Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-jb2ch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T07:36:24.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How Undergraduate Students Misread Cladograms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Karen M. Kortz
Affiliation:
Community College of Rhode Island, Physics Department, 1762 Louisquisset Pike, Lincoln, RI 02865 USA
John P. Swaddle
Affiliation:
Institute for Integrative Bird Behavior Studies, College of William and Mary, Landrum Drive, Williamsburg, VA 23187 USA
David E. Fastovsky
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, University of Rhode Island, 9 East Alumni Ave., Kingston, RI 02881 USA
Get access

Abstract

Although phylogenetic systematics is used to reconstruct evolutionar 123y relationships, undergraduates have a difficult time mastering its fundamental concepts. Because it is a key part of the mainstream professional thinking, we explored in what ways students misread cladograms, which are the abstract and synthetic diagrams of phylogenetic systematics. We developed a questionnaire to examine the following four hypotheses as to how introductory college-level students (n=51) read cladograms: 1) students read cladograms correctly; 2) students infer that proximity of tips equals relatedness; 3) students read cladograms as they might an evolutionary tree, reading left to right as primitive to more advanced, and perceiving organisms as branching off; and 4) students infer ancestors at the nodes. Most responses fell into one of the four hypotheses, with 55% following the scientific (‘correct’) hypothesis. Most students answered between six and eight of the ten questions correctly. Slightly more than half of the students generally followed the scientific hypothesis, while others applied both the scientific and proximity (hypothesis 2, above) hypotheses together. A few students followed the primitive hypothesis (hypothesis 3, above). Our recommendation is that instructors address discrepancies between the scientific and proximity hypotheses in particular. For undergraduates, generally, cladograms require focused teaching, explanation, and active-learning approaches to be successfully used to teach phylogenetic systematics.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bair, A. R. 2011. Teaching and learning about cladograms in geology courses: Insights from work in biology, a pilot study in a paleobiology course and cognitive science, 221-6. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 43(4):533.Google Scholar
Baum, D. A., Dewitt Smith, S., and Donovan, S. S. S. 2005. The tree-thinking challenge. Science, 310:979980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brewer, C. A. 2004. Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. BioScience, 54:10341039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burks, R. L., and Boles, L. C. 2007. Evolution of the chocolate bar: A creative approach to teaching phylogenetic relationships within evolutionary biology. American Biology Teacher, 69:229237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, M. 2011. Late Quaternary Normal Faulting and Hanging Wall Basin Evolution of the South-western Rift Margin From Gravity and Geology, B.C.S., MX and Exploring the Influence of Text-Figure Format on Introductory Geology Learning. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 209 p.Google Scholar
Chan, C., Burtis, J., and Bereiter, C. 1997. Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction, 15:140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S., Hanmer, D., and Cerbin, B. 2006. Problem solving modules in large introductory biology lectures enhance student understanding. American Biology Teacher, 68:524529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1979. Phylogenetic analysis, evolutionary models, and paleontology, p. 739. In Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N. (eds.). Columbia University Press, New York, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, M. D., and Cook, L. G. 2005. Do early branching lineages signify ancestral traits? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20: 122128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69:970977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. 1992. Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23:449480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Queiroz, K., and Gauthier, J. 1994. Toward a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9:2731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingus, L., and Rowe, T. 1998. The Mistaken Extinction. W. H. Freeman, New York, New York.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
Fastovsky, D. E., and Weishampel, D. B. 2009. Dinosaurs: A Concise Natural History. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flory, S. L., Ingram, E. L, Heidinger, B. J., and Tintjer, T. 2005. Hands-on in the non-laboratory classroom. American Biology Teacher, 67:542547.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Miller, A. 2007. Principles of Paleontology. 3rd ed., W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, D. W. 2003. The great clade race. American Biology Teacher, 65:679682.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful Life: the Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. W. W. Norton and Company, New York.Google Scholar
Gower, J. C. 1966. Some distance properties of la-tent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika, 53:325338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, T. R. 2008. Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution Education Outreach, 1:121137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzzetti, B. J. 2000. Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16:8998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., and Ryan, P. D. 2001. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4:9.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1979. Phylogenetic Systematics. Translated by Davis, D. D. and Zangerl, R. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.Google Scholar
Hewson, P. W., and Hewson, M. G. A. B. 1988. An appropriate conception of teaching science: A view from studies of science learning. Science Education, 72:597614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julius, M. L., and Schoenfuss, H. L. 2006. Phylogenetic reconstruction as a broadly applicable teaching tool in the biology classroom: The value of data in estimating likely answers. Journal of College Science Teaching, July/August:4045.Google Scholar
Kalinowski, S. T., Taper, M. L., and Metz, A. M. 2006. How are humans related to other primates? A guided inquiry laboratory for undergraduate students. Genetics, 172:13791383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kortz, K. M., and Smay, J. J. 2010. Lecture Tutorials for Introductory Geoscience. W. H. Freeman, New York, New York, 88 p.Google Scholar
Kortz, K. M., Smay, J. J., and Murray, D. P. 2008. Increasing student learning in introductory geoscience courses using lecture tutorials. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56:280290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazur, E. 1997. Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 253 p.Google Scholar
McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., and Owens, K. D. 2003. Assessment and active learning strategies for introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51:205216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., Owens, K. D., and Knight, C. C. 2005. How students think: Implications for learning in introductory geoscience courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53:462470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., Owens, K. D., Knott, J. R., Van Horn, S., Borowski, W., Dick, J., Foos, A., Malone, M., McGrew, H., Greer, L., and Heaney, P. J. 2006. Using conceptests to assess and improve student conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54:6168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, E., Perry, J., Herron, J. C., and King-Solver, J. 2007. College students' misconceptions about evolutionary trees. American Biology Teacher, 69:7176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, R. P. 2010. Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3:621628.Google ScholarPubMed
Morabito, N., Catley, K. M., and Novick, L. R. Reasoning about evolutionary history: The effects of biology background on post-secondary students' knowledge of most recent common ancestry and homoplasy. Journal of Biological Education, 44:166174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nee, S. 2005. The great chain of being. Nature, 435:429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, G., and Platnick, N. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.Google Scholar
Novick, L. R., and Catley, K. M. 2007. Understanding phylogenies in biology: The influence of a Gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13:197223.Google ScholarPubMed
Novick, L. R., Catley, K. M., and Funk, D. J. 2011. Inference is Bliss: Using evolutionary relationship to guide categorical inferences. Cognitive Science, 35:712743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Hara, R. J. 1988. Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Systematic Zoology, 37:142155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hara, R. J. 1994. Evolutionary history and the species problem. American Zoology, 34:1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hara, R. J. 1998. Population thinking and tree thinking in systematics. Zoologica Scripta. 26:323329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., and Gertzog, W. A. 1982. Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66:211227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology (third edition). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 468 p.Google Scholar
Rudolph, J. L., and Stewart, J. H. 1998. Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35:10691089.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O., Siegel-Causey, D., Brooks, D., and Funk, V. A. 1991. The Compleat Cladist: A Primer of Phylogenetic Procedures. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Special Publication 19. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar