since the multidimensional model concerning epistemological be - liefs is a system of more or less independent epistemological dimensions, which are not necessarily developing in synchrony with each other (Baytelman et al., 2020a; Muis et al., 2015), it is important to make efforts to foster all dimensions of students’ epistemological beliefs, using a variety of didactical approaches. To promote students’ epistemological beliefs, science educators have de - veloped and implemented a range of didactical approaches to provide extra c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 71 support for them (NRC, 2012). Inquiry-based learning (Shi et al., 2020) refers to the active learning processes in which students are inevitably engaged (Minner et al., 2010); inquiry-based teaching (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002; Shi et al., 2020) refers to the teacher’s role concerning students’ learning: a shift from ‘dispenser of knowledge’ to facilitator or coach for supporting students’ learning (Ander - son, 2002), dialogic argumentative activities, reflective judgment through so - cioscientific issues (Zeidler et al., 2009) and using the history of science (Mat - thews, 1992, 1994) are some of the recommended didactical approaches. In particular, the term ‘inquiry-based learning’ refers to the engagement of students in active learning processes during which they ask questions about a particular domain, identify the problem, search for information, generate testa - ble hypotheses, plan methods, collect evidence, analyse data, draw conclusions, and communicate them (Pedaste et al., 2015; Sandoval, 2004). In such a learn - ing process, the teacher becomes a facilitator and guide, challenging students to think beyond their current processes by offering guided questions, scaffold - ing, and reflection opportunities (Anderson, 2002) . Researchers reported that classroom inquiry can foster students’ conceptual understanding of scientific concepts and phenomena (Schröder et al., 2007), higher-order thinking skills, such as critical thinking (Haury, 1993), investigation skills (Minner et al., 2010; Sandoval, 2004) modelling and argumentation skills (Beernärt et al., 2015), as well as communication and cooperation skills (Anderson, 2002; Minner et al., 2010) Additionally, classroom inquiry can offer experiences with science, pro - mote the development of an epistemological awareness of how science oper - ates (Chinn & Malhotra, 2002) and develop positive attitudes towards science (Shymansky et al., 1983). Concerning epistemological beliefs, students engaging in inquiry-based learning activities can understand that (i) scientific knowledge is constructed by people and not simply discovered, (ii) scientific knowledge is socially construct - ed, (iii) scientific methods are diverse depending on scientific disciplines but rely on scientific standards (iv) scientific knowledge is tentative and can change as new observations, hypotheses, and ideas come to light (Sandoval, 2005). Such understanding about scientific knowledge, as well as reflection and explicit epis - temological discourse, can improve students’ epistemological beliefs (Sandoval & Morisson, 2003; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004; Sandoval, 2005, 2014). Furthermore, engagement in dialogic argumentative activities may sup - port the development of students’ awareness of the complexity, source, and jus - tification of scientific knowledge (Iordanou, 2016). In addition, the utilisation of the history of science instructional approach might facilitate students’ un - derstanding of the tentative and uncertain nature of scientific knowledge and 72 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... how scientific knowledge is developed and created (Matthews, 1994). However, the recommended didactical approaches are synergistic, built upon one an - other, and provide opportunities for fostering students’ epistemological beliefs. Epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding of evolution Studies on students’ epistemological beliefs and understanding of bio - logical evolution by natural selection are very rare, and the results are inconclu - sive (Borgerding et al., 2017; Deniz et al., 2008; Sinatra et al.; 2003; Southerland et al., 2001; Southerland et al., 2005; To, et al., 2017). Data from Sinatra and her colleagues (2003) suggested an association between epistemological beliefs, particularly beliefs about the tentative nature of knowledge and acceptance in human evolution, but they found no signifi - cant relationship between epistemological beliefs and understanding of evolu - tion. Moreover, Deniz and his colleaques (2008) found no significant positive correlation between epistemological beliefs and an understanding of evolution - ary theory. In contrast, Cho et al. (2011), investigating the role of epistemo - logical beliefs on students’ conceptual change in the learning of evolutionary theory, found a positive relationship between students‘ epistemological beliefs, particularly beliefs about the certainty and source of knowledge, and their con - ceptual change in the learning of evolution. In the present work, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of the re - lationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection. Method Participants Forty-two (42) secondary school students participated in the study. They were 12 th -grade students, 17.5 years old (SD = 0.5); 26 of them were girls, and 15 were boys. The school was a suburban high school in Cyprus. The participants were Caucasian native speakers of Cyprus and shared the Greek language and a homogeneous middle-class social background. Students participated in the study as part of their biology classes (elective course), taught by their biology school teachers, who received specific training for evolution teaching from the Cyprus Ministry of Education and the University of Cyprus. Both biology c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 73 school teachers had a master’s degree and more than 15 years of experience. The students were taught biology in Grade 7 (two 45-minute class periods per week), in Grade 8 (one 45-minute class period per week), in Grade 9 (two 45-minute class periods per week), in Grade 10 (one 45-minute class period per week), and in Grade 11 (four 45-minute class periods per week- elective course). However, according to the Cyprus National Curriculum, they did not have any lessons on biological evolution before Grade 12. All materials and assessment tools that were used for this study were in the Greek language. Instructional Material In the revised National Curriculum for Biology in Cyprus, 12 th -grade students are introduced to the topic of evolution by natural selection in Grade 12. Between Grades 7 and 11, students learn about biodiversity and inheritance, including the approach of reproduction, chromosomes, DNA, and genes. In particular, students learned about heredity as a genetic process, that differences between and within species can be interpreted as a result of differences in ge - netic information, and about the need to preserve biodiversity and protect en - dangered species (Cyprus Ministry of Education National Curriculum, 2021). The unit on evolution by natural selection introduces 12 th -grade students to biological evolution by exploring the ideas proposed by different prominent naturalists before Charles Darwin, which were important for the development of evolutionary thought, and the ideas proposed by Darwin about evolution by natural selection. Specifically, at the introduction of the unit, teachers use a history of science approach, discussing with students the development of evo - lutionary thought, making mention of the ancient Greek philosophers Anaxi - mander and Empedocles, the restraining influence of the church during the Middle Ages and the ideas of the prominent naturalists of the Enlightenment. Then, special mention is made to Lamarck’s work and its contribution to lat- Lamarck’s work and its contribution to lat- and its contribution to lat - er studies about biological evolution, as well as to the founder of the modern theory of evolution, Charles Darwin. The unit continues with inquiry-based learning activities to teach students the evidence for evolution from geology, anatomy, embryology, biogeography and molecular biology, as well as the adap - tation of organisms to their environment. Furthermore, students learn that ge - netic mutation causing variation occurs at the gene level; monohybrid inherit - ance occurs when there are dominant and recessive alleles; sexual reproduction contributes to variation within a population; there are differences in genotypes or phenotypes between populations that inhabit different areas (geographic 74 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... variation), the evolution of new species can be obtained over time through nat - ural selection; genetic drift, gene flow, environmental factors contribute to bio - logical evolution, phylogeny and human evolution, covering many generations. For this study, the teaching intervention involved the implementation of a curriculum for evolution by natural selection, using the textbook entitled Bi- ology 12 th Grade Student Book: Evolution of Living Organisms, which not only covers the 12 th -grade biology curriculum but extends it, specifically in relation to human evolution (Baytelman et al., 2020c). This textbook was developed by experienced biology educators, biology curriculum experts, and university biology professors. The teaching intervention took place over five 90-minute class periods, twice per week, in a total of 10 sessions. The textbook is based on sequences of inquiry-based learning activities, which include adequate provisions for the identification of students’ precon - ceptions and alternative ideas (misconceptions) on concepts related to evolu - tion by natural selection. Additionally, the activities allow students to work collaboratively in a guided inquiry approach in order to investigate specific concepts and problems related to evolution by natural selection and obtain a deep conceptual understanding of the related mechanisms of evolution, episte - mological understanding about different aspects of the nature of science, and thinking skills. In general, each activity has oriented questions on the topic that students are asked to investigate, as well as scientific information that students could use in order to formulate hypotheses, make predictions, obtain evidence, analyse data, create arguments, draw conclusions, and communicate their an - swers. The information is provided in the form of text, diagrams, models, in - fographics, historical reports, biographies, conceptual maps and geographical maps, among others. Teachers’ competences for coordinating and facilitating inquiry-oriented learning processes are essential. The students work in groups (3–5 students), except for those activities that require individual work and re - flection or those that require whole-class discussions. The learning activities that stimulate the active engagement of students include hands-on learning and facilitate discussion, interaction, and reflection on the tasks. In general, the activities aim to develop students’ conceptual un - derstanding of evolution by natural selection, high-order thinking skills, such as critical and creative thinking, communication and collaboration skills and awareness of the nature of science. Further, the textbook includes different as - sessment tasks that can be applied for formative and summative purposes. Ta - ble 1 displays the activities presented in the textbook, which were used for the teaching intervention, by session. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 75 Table 1 Activities presented in the textbook, by session Session Activity Mobilising Skills Sessions: 1-2 Introduction. �rief history of the devel- �rief history of the devel- �rief history of the devel - opment of evolutionary thought before Darwin, using a history of science approach. Darwin and his ideas about evolution. Evidence for evolution: Students study scientific information for collecting evidence for evolution from geology, anatomy and embryology, biogeography, and molecular biology, and constructing a concept map. Epistemological awareness of the nature of science and how it operates Systematic observation skills Critical thinking skills Investigation skills, relying on different sources of evidence. Collecting and explaining relevant evi- dence. Communicating results. Communication, Collaboration skills. Sessions: 3-4 Genetic and phenotypic diversity within and between populations. Students study scientific information for formulating hypotheses, making predic- tions, and carrying out investigation in order to obtain evidence and answer related questions related to genetic and phenotypic diversity. Examples of questions: How differences in skin colour among people are related to their adaptation and survival? What do dark-coloured mice have that allows them to have higher survival rates and leave a greater number of offspring than light-coloured mice? Cognitive skills such as analysing data, cre- ating a hypothesis and making predictions. Critical thinking and evaluative system thinking. Investigation skills relying on different sources of evidence. Collecting and explaining evidence. Analysing and drawing conclusions. Communicating results. Communication, Collaboration skills. Epistemological awareness of how science operates. Sessions: 5-6 Mechanisms or phenomena responsible for genetic diversity in a population: Mutations, Sexual Reproduction, Ran- dom fertilisation, Random distribution of homologous chromosomes during metaphase of the 1 st meiotic division, Random recombination of genes. Students study scientific information for formulating hypotheses, making predic- tions, and carrying out investigations in order to obtain evidence and answer related questions: Example of questions: Please explain: how the pathological gene that causes sickle cell anaemia which resulted from gene mutation is an adaptive advantage in areas with malaria? In people, 60% of the human olfactory genes are inactive, while in the mouse only 20%. Please explain the mecha- nism of the increase or decrease of the number of genes for a specific feature in a living organism. Cognitive skills such as analysing data, cre- ating hypotheses and making predictions. Critical thinking and evaluative system thinking, decision-making. Investigation skills relying on different sources of evidence. Collecting and explaining evidence Analysing and draw conclusions. Communicating results. Communication, Collaboration skills. Self-regulated learning skills. Epistemological awareness of how science operates. 76 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... Session Activity Mobilising Skills Sessions: 7-8 Evolutionary Mechanisms: Natural Selection, Genetic drift (�ottlenecks and founder effects), Gene flow, Sexual selection. Students are engaged in authentic, problem-based learning activities, modelling procedures and ‘hands-on’ activities, discursive argumentation and communication with peers. Students use models to explain Natural selection, �ottlenecks and Founder ef - fects and make predictions. Additionally, they use historical reports to explain the high incidence of carriers of inherited diseases in small communi- ties in their own country (e.g., cystic fibrosis) Critical thinking and evaluative system thinking, decision-making. Systematic observation skills. Modelling skills. Argumentation skills. Collecting and explaining evidence Analysing and draw conclusions. Communicating results. Communication, Collaboration skills. Self-regulated learning skills. Epistemological understanding of how science operates Sessions: 9-10 Speciation, Phylogenetic trees, Human evolution. Students use Phylogenetic trees to illustrate and explain genetic relation- ships among different species of organ- isms and evolutionary relationships for organisms with a shared common ancestor. Additionally, they study and explain in- fographics related to morphological and behavioural characteristics of distinct Anthropidae, including humans. Critical thinking and evaluative system thinking. Modelling skills. Argumentation skills. Explaining evidence, analysing and drawing conclusions. Communication, Collaboration skills. Epistemological understanding of how science operates. Self-regulated learning skills. Instruments Students’ epistemological belief measures T o measure students’ epistemological beliefs, we used the Dimensions of Epistemological Beliefs toward Science (DEBS) Instrument (Baytelman, 2015; Baytelman & Constantinou, 2016a; Baytelman et al., 2016b, 2020a, 2020b), which is based on the multidimensional perspective of epistemological be - liefs. DEBS has been validated in the particular culture in which the research was conducted. The 30-item DEBS Instrument captures five epistemological dimensions: three dimensions related to the nature of knowledge (Certainty, Simplicity, and Development of Knowledge), and two dimensions related to the nature of knowing (Source and Justification of Knowledge). Each dimension of this instrument consists of six items rated on a four-point Likert scale with the following scoring options: strongly disagree=1, disagree=2, agree=3 and strongly agree=4. High scores on this measure represent more sophisticated c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 77 epistemological beliefs, while low scores represent less sophisticated beliefs. The DEBS Instrument is suitable for high school and university undergraduate students. The 30-item DEBS Instrument is given in Appendix A. Students’ conceptual understanding of evolution measures To assess participants’ conceptual understanding of evolution by natu - ral selection, we developed the Conceptual Understanding of Evolutionary The - ory Instrument for this study using items of The Knowledge About Evolution (KAEVO) 2.0 instrument (Kuschmierz et al., 2020b) and new items according to the National Curriculum for evolutionary theory in Cyprus and the relevant textbook (Baytelman et al., 2020c). KAEVO 2.0 contains aspects of biological evolution that high school students are expected to know. The development of this questionnaire was based on a curriculum and textbook analysis to address content validity, and European experts in biology education and evolutionary biology reviewed the instrument (Kuschmierz et al., 2020b). It is considered to be an ‘allrounder’ among instruments measuring knowledge about evolution. Moreover, KAEVO 2.0 is suitable for various target groups (high school and university students in biology-related and non-biology-related fields of study; Kuschmierz et al., 2020b). All data and analyses are available in Kuschmierz et al. (2020b). The Conceptual Understanding Evolutionary of Theory Instrument for this study consists of two parts with different answer formats: a) 5 multiple- choice questions, b) 1 matching question, c) 4 true/ false questions, d) 6 short- answer questions, and e) 3 open-ended questions. The instrument covers the concepts of adaptation, mutation, variation, inheritance, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and phylogeny. Two experts of evolu - tion by natural selection and two biology teachers reviewed the instrument for content validity. Sample items are given in Appendix B. The multiple-choice questions, matching questions, and true/false ques - tions were scored from 0 to 0.5. Three short-answer questions were scored from 0 to 1, and the other three short-answer questions were scored from 0 to 1.5 on the basis of their correctness. The open-ended questions were scored from 0 to 2 on the basis of their correctness and completeness by the first and second authors with Cohen’s Kappa values k = .90. The possible maximum score of the instrument was 20. For all questions, a zero score corresponds to a completely false answer. For the open-ended questions, a score of one (1) corresponds to a semi-correct or incomplete answer, and a score of two (2) corresponds to a fully correct 78 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... and complete answer. No responses were treated as nonresponses and were ex - cluded from the analysis. Research procedure This study was conducted in the second semester of the 2021/22 school year, from February to April 2022. The procedure of this study is described below. 1. Epistemological beliefs assessment before evolution teaching and learn - ing intervention At the beginning of the second semester, before the evolution teaching and learning intervention, the biology teacher of each class adminis - tered the DEBS epistemological beliefs instrument (pre-test of episte - mological beliefs). This lasted 20 minutes. 2. Evolution teaching and learning intervention From March to April, for five weeks, the evolution intervention took place. The intervention involved the implementation of a national cur - riculum about evolution. There were five (5) 90-minute class periods, twice per week, in the biology lab of the school. 3. Understanding Evolutionary Theory assessment after evolution intervention The Conceptual Understanding of Evolutionary Theory Instrument was administered one week after the end of the evolution intervention and lasted 30 min. 4. Epistemological beliefs assessment after evolution teaching and learning intervention One week after the administration of the Conceptual Understanding of Evolutionary Theory Instrument , the DEBS epistemological beliefs in - strument was administered (post-test of epistemological beliefs) and lasted 20 min. First, the means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum scores, and values of skewness and kurtosis of all variables of this study were calculat - ed. Then, to investigate if the variables of the study were positively or negatively and significantly correlated among them, Pearson correlations were calculated. To determine whether evolution by natural selection intervention im - proves 12 th -grade students’ epistemological beliefs, paired samples t-tests were carried out. To answer whether the 12 th -grade students’ initial epistemologi - cal beliefs can predict their learning achievements regarding their conceptual c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 79 understanding of evolution by natural selection after the intervention, multiple regression analyses were carried out. This approach enables examining a re - lationship between a dependent variable (conceptual understanding of evolu - tion by natural selection after instruction) and multiple independent variables (dimensions of epistemological beliefs). All participants completed the tasks in the same order. Two participants were excluded from the analysis because they did not complete all tasks. Results Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, minimum and maxi - mum scores, and values of skewness and kurtosis of all variables of this study. Participants’ scores on the epistemological beliefs measure before evolution in - tervention suggested relatively sophisticated beliefs about the dimensions of nature of knowing (source and Justification of knowledge) and slightly less so - phisticated beliefs about the dimensions of nature of knowledge (certainty, sim - plicity (structure of knowledge) and development of knowledge). Participants’ scores on the epistemological beliefs measure after evolution intervention sug - gested relatively sophisticated beliefs about the dimensions of the source, jus - tification, and development of knowledge and slightly less sophisticated beliefs about the dimensions of certainty and simplicity of knowledge. Th e more sop- The more sop - histicated epistemological beliefs before and after the evolution intervention were justification beliefs. The measures of skewness and kurtosis indicated that all score distribu - tions were approximately normal and thus appropriate for use in parametric statistical analyses. Table 3 displays the Pearson correlations between all variables for episte - mological beliefs before and after the evolution intervention and the conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection. First, the Pearson correlation values indicated that the 12 th -grade students’ initial epistemological beliefs were not significantly correlated with their conceptual understanding scores about evolution after intervention (dependent variable). Second, the Pearson correlations indicated asignificant positive correla - tion (Cohen, 1988, 1992) between simplicity beliefs (structure of knowledge) af - ter evolution intervention and conceptual understanding of evolution by natu - ral selection (r=.35, p < .05), indicating that more sophisticated epistemological beliefs about the structure of knowledge were correlated with high conceptual understanding scores on evolution by natural selection. Third, the Pearson correlation measures showed that there was a 80 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... statistically significant positive correlation between certainty beliefs after evolution intervention and conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection (r=.33, p < .05), suggesting that more sophisticated epistemological beliefs about the certainty of knowledge were correlated with high conceptual understanding scores on evolution by natural selection. To examine the 12 th -grade students’ epistemological beliefs before and after inquiry-based teaching and learning intervention regarding evolution by natural selection, the measures of Table 2 were used. As illustrated in Table 2, participants’ scores on the epistemological beliefs measure before the evolution intervention indicated relatively sophisticated beliefs about the nature of know - ing (dimensions of source and justification of knowledge) and very slightly less sophisticated beliefs about the nature of knowledge (dimensions of certainty, simplicity and development of knowledge). Participants’ scores on the epis - temological beliefs measure after evolution intervention suggested relatively sophisticated beliefs about the dimensions of source, justification and develop - ment of knowledge and very slightly less sophisticated beliefs about certainty and the simplicity of knowledge. However, students held more sophisticated epistemological beliefs about the justification of knowledge before and after evolution intervention. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 81 Table 2 Descriptive statistics for all variables related to the research questions (N = 40) Variable M SD Min Max Skewness (SE) Kurtosis (SE) Conceptual understanding of evolution 14.61 4.79 6.00 20.00 -0.461(0.37) -1.29 (0.73) Epistemological beliefs Dimensions Pre- test Post- test Pre- test Post- test Pre- test Post- test Pre- test Post- test Pre- test Post- test Pre- test Post- test Certainty of knowledge 2.57 2.63 0.38 0.48 1.50 2.00 3.16 3.50 -0.65(0.37) 0.43(0.37) 1.51 (0.73) 0.41(0.73) Simplicity of knowledge 2.51 2.58 0.38 0.39 1.66 1.66 3.33 3.66 -0.23(0.37) 0.47(0.37) -0 .48 (0 . 7 3) 1.07(0.73) Source of knowledge 2.7 4 2.94 0.49 0.47 2.00 1.50 3.66 4.00 0.46 (0.37) -0.16(0.37) -0 .80 (0 . 7 3) 1.30(0.73) Justification of Knowledge 2.88 3.07 0.37 0.37 2.16 2.50 4.00 3.66 0.56 (0.37) 0.01(0.37) 0.92 (0.73) -1.32(0.73) Development of knowledge 2.57 2.82 0.28 0.36 1.83 2.16 3.00 3.50 -0.95 (0.37) 0.46(0.37) 1.26 (0.73) -1.29(0.73) 82 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... Table 3 Pearson correlations for all variables of the current study (N = 40) Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Conceptual understanding of Evolution - Epistemological beliefs’ dimensions 2. Certainty of knowledge Pre-test 0.23 - 3. Simplicity of knowledge Pre-test 0.23 0.10 - 4. Source of Knowledge Pre-test 0.12 0.26 0.17 - 5. Justification of Knowledge Pre-test .031 0.22 0.11 0.16 - 6. Development of knowledge Pre-test -0.04 0.29 0.30 -0.15 0.27 - 7. Certainty of knowledge Post-test 0.32* 0.49* 0.16 0.09 0.19 0.46** - 8. Simplicity of knowledge Post-test 0.35* 0.07 0.19 -0.09 0.32* 0.20 0.28 - 9. Source of Knowledge Post-test -0.29 0.22 0.03 0.42** 0.23 0.30 0.33* -0.28 - 10 Justification of Knowledge Post-test 0.10 0.13 0.33* 0.14 0.51** 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.27 - 11 Development of knowledge Post-test 0.11 0.11 0.94 0.23 0.30 0.40* 0.35* -0.01 0.40* 0.54** - Note. ***p < .001, **p < .01, two-tailed; *p < .05, two-tailed. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 83 To investigate whether evolution by natural selection inquiry-based teaching and learning intervention improves 12 th -grade students’ epistemologi - cal beliefs, pre-and post-test scores were compared using paired samples test at 95% confidence. Table 4 displays Paired samples t-test results (α =0.05) compar - ing epistemological beliefs assessment scores before the evolution intervention with scores after the evolution intervention. The results indicated that all episte - mological dimensions improved, but the source, justification, and development epistemological beliefs scores at the end of the semester, after the evolution intervention, were statistically significantly higher than the scores before the evolution intervention. Table 4 Paired samples t-test results (α =0.05) comparing students’ Epistemological beliefs before and after the evolution instruction. Variable M SD t(df) Sig. (2-tailed) Certainty of knowledge before evolution instruction 2.57 0.37 -0.52 (39) 0.60 Certainty of knowledge after evolution instruction 2.61 0.34 Simplicity of knowledge before evolution instruction 2.51 0.38 -0.98 (39) 0.33 Simplicity of knowledge after evolution instruction 2.58 0.39 Source of knowledge before evolution instruction 2.73 0.49 -2.41 (39) 0.02 Source of knowledge after evolution instruction 2.94 0.47 Justification of knowledge before evolution instruction 2.88 0.37 -3.21 (39) 0.003 Justification of knowledge after evolution instruction 3.07 0.37 Development of knowledge before evolution instruction 2.57 0.28 -4.44 (39) 0.00 Development of knowledge after evolution instruction 2.82 0.36 To investigate, whether 12 th -grade students’ initial epistemological beliefs pre - dict their learning achievements regarding the conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection after inquiry-based teaching and learning in - struction, multiple regression analysis was conducted using epistemological beliefs (epistemological dimensions according to the multidimensional per - spective) as predictor variables. 84 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... The unstandardised regression coefficients (B) and intercept, the stand - ardised regression coefficients (β), R 2 , and adjusted R 2 after entry of all inde - pendent variables (IVs) are reported in Table 5. Table 5 Results of linear regression analyses for variables predicting learning achievements regarding the conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection after the intervention Predictor variables Initial epistemological beliefs (before intervention) Conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection (after intervention) B(SE) β Certainty of knowledge 3.96 (2.18) 0.31 Simplicity of knowledge 3.53 (2.11) 0.28 Source of knowledge 2.41 (1.64) 0.25 Justification of knowledge 0.80 (2.11) 0.06 Development of knowledge -0.45 (3.07) -0.26 Note. R = 0.42, R 2 = 0.17, Adjusted R 2 = 0.05 As illustrated in Table 5, with all IVs (Certainty, Simplicity, Source, Jus - tification, and Development of Knowledge) in the equation, R 2 = .17, F(5,34) = 1.37, p=.26. The adjusted R 2 value of .17 indicates that 17% of the variability in the 12 th -grade students’ achievements of conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection after teaching and learning intervention is predicted by their initial epistemological beliefs. That means that the initial epistemological beliefs contribute very modestly and non-significantly to that prediction. Discussion and Conclusions The aim of the present study was to investigate possible relationships between 12 th -grade students’ epistemological beliefs (epistemological dimen - sions) towards science and their conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection. Regarding the relationship between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection, our results in - dicate that the 12 th -grade students’ initial epistemological beliefs predict very modestly and statistically non-significantly their learning achievements on the conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection after inquiry-based teaching and learning, measured via a specifically developed assessment tool. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 85 In contrast, our results show a statistically significant improvement in some of the participants’ epistemological beliefs (source, justification, and development of knowledge) after students’ engagement in an inquiry-based intervention on evolution by natural selection. This finding of our study provides support to our hypothesis that inquiry-based intervention on evolution by natural selec - tion would foster students’ epistemological beliefs towards science. In addition, this result is consistent with previous findings reported in the literature (Shi et al., 2020) suggesting that inquiry-based teaching and learning is one recom - mended didactical approach for the promotion of epistemological beliefs. Furthermore, the statistically significant improvement of students’ source, justification, and development epistemological dimensions over the evolution intervention extends the literature in an important way, showing that engagement in inquiry-based teaching and learning activities on evolution by natural selection over an extended period of time can promote significant their epistemological beliefs. The opportunities provided in the context of the cur - riculum and in the textbook used for evolution teaching and learning interven - tion to articulate, explain, find relevant evidence, form arguments and counter - arguments to convince peers, and reflect upon their own reasoning may have supported students to think deeper about the nature of the process through which knowledge develops (Greene et al., 2016; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Muis et al., 2015). The current research design does not enable us to identify exactly the mechanism that supported the epistemological gains observed, but our evi - dence indicates the contribution of guided inquiry-based teaching and learning activities to students’ epistemological beliefs. Moreover, our findings indicated a significant positive correlation be - tween the simplicity beliefs dimension (beliefs that knowledge consists of highly interrelated concepts), after the evolution intervention, and conceptual under - standing of evolution by natural selection, suggesting that more sophisticated epistemological beliefs about the structure of knowledge were correlated with high conceptual understanding scores on evolutionary theory. In particular, this finding suggests an association between an epistemological understanding of theorising knowledge as a complex system of organised theoretical principles and ideas (sophisticated simplicity epistemic beliefs) and the competence to deal effectively with complex issues like evolutionary theory (Baytelman et al, 2020a). Our results further show that more sophisticated certainty epistemological beliefs (beliefs that knowledge is tentative and evolving) after evolution instruc - tion were correlated with high conceptual understanding scores on evolution by natural selection. This finding is consistent with previous findings reported in the literature and highlights that students who believe that knowledge is tentative 86 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... and evolving according to new evidence, new hypotheses or new interpretations of data may accept evolution by natural selection. In addition, students who be - lieve that knowledge is tentative and evolving may perceive the existing scientific knowledge as the most valid and reliable according to the available data thus far, and may desire to continue to learn more about it, and investigate specific con - cepts, mechanisms and processes related to evolution, regardless of their religious beliefs or personal emotions (Harms & Reiss, 2019). In summary, the present study extends the current literature examining relationships between epistemological beliefs and the conceptual understand - ing of evolution by natural selection. The findings of the present study show a statistically significant improvement in participants’ epistemological beliefs (about certainty, simplicity, source, justification, and development of knowl - edge) after engagement in an inquiry-based intervention on evolution by natu - ral selection over an extended period of time. Our findings also indicated a sig - nificant positive relationship between epistemological beliefs about the nature of knowledge (simplicity and certainty dimensions) before intervention and conceptual understanding of evolution by natural selection, after participants’ engagement in an inquiry-based intervention on evolution. Some limitations of this study that may give impetus to further work in this area are important to mention. The first limitation concerns the sample size. Although the issues addressed in the current study are of international applicability, we cannot generalise our results based on a relatively small sam - ple consisting of 42 participants. The second limitation concerns the impact of the teacher on the intervention. With another teacher and the same inter - vention, the results may be different. The third limitation concerns the type of instrument that was used to assess epistemological beliefs. We used only a single instrument, a questionnaire, which does not probe elaborated partici - pants’ responses to items as in-depth interviews would do. Future studies could usefully take a closer look at the interplay between epistemic beliefs and ar - gument construction using a multiplicity of methods, such as interviews and think-aloud protocols. Nevertheless, our study has important educational im - plications, showing improvement of participants’ epistemological beliefs, after engagement in an inquiry-based intervention on evolution, over an extended period of time, as well as a significant positive relationship between epistemo - logical beliefs of the nature of knowledge and conceptual understanding on evolution by natural selection. In conclusion, engagement in an inquiry-based intervention on evolu - tion by natural selection, involving collaborative work in inquiry teaching and learning activities in order to investigate specific concepts and problems related c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 87 to evolution and obtain a deep conceptual understanding of the related mecha - nisms and processes, and facilitate discussion, interaction, and reflection upon the tasks might be a promising way for supporting both objectives, namely, acquiring content knowledge and developing more sophisticated epistemologi - cal beliefs. References American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). (1994). Board Resolution. In C. Sager (Ed.), Voices for evolution (3rd ed.) (pp. 28–29). National Center for Science Education. Anderson, R. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (1), 1–12. Athanasiou, K., & Papadopoulou, P . (2015). Evolution theory teaching and learning: What conclusions can we get from comparisons of teachers’ and students’ conceptual ecologies in Greece and Turkey? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11 (4), 841–853. Barnes, M., Elser, J., & Brownell, S. E. (2017). Impact of a short evolution module on students’ perceived conflict between religion and evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 79 (2), 104–111. Baytelman, A. (2015). The effects of epistemological beliefs and prior knowledge on pre-service teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues . University of Cyprus, Faculty of Social Sciences and Education. Baytelman, A., & Constantinou, C. P . (2016a). Development and validation of an instrument to measure epistemological beliefs in science. In J. Lavonen, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto, & K. Hahl (Eds.), Proceedings of the ESERA 2015 conference. Science education research: Engaging learners for a sustainable future, part 11 (coed. Jens Dolin and per kind) (pp. 1047–1058). University of Helsinki. Baytelman, A., & Constantinou, C. P . (2016b). Development and validation of an instrument to measure student beliefs on the nature of knowledge and learning. Themes of Science and Technology in Education , 9(3), 151–172. Baytelman A., Iordanou K., & Constantinou C. P . (2020a). Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57 (8), 1199–1227. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21627 Baytelman, A., Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P . (2020b). Dimensions of Epistemological Beliefs toward Science Instrument (DEBS) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. Baytelman, A.; Soros, I., Demetriou, D., Papanicolas, N., Korfiatis, K., Sfendourakis, S., & Mapouras, D. (2020c). The evolution of living organisms . Cyprus Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport and Y outh. Baytelman, A., Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P . (2022). Prior knowledge, epistemic beliefs and socio-scientific topic context as predictors of the diversity of arguments on socio-scientific issues. In K. Korfiatis & M. Grace (Eds.), Current research in biology education (pp. 45–57). Springer. Baytelman, A. (2022). Investigating high school teachers’ professional learning needs towards 88 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... biological evolution. In A. Polyzos (Eds), Proceedings of the 6 th Panhellenic Conference. Biology in Education , (pp. 52–53). Athens, Greece. Beernaert, Y ., Constantinou, P . C., Deca, L., Grangeat, M., Karikorpi, M., Lazoudis, A., Casulleras, R. P ., Welzel-Breuer, M. (2015). Science education for responsible citizenship. EU 26893 , European Commission. Borgerding, L. A., Deniz, H., & Anderson, E. S. (2017). Evolution acceptance and epistemological beliefs of college biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 54(4), 493–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21374 Branch, G., & Scott, E. C. (2008). Overcoming obstacles to evolution education: In the beginning. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1 (1), 53–55. Chan, N.-M. T., Ho, I. T., & Ku, K. Y . (2011). Epistemic beliefs and critical thinking of Chinese students. Learning and Individual Differences, 21 (1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.001. Chen, J. A. (2012). Implicit theories, epistemic beliefs, and science motivation: A person-centered approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 22 (6), 724–735. Cheng, M. M. H., Cheng, A. Y . N., Chan, K., & Tang, S. Y . F. (2009). Pre-service teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.018 Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86 (2), 175–218. Cho, M., Lankford, D., & Wescott, D. (2011). Exploring the relationships among epistemological beliefs, nature of science, and conceptual change in the learning of evolutionary theory. Evo Edu Outreach 4 (2), 313–322. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 155–159. Conley, M., Pintrich, P ., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29 (2), 186–204. Cyprus Ministry of Education National Curriculum (2021). 12 th -grade biology curriculum success and competence indicators for learning. Cyprus Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport and Y outh. Deniz, H., Donnelly, L. & Yilmaz, I. (2008). Exploring the factors related to acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: Toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (4), 420–443. Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35 (3), 125–129. Dunk, R. D. P . & Wiles, J. R. (2018). Changes in acceptance of evolution and associated factors during a year of introductory biology: The shifting impacts of biology knowledge, politics, religion, demographics, and understandings of the nature of science . BioRxiv, 280479. https://doi.org/10.1101/280479 Evans, E. M., Spiegel, A. N., Gram, W ., Frazier, B. N., Tare, M., Thompson, S., et al. (2010). A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (3), 326–353. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 89 Evans, E. M., Legare, C., & Rosengren, K. (2011). Engaging multiple epistemologies: Implications for science education. In M. Ferrari & R. Taylor (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy (pp. 111–139). Routledge. Ferrari, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1998). The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20 (10), 1231–1256. Greene, E. D. (1990). The logic of university students’ misunderstanding of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (9), 875–885. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270907 Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W . A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Reflections and future directions. In J. A. Greene, W . A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition . Routledge. Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education & Outreach, 2 (2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052‐009‐0128‐1 Halldén, O. (1988). The evolution of the species: Pupil perspectives and school perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 10 (5), 541–552. https://doi: 10.1080/0950069880100507 Harms, U., & Reiss, M. J. (2019). The present status of evolution education. In U. Harms, & M. Reiss (Eds.), Evolution education re-considered (pp. 1–19). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14698-6_1 Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry . ERIC CSMEE Digest, March. (ED 359048). Hofer, B. K. (2016). Epistemic cognition as a psychological construct. In J. A. Greene, W . A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 19–38). Routledge. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P . R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67 (2), 88–140. Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79 (2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730790203 Iordanou, K. (2016). Developing epistemological understanding through argumentation in scientific and social domains. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie., 30 (2–3), 109–119. Kampourakis, K. (2020). Students’ »teleological misconceptions« in evolution education: why the underlying design stance, not teleology per se, is the problem. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0116-z Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V . (2008). Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science and Education, 17 (1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191‐007‐9075‐9 Kelemen, D., & Diyanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6 (1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327647jcd0601 Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2013). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142 (4), 1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030399 Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students‘ epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research 102 (4), 243–256. 90 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument . Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12 (1), 1–8. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15 (3), 309–328. Kuschmierz, P ., Beniermann, A., & Graf, D. (2020). Development and evaluation of the knowledge about evolution 2.0 instrument (KAEVO 2.0) International Journal of Science Education 42 (15), 2601–2629. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1822561 Lynn, C., Glaze, A., Evans, W ., & Reed, K. (2017). In C. D. Lynn, A. L. Glaze, W . A. Evans, & L. K. Reed (Eds.), Evolution education in the American South. Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95139-0 Mason, L., Boscolo, P ., Tornatora, M. C., & Ronconi, L. (2013). Besides knowledge: A cross-sectional study on the relations between epistemic beliefs, achievement goals, self-beliefs, and achievement in science. Instructional Science, 41 (1), 49–79. Mason, L. (2016). Psychological perspectives on measuring epistemic cognition. In J. A. Greene, W . A. Sandoval, & I. Braten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 375–392). Routledge. Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313 (5788), 765–766. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (4), 474–496. Muis, K., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G., Azevedo, R., Trevors, G., Meier, E., & Heddy, B. (2015). The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 39 (2), 168–183. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1984). Science and creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. National Academy Press. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. National Academy Press. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165 Nehm, R. H., & Reilly, R. (2007). Biology majors’ knowledge and misconceptions of natural selection. BioScience, 57 (3), 263–272. Nehm, R. H., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science and Teacher Education, 18 (5), 699–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972‐007‐9062‐7 Neubrand, C., & Harms, U. (2017). Tackling the difficulties in learning evolution: Effects of adaptive self-explanation prompts. Journal of Biological Education, 51 (4), 336–348. https://doi:10.1080/00219266.2016.1233129 c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 91 Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S., Kamp, E., Manoli, C., Zacharia, Z., Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review , 14, 47–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003 Pedersen, S., & Halldén, O. (1994). Intuitive ideas and scientific explanations as parts of students’ developing understanding of biology: The case of evolution. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173548 Perry, W . (1970 ). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme . Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pintrich, P . R. (2002). Future challenges and direction for theory and research on personal epistemology. In B. K. Hofer & P . R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 389–414). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reiss, M; Harms, U; (2019). What now for evolution education? In U. Harms & M. Reiss (Eds.), Evolution education: Re-considered . (pp. 331–343). Reiss, M., (2018). Evolution Education in England . In H. Deniz & L. Borgerding (Eds.), Evolution education around the globe (pp.155–168). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90939-4_9 Rosengren, K. L., Brem, S. K., Evans, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (Eds). (2012). Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution . Oxford University Press. Sandoval, W . A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (4), 369–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10081 Sandoval, W . A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education , 88(3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130 Sandoval, W . A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education , 89(4), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065 Sandoval, W . A. (2014). Science Education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education , 98(3), 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21107 Schiefer, J., Edelsbrunner, P ., Bernholt, A., Kampa, N., & Nehring, A. (2020) Epistemic beliefs in science—A systematic integration of evidence from multiple studies. Educational Psychology Review , 34(3), 1541–1575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09661-w Schroeder, C., Scott, T., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y . (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44 (10), 1436–1460. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (3), 498–504. Schommer, M., Crouse, A., & Rhodes, N. (1992). Epistemological beliefs and mathematical text comprehension: Believing it is simple does not make it so. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (4), 435–443. 92 relationships between epistemological beliefs and conceptual understanding ... Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39 (1), 19–29. Shi, W ., Ma, L., & Wang., J. (2020) Effects of inquiry-based teaching on chinese university students’ epistemologies about experimental physics and learning performance. Journal of Baltic Science Education , 19(2) 289–297. Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52 (2), 170–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001 Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W . C., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20 (5), 387–404. Sinatra, G. M., Brem, S. K., & Evans, E. M. (2008). Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evolution: Education & Outreach, 1 (2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052‐008‐0037‐8 Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W . (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (5), 510–528. Spindler, L., & Doherty, J. (2009). Assessment of the teaching of evolution by natural selection through a hands‐on simulation. In Teaching Issues and Experiments in Ecology, 6. Southerland, S. A. & Sinatra, G. M. (2005). The shifting roles of acceptance and dispositions in understanding biological evolution. In Alsop S. (Ed.), Beyond cartesian dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science (pp. 69–78). Springer. Southerland, S. A., Sinatra, G. M., & Matthews, M. (2001). Belief, knowledge, and science education. Educational Psychology Review, 13 (4), 325–351. Tamir, P ., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education, 75 (1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750106 To, C., Tenenbaum, H., & Hogh, H. (2017). Secondary school students’ reasoning about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54 (2) 247–273. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.21347 Trevors, G. J., Kendeou, P ., Bråten, I., & Braasch, J. L. (2017). Adolescents’ epistemic profiles in the service of knowledge revision. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49 , 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.005 Y ates, T. B., & Marek, E. A. (2014). Teachers teaching misconceptions: A study of factors contributing to high school biology students’ acquisition of biological evolution‐related misconceptions. Evolution: Education & Outreach, 7 (1), 7. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (1), 74–101. c e p s Journal | V ol.13 | N o 1 | Y ear 2023 93 Biographical note Andreani Baytelman, PhD, is research scientist in the field of Sci - ence Education at the Department of Education at University of Cyprus, Cy - prus. Her research interests include curriculum development, instruction de - sign, development and evaluation of biology teaching and learning material, epistemology, informal reasoning, socioscientific issues and professional devel - opment of teachers. Theonitsa Loizou, ΜΑ, is a Biology teacher at Lykeio Paralimniou, Cyprus. Her research interests include specialized pedagogical knowledge on the fields of organization, administration, evaluation and curriculum in educa - tion, as well as in the cognitive fields of didactics of Biology and professional development of teachers. Salomi Chatzikonstantinou, BSc, is a Biology teacher at Paralimni high school, Famagusta, Cyprus. Her reserch interests include teaching and learning biology in secondary education, as well as design, organisation and implementation of environmental and health school projects.