Teaching Evolution in Primary Schools: An Example in French Classrooms
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Received: 17 March 2008
Accepted: 29 September 2008
Published: 19 November 2008
Teaching evolution in primary schools is important for spreading evolutionary knowledge and scientific methodology. Through constructing simple interrelationship trees, pupils gain scientific knowledge, scientific methodology, and argumentation skills. Activities conducted in French primary schools are described in this paper.
Biological evolution is a complex concept that requires gathering relevant data, and teaching it in primary schools can be quite difficult. On one hand, this subject always raises passionate questions; on the other hand, primary school teachers are not always aware of the different facets of the subject. Moreover, every teacher in charge of the teaching of sciences to young pupils is confronted by various questions concerning the origin of life, the origin of human beings, and their evolution. What kind of answers can the teacher offer?
Give no answer? This is not the job of a teacher.
Forget or elude? Neither is this the job of a teacher.
Say “It is very complicated, we will cover it later”? Nor is this a teacher’s job.
Explain? Explain, of course, again and again.
But these explanations must be appropriate to the audience, especially taking into account the age of the pupils. In this paper, we would like to present an approach to teaching biological evolution which we and numerous colleagues have led with young French pupils (aged 4 to 11 years old). The various exercises associated with this approach are available in French for teachers on the website of the Ecole des Sciences (Bergerac, France; http://www.perigord.tm.fr/~ecole-scienc/pages/activite/monde_vivant/Telechargements/SoMod.htm). Some documents have been translated into English, Spanish, and Breton.
Do we have to talk about evolution?
Do we have to talk about evolution mechanisms?
Do we have to talk about the structure of evolution?
Do we have to talk about the theory of evolution?
French national curricula are very clear about these points. Evolution mechanisms will be treated in secondary schools in reference to natural selection, genetics, and historical works of Darwin (1859) with finches (genus Geospiza) or Kettlewel (1955, 1973) with peppered moths (Biston betularia) (see Grant and Wiseman 2002 for a report). Discussion of scientific theories is not among the objectives of the teaching of sciences in primary schools. But, little by little, constructing embedded groups of animals on the basis of what they possess corresponds to: (1) what pupils can do, (2) what is indicated in curricula, and (3) what researchers in systematics do. In this way, pupils not only gain scientific knowledge but learn scientific methods as well.
Examples of Activities
The teacher asks: Which one among them has hands with a thumb?
Answer: The woman and the monkey.
Teacher: Let’s color their hands in pink on the drawing.
Pupils color the hands on the drawings.
Teacher: can you see other things on the other animals which group them?
Hair, grouping lion, horse, woman, and monkey.
Fours limbs, grouping lion, horse, woman, monkey, and turtle.
Mouth, grouping lion, horse, woman, monkey, turtle, and snail.
Little by little, guided by the teacher and by reflexive observation of feature distribution among organisms, pupils construct a classification of seven species based on what they share and not on what they have or what they do not have. They practice modern systematics, phylogenetics whose purpose is to reconstruct the historical framework of the evolution of organisms. Moreover, they have used the same methods that researchers in laboratories use with other data (genetics, DNA sequences, and so on), and so are introduced to scientific methods: the use of data and arguments. Two of the major objectives of this activity are to construct embedded groups and to show that the human species is an animal species—a peculiar species, but an animal species, more closely related to the monkey than to the turtle. Moreover, this point is not asserted, it is shown and demonstrated.
List of activities proposed by Chanet and Lusignan (2007)
Level of difficulty
At the farm
Duck, goat, dog, rooster, goose, cow, horse, rabbit, cat, pig
Cycles 2 (with fewer animals) and 3
In the forest
Badger, stag, squirrel, fox, boar, owl
Ostrich, giraffe, zebra, gnu, lion, cheetah, antelope
In the mountains
Weasel, wolf, marmot, ibex, chamois, chough
In the arctic
Cod, tern, razorbill, beluga, whale, polar fox, polar bear, seal
Cycles 2 and 3
In the garden
Snail, tit, butterfly, grasshopper, mole, slug
Cycles 2 and 3
Frog, freshwater mussel, crayfish, dragonfly, mosquito
At the fishmonger
Dogfish, trout, salmon, sole, plaice, mackerel
On the seashore
Periwinkle, scallop, crab, mussel, anemone, limpet, sponge
At the time of dinosaurs
Ammonite, ichthyosaur, diplodocus, tyrannosaurus, dimetrodon, archaeopteryx
On the walls of the caves
Bison, reindeer, lion, horse, aurochs, woolly rhino
Cycles 2 and 3
Lionfish, turtle, man, spiny lobster, shark, coral, shrimp, humphead wrasse, mantis shrimp
On the Nile shores
Crocodile, ibis, hawk, cow, baboon, jackal, woman
Classifying animals can be viewed as an old-fashioned exercise. But this kind of activity, where, little by little, pupils reconstruct interrelationships trees, is a way to sow the seeds not only of evolutionary knowledge but of scientific methodology as well. While grouping species based on what they have (i.e., features), students introduce themselves to argumentation, to reasoning, that is to say, to science. Moreover, they learn to recognize nonargued, made-up stories.
One last experiment has been tried with 10- to 11-year-old pupils, on the confrontation of “intelligent design” texts versus simple scientific texts about peppered moths. Pupils had to choose between natural selection and the “invisible hand” of an almighty designer (http://www.perigord.tm.fr/~ecole-scienc/pages/activite/monde_vivant/Telechargements/Seance_ID.pdf). Then, a stone and piece of wood were thrown in a basin in the classroom: the stone sank and the wood floated. “Wouldn’t there be an “invisible hand” that makes the stone sink and the wood float?” was asked of the pupils. Their first reaction was laughter. Then, a simple epistemological discussion was held with them to differentiate faith and argumentation supported by facts and experiments. Pupils, when led to compare such a conclusion to the texts about peppered moths, concluded that one of the explanations—the one with the “invisible hand”—was not a scientific one: belief is different from science. Therefore, teaching about biological evolution in primary schools can be a tool to spread scientific knowledge and methods among young pupils.
We express our deepest thanks to Dominique Baron (IUFM, Brest, France) and to the various teachers who have experimented on and improved these activities with their pupils: E. Baron, M. Cachorro, C. Dessertenne, E. Duverneuil, J.-M. Feuillé, J.-L. Lamaurelle, M. Lusignan, and N. Mouillac. We are indebted to Niles Eldredge (American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA) who promoted and encouraged the publication of this work.
- Chanet B. De la phylogénie... sans bouillir ou les bases de la reconstitution phylogénétique. Biol. Géol 1997;3:505–27.Google Scholar
- Chanet B. Des phylogénies ? pour quoi faire? Biol. Géol 2000;1:111–20.Google Scholar
- Chanet B, Lusignan F. Classer les animaux au quotidien, Cycles 2 et 3. Rennes: SCEREN-CRDP de Bretagne; 2007. p. 95.Google Scholar
- Darwin CR. On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. London: Murray; 1859. p. 490.Google Scholar
- Grant BS, Wiseman LL. Recent history of melanism in American peppered moths. J. Heredity 2002;93(2):86–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kettlewell HBD. Selection experiments on industrial melanisme in the Lepidoptera. Heredity 1955;9:323–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kettlewell B. The evolution of melanism. Oxford: Clarendon; 1973.Google Scholar
- Lecointre G. Comprendre et enseigner la classification du vivant. Paris: Belin; 2004. p. 311.Google Scholar
- Wilgenbus D, Bouchard J-M, Lena P. Graines de sciences 4, pour parents et enseignants. Le Pommier; 2002. p. 238.Google Scholar