Investigating Undergraduate Students' Use of Intuitive Reasoning and Evolutionary Knowledge in Explanations of Antibiotic Resistance

Abstract

Natural selection is a central concept throughout biology; however, it is a process frequently misunderstood. Bacterial resistance to antibiotic medications provides a contextual example of the relevance of evolutionary theory and is also commonly misunderstood. While research has shed light on student misconceptions of natural selection, minimal study has focused on misconceptions of antibiotic resistance. Additionally, research has focused on the degree to which misconceptions may be based in the complexity of biological information or in pedagogical choices, rather than in deep-seated cognitive patterns. Cognitive psychology research has established that humans develop early intuitive assumptions to make sense of the world. In this study, we used a written assessment tool to investigate undergraduate students' misconceptions of antibiotic resistance, use of intuitive reasoning, and application of evolutionary knowledge to antibiotic resistance. We found a majority of students produced and agreed with misconceptions, and intuitive reasoning was present in nearly all students' written explanations. Acceptance of a misconception was significantly associated with production of a hypothesized form of intuitive thinking (all p ≤ 0.05). Intuitive reasoning may represent a subtle but innately appealing linguistic shorthand, and instructor awareness of intuitive reasoning's relation to student misunderstandings has potential for addressing persistent misconceptions.

FIGURE 1.

Misconception production in response to unframed assessment item 1: “How would you explain antibiotic resistance to a fellow student in this class/to a professional colleague?” ***, p < 0.001; between BF and all student populations; **, p < 0.01 between ABM and NBM. No significant difference between NBM and EBM populations.

FIGURE 2.

Intuitive reasoning production in total and disaggregated by type in response to unframed assessment item 1: “How would you explain antibiotic resistance to a fellow student in this class/to a professional colleague?” (A) Cumulative presence of any instance of intuitive reasoning (teleology, essentialism, anthropocentricism). ***, p < 0.0001 between BF and all student populations; *, p < 0.05 between ABM and EBM populations. (B) Disaggregated presence of each form of intuitive reasoning found in each participant population. Teleology (black bars), essentialism (white bars), anthropocentricism (horizontal striped bars).

FIGURE 3.

Production of intuitive reasoning, disaggregated by presence and absence of one or more misconceptions (black bars), in response to unframed assessment item 1: “How would you explain antibiotic resistance to a fellow student in this class/to a professional colleague?” *, p < 0.05; ***, p < 0.0001.

FIGURE 4.

Participant agreement (black bars) with hypothesized intuitive reasoning–based misconception statements. (A) Participant agreement to one or more of the three misconception statements. (B) Participant agreement in response to the hypothesized teleological misconception: “Individual bacteria develop mutations in order to become resistant to an antibiotic and survive.” (C) Participant agreement in response to hypothesized essentialist misconception: “Individual bacteria are genetically similar and equally likely to be killed off by an antibiotic medication.” (D) Participant agreement in response to hypothesized anthropocentric misconception: “Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics because of changes within humans.” *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.0001.

FIGURE 5.

Production of the hypothesized form of intuitive reasoning in response to each misconception statement. (A) Percentage of each population to use any form of intuitive reasoning in response to any of the three misconception statements. (B) Percentage of each population with at least one instance of teleological reasoning in response to the teleological statement. (C) Percentage of each population with at least one instance of essentialist reasoning in response to the essentialist misconception statement. (D) Percentage of each population with at least one instance of anthropocentric reasoning in response to the anthropocentric statement. Note: In the few instances where faculty produced intuitive reasoning, it was never the form hypothesized to be associated with the misconception statement. This is reflected in a positive faculty value in A but zero values for B–D.

FIGURE 6.

Proportion of participants who produced the hypothesized form of intuitive reasoning (black bars), disaggregated by agreement with misconception statement. White bars indicate participants who did not produce intuitive reasoning. (A) Participant production of teleological reasoning in response to the hypothesized teleological misconception statement. (B) Participant production of essentialist reasoning in response to the hypothesized essentialist misconception statement. 
(C) Participant production of anthropocentric reasoning in response to the hypothesized anthropocentric misconception statement. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.0001.

FIGURE 7.

Participant responses to the evolution-framed assessment item 5: “Antibiotic resistance is an example of evolution.” Black bars, agreement; white bars, disagreement. No statistically significant differences among populations.

FIGURE 8.

Evidence of evolutionary knowledge in participant responses to the unframed assessment item 1: “How would you explain antibiotic resistance to a fellow student in this class/to a professional colleague?” ***, p < 0.001 between BF and all student populations; **, p < 0.01 between ABM and both NBM and EBM populations.