Kostas Kampourakis

Adaptation is one of the central concepts in evolutionary theory, which nonetheless has been given different definitions. Some scholars support a historical definition of adaptation, considering it as a trait that is the outcome of natural selection, whereas others support an ahistorical definition, considering it as a trait that contributes to the survival and reproduction of its possessors. Finally, adaptation has been defined as a process, as well. Consequently, two questions arise: the first is a philosophical one and focuses on what adaptation actually is; the second is a pedagogical one and focuses on what science teachers and educators should teach about it. In this article, the various definitions of adaptation are discussed and their uses in some textbooks are presented. It is suggested that, given elementary students’ intuitions about purpose and design in nature and secondary students’ teleological explanations for the origin of adaptations, any definition of adaptation as a trait should include some information about its evolutionary history.

Textbook descriptions of the foundations of Genetics give the impression that besides Mendel’s no other research on heredity took place during the nineteenth century. However, the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859, and the criticism that it received, placed the study of heredity at the centre of biological thought. Consequently, Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin himself, Francis Galton, William Keith Brooks, Carl von Nägeli, August Weismann, and Hugo de Vries attempted to develop theories of heredity under an evolutionary perspective, and they were all influenced by each other in various ways. Nonetheless, only Nägeli became aware of Mendel’s experimental work; it has also been questioned whether Mendel even had the intention to develop a theory of heredity. In this article, a short presentation of these theories is made, based on the original writings. The major aim of this article is to suggest that Mendel was definitely not the only one studying heredity before 1900, if he even did this, as may be inferred by textbooks. Although his work had a major impact after 1900, it had no impact during the latter half of the nineteenth century when an active community of students of heredity emerged. Thus, textbooks should not only present the work of Mendel, but also provide a wider view of the actual history and a depiction of science as a social process.

Teaching about Nature of Science (hereafter NOS) has been considered an important element of science education for the past 20 years, at least at the academic level—what teachers actually teach in classrooms is, unfortunately, another story. Generally speaking, science educators have come to a consensus that the history and philosophy of science (hereafter HPS) can provide useful insights, under certain conditions, for this purpose. This does not mean that any HPS teaching necessarily contributes to understanding NOS. However, an appropriate selection of topics, under the necessary re-contextualization, can provide very useful pedagogical tools to teach NOS.Douglas Allchin has been one of the leading figures in this field, having written insightful articles about both how to teach (e.g. Allchin 2000a) and how not to teach (e.g. Allchin 2000b) science content and NOS under an HPS perspective. He has also consistently and repeatedly argued for the proper use of HPS scholarship in teachin ..