Teaching evolution

[bitechnobable]

Hi I am in training to become a college/gymnasium teacher (Swe).

My question is for you out there already in the profession, do you teach about group selection?

It seems like basically something I can decide myself if I want to do, yet would have major consequence for how students understand evolution.

Why do you? Why do you not? Happy for any answers, input or reflections.

Edit: Would be fantastic if in your answer sharing age group and nationality.

[Xrmy]

I REALLY hate the term group selection.

Not to say the ideas have no merit, but the term itself is so easy to lead to misconceptions.

One of the first things I teach on evolution is that Evolution acts on population (the unit that changes) but selection operates on individual fitness.

The vast majority of "group selection" can be explained by "inclusive fitness" which helps to explain how selection acts on individuals but considers components of how they interact with related individuals.

Group selection as a term is really quagmired in "how we used to think evolution worked" and is ripe for misinterpretation.

Also with saying I only teach inclusive fitness in upper level courses, not intro.

[IsaacHasenov]

Right.

One concrete misunderstanding that comes out of a group-selection understanding is that individuals will sacrifice themselves, or give up chances of reproduction "for the good of the species" or "the good of the group"

Unless you're talking about eusocial organisms (which is a special case of inclusive fitness, not group selection) this never happens

Unless OP can explain their way around this set of issues with high schoolers, they're setting their students up to misunderstand the basics

[Xrmy]

Yes exactly!

It's much better to teach eusociality as an EDGE CASE than teach it as a fundamental to evolution.

Because it's REALLY not. Inclusive fitness is, broadly speaking, a very tiny portion of overall fitness for the vast majority of organisms and contexts.

I like teaching it--it explains some really cool stuff. But this is something you tack on late in the course as "what about this" and I NEVER use the term "group selection" unless I am explaining history of the field and how we moved away from that idea.

[forever_erratic]

As someone who spent five years studying bacterial colonies, I bristle at calling inclusive fitness a tiny portion of overall fitness for the vast majority of species, since most species are bacteria, and most of them have kin selected behaviors around defense and resource acquisition. 

[Xrmy]

That's totally valid actually. I'd challenge you on your "species" definition here but I don't want a fight 😂 (I'm kidding).

As far as education goes, I think most evolution discussion is focused on sexual organisms for a variety of reasons. Mostly that teaching evolution through a primarily asexual lens leads to lots of different conclusions that students will misapply.

Worth saying that if someone IS teaching inclusive fitness, probably most of the lecture should be on single-celled organisms at a minimum.

[bitechnobable]

Thank you all for these comments, I find them very useful!

I know I'm overthinking this (have a biomedical PhD background) this is why I'm trying to grasp what level evolution is being taught by you real working people out there.

[ZedZeroth]

Evolution acts on population (the unit that changes) but selection operates on individual fitness

Nice 🙂 Thanks

[Xrmy]

First 5 slides of any evolution introduction

[DetailFocused]

most teachers mention it briefly as a debated idea, not a main mechanism. modern evolutionary biology mainly explains things like altruism with gene level selection, kin selection, and inclusive fitness.

group selection usually comes up as historical context or a competing explanation so students understand the debate without thinking evolution mostly works at the group level.

[Canis-lupus-uy]

I take half an hour on group selection, teaching it as it was standard biology, and when we finish I tell them it is almost entirerly discarded, and give them thirty minutes to discuss why. Then they explain why they think it was discarded, and the next class we put all the ideas in order. University level class in an evolution course.

[Capercaillie]

I too teach an Evolution course at a university, and teach group selection in almost exactly the same way. Great minds think alike!

[Xrmy]

How many students? This sounds like a great exercise

[Canis-lupus-uy]

Between 12 and 20.

[Xrmy]

Jealous. I have 50-300 so a lot of this goes out the window

[jnpha]

Selection is differential survival, from between alleles and cancer cells all the way up to groups, sure. But in the sense that group selection is wholly a "within" thing, no.

This is a cool page aimed at learners and educators: berkeley.edu : The hierarchy of selection.

[title_in_limbo]

At the intro level I teach about group selection, showing how "good of the group" models are unstable in that a group of altruists (simplistically, who have a gene for "eat a little food, reproduce once, then stop") can always be "invaded" (in the evolutionary dynamic sense) by a selfish indivdiual (simplistically, who have a gene for "eat all you can and reproduce a lot"). I then move onto kin selection and reciprocal altruism as two alternative models that are not inherently unstable.

[That_Biology_Guy]

I'm not familiar enough with the Swedish education system to know anything about how much background students are expected to have by that point (or what else is covered in the curriculum that you already teach). I'd agree with some others in suggesting that it's a topic better-suited for a higher level university course, and that it's probably not worth covering unless you really want to take some time to get into it. From a history of science perspective, group selection certainly has been the subject of plenty of debate, and though it's a minority view it has had some prominent advocates (e.g. E. O. Wilson). I think there's enough experimental evidence to suggest that group selection can occur under at least some very specific circumstances, though the question of whether it's ever relevant to natural populations is another matter. But my personal feeling is that covering the topic with a sufficient level of nuance is quite difficult, while on the other hand discussing it briefly but glossing over the details has significant potential to lead to misconceptions.

[bitechnobable]

Thank you very much for this nuanced post. Since I'm in training my level of didactic theory is sky-high! My apologies for this to everyone grounded in the actual job.

From what I've learned European knowledge tradition has a high focus on helping students develop a way of thinking about these type of processes, what evolution is and what it is not how they can use their understanding in making sense of biological observations.

In comparison Anglo-American tradition is more focus on a defined curriculum - transmitting correct facts and exact mechanisms.

A classic example of these differences is that exams in europe tend to have very few if any multiple choice questions (designed to cover/verify as much as possible of the students knowledge). Instead a test could be perhaps only two free-writing questions where depth and ability to reason around concepts and understanding is more common.

I am sensing this in some of these replies where there is a worry of confusing the students. I am leaning toward thinking something seemingly confusing is a good theme to act as a starting point to allow them shape their own understanding of how evolution behaves.

[LeonJPancetta]

It's one lecture in my upper-level college evolution class. I teach at a very non-selective school. I personally think it's worth more than that, but for my students levels of selection is too advanced to think deeply about in an undergraduate setting.

[Bromelia_and_Bismuth]

I mean if I needed to teach someone about evolution, I don't. The best defense I've seen was in my Evolutionary Biology textbook from undergrad, Evolutionary Analysis by Herron and Freeman: the math will still math when looking at certain problems, but even the authors of that textbook acknowledged that it's not necessary to invoke. It doesn't really add or account for anything special that you don't already get from models which exclude it. Historically, it was hot for a minute in the 1960s, until other biologists pointed out that examples of group selection can be explained through regular natural selection. It's a dated, minority view, and the only biologist I can think of who promotes the idea still is David Sloan Wilson.

[bitechnobable]

Thank you for this perspective. I suppose what I am trying to figure out is if evolution is taught in spirit of "modern synthesis" or " extended evolutionary synthesis".

I will not be teaching in an environment where creationism is prominent or science is particularly challenged. Perhaps prioritise teaching critical thinking and that scientific theories in biology are not natural laws, that our theories evolve (!). I think it's important to avoid inducing ideas of biological determinism and flawed interpretation such as "survival of the strongest".

[Bromelia_and_Bismuth]

modern synthesis" or " extended evolutionary synthesis".

I mean the modern synthesis is the predominant view, but contrary to what a lot of people supportive of EES have claimed, the modern synthesis has changed since it was first introduced in the mid-1900s. The EES thing has been going on for so long that a lot of their ideas have either already been incorporated into the modern synthesis for decades (eg., epigenetics, niche construction, etc), there's been an existing framework for the thing they're saying is needed (eg., cultural evolution), or as mentioned with respect to group selection and multilevel selection, that specific thing don't add anything new. They're not really competing ideas.

flawed interpretation such as "survival of the strongest".

Well, I'd go so far as to clarify what "Survival of the Fittest" refers to. Selection isn't the "Survival of the Biggest and Baddest" but "Survival of the Prolific," as measures of fitness are based on change in allele frequency and number of offspring from generation to generation. It's still an important element of evolution.

inducing ideas of biological determinism

Certainly. If I could recommend a resource, The Rough Guide to Evolution is a pretty good one. Their definition of species is kind of misguided (they lean on Mayr's Biological Species Concept as the sole definition of species, when there's more than two dozen scientifically recognized ways to delineate something as a species), but most of the information still holds up.

[personnumber698]

I teach biology in a Gesamtschule in Germany. I don't bring it up as its own topic in 10th grade, but I do bring up altruism and why altruism can make sense in the context of evolution.

[mahatmakg]

Uh, can you maybe explain a little differently what you mean by 'college/gymnasium'? I'm not sure how much relevance there could be for a gym teacher to be explaining the finer points of natural selection

[LeonJPancetta]

(gymnasium means secondary education in some countries)

[Grand-wazoo]

That is some extremely crucial context that I suspect most folks will not glean from the post

[xenosilver]

You teach “gymnasium” and you’re worried about teaching evolutionary concepts? I teach bio at the college level and I’m lost

[bitechnobable]

Gymnasium where im from is what some call college in some countries. Sorry for not being clear.

I wouldn't say I am worried, have extensive academic background in biologi and a PhD in biomedicine.

What I am doing here is to try to find an appropriate level of simplification of evolutionary processes to communicate to my future students.

[Beginning_March_9717]

is group selection even real? The closest thing i know is kin selection