Tree thinking cannot taken for granted: challenges for teaching phylogenetics

Sandvik, Hanno

doi:10.1007/s12064-008-0022-3

Cited by 86 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, phylogenetic trees are not well understood by students (Baum et al 2005;Gregory 2008;Halverson 2010a;Meir et al 2007;Omland et al 2008;Sandvik 2008;Thanukos 2009). For example, students often misinterpret phylogenetic trees because they focus on superficial features.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Tree-Thinking One Learnable Skill at a Time

Halverson

2011

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Representations are a critical way to communicate scientific knowledge. Systematists biologists are acknowledged as expert tree thinkers who can both read and build phylogenetic trees (e.g., cladograms) accurately. The purpose of this study was to identify the core skills essential to help college students overcome tree-thinking challenges. In this study, I used pre/posttests, interviews, weekly reflective journal entries, field notes from course observations, and student responses to coursework to learn how upper-level college biology students developed representational competence with phylogenetic trees. I identified essential core skills by investigating students' tree-thinking progression over the course of the semester. Three major patterns emerged from the data: (1) students became better tree readers than tree builders by the end of the plant systematics course; (2) core skills are essential for students to develop tree-thinking competence; and (3) tree reading skills developed before tree building skills. By diagnosing challenges students face with tree-thinking, identifying core skills necessary to overcome these challenges, and developing a starting point for a context-based framework for representational competence, this study adds to our understanding of critical elements necessary for designing effective instructional interventions and improving student learning with phylogenetic trees.Keywords Tree-thinking . Cladogram . Phylogenetic tree . Challenges . Core skills . Representations . EvolutionPeople use representations to explain how we make sense of things on a daily basis. Often biologists generate phylogenetic representations to express their understandings of the evolutionary relationships they are investigating (Matuk 2007). In systematic biology, biological information is organized using phylogenetics and "evolutionary trees serve not only as tools for biological researchers across disciplines but also as the main framework within which evidence for evolution is evaluated" (Baum et al. 2005). Evolutionary biologists interpret phylogenetic trees in accordance with how they illustrate evolutionary histories or inferred evolutionary relationships among a set of taxa (Baum and Offner 2008). Scientists compare phylogenetic representations in search of similar patterns to provide support for hypothesized relationships among taxa. They find similarities by comparing monophyletic groups, or clades, across representations. Being able to correctly interpret and compare phylogenetic trees is a critical component to developing tree-thinking.A second component of tree-thinking involves generating phylogenetic trees by isolating and interpreting informative data into evidence of evolutionary relationships. There are many different styles of representations an expert could generate if asked to draw a visual representation illustrating the relationships among taxa (e.g., Matuk 2007). In addition, scientifically accurate phylogenetic representations share the following features: relationships are gr...

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Tree-Thinking One Learnable Skill at a Time

Halverson

2011

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tree thinking (the ability to understand evolution as a process of branching and rebranching) among the public in general, however, is not as accepted and widespread as one might expect. "Tree thinking is very much an acquired ability which needs extensive training" (Sandvik 2008), and even graduate students and professors of biology find it difficult to correctly interpret a simple tree drawing (Baum et al 2005;Bishop and Anderson 1986;Diamond and Scotchmoor 2006;Meir et al 2007a). There are at least three reasons for this absence of tree thinking: a general misunderstanding of the theory of evolution; a lack of familiarity with phylogenies; and a visual evolutionary culture which sustains an eminently progressive discourse full of prejudices that leads to wrong interpretations of the process (i.e., the widespread presence of traditional "trees of life").…”

Section: Problems Of Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Are Some Evolutionary Trees in Natural History Museums Prone to Being Misinterpreted?

Torrens

Barahona

2012

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today, the picture of an evolutionary tree is a very well-known visual image. It is almost impossible to think of the ancestry and relationships of living beings without it. As natural history museums play a major role in the public understanding of evolution, they often present a wide variety of evolutionary trees. However, many studies have shown (Baum and Offner 2008;Baum et al. 2005;Catley and Novick 2008;Evans 2009;Gregory 2008;Matuk 2007;Meir et al. 2007b;Padian 2008) that even though evolutionary trees have the potential to engage visitors of natural history museums with the phenomena of evolution, many of them unwittingly might lead to misunderstandings about the process. As valuable research and educational institutions, one of the museum's important missions should be the careful design of their exhibits on evolution considering, for example, common preconceptions visitors often bring, such as the notion that evolution is oriented from simple toward complex organisms (incarnating the idea of a single ladder of life amidst the extraordinary diversity of organisms) and that humans are at the pinnacle of the evolutionary story, as well as naïve interpretations of phylogenies. Our aim in this article is to show from history where many of these misunderstandings come from and to determine whether five important Western natural history museums inadvertently present "problematic" evolutionary trees (which might lead to non-scientific notions).

show abstract

“…For this reason, Baum et al (2005) recommend that evolution education include clear and explicit instruction on building trees as well as on reading relationships and traits depicted in phylogenetic trees. Although a wide range of research has identified students' difficulties with interpreting these trees (O'Hara 1997, Lopez et al 1997, Meir et al 2007, Novick and Catley 2007, Perry et al 2008, Sandvik 2008, only a few have explored students' abilities to construct them (Staub et al 2006, Halverson 2011. Our research has focused on students' abilities to construct phylogenetic trees from a set of familiar organisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching undergraduate students to draw phylogenetic trees: performance measures and partial successes

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: An in-depth understanding of the process and products of evolution is an essential part of a complete biology education. Phylogenetic trees are a very important tool for understanding evolution and presenting evolutionary data. Previous work by others has shown that undergraduate students have difficulty reading and interpreting phylogenetic trees. However, little is known about students' ability to construct phylogenetic trees. Methods: This study explores the ability of 160 introductory-level biology undergraduates to draw a correct phylogenetic tree of 20 familiar organisms before, during and after a General Biology course that included several lectures and laboratory activities addressing evolution, phylogeny and 'tree thinking'. Students' diagrams were assessed for the presence or absence of important structural features of a phylogenetic tree: connection of all organisms, extant taxa at branch termini, a single common ancestor, branching form, and hierarchical structure. Diagrams were also scored for how accurately they represented the evolutionary relationships of the organisms involved; this included separating major animal groups and particular classification misconceptions.

show abstract

Tree thinking cannot taken for granted: challenges for teaching phylogenetics

Cited by 86 publications

References 32 publications

Improving Tree-Thinking One Learnable Skill at a Time

Improving Tree-Thinking One Learnable Skill at a Time

Why Are Some Evolutionary Trees in Natural History Museums Prone to Being Misinterpreted?

Teaching undergraduate students to draw phylogenetic trees: performance measures and partial successes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About