Improving Tree-Thinking One Learnable Skill at a Time

Evolution: Education and Outreach

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 95-106

  Halverson, Kristy Lynn ^a  

^a University of Southern Mississippi   (United States)

Author keywords

Challenges; Cladogram; Core skills; Evolution; Phylogenetic tree; Representations; Tree thinking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862089325     PISSN: 19366426     EISSN: 19366434     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12052-010-0307-0     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Barnea N, Yehudit JD. Computerized molecular modeling - the new technology for enhancing model perception among chemistry educators and learners. Chem Educ Res Pract Eur. 2000;1:109-20.
2. Baum DA, Offner S. Phylogenies and tree-thinking. Am Biol Teach. 2008;70:222-9.
3. Baum DA, Smith SD, Donovan SSS. The tree-thinking challenge. Science. 2005;310:979-80.
4. BioQUEST. Curriculum Consortium. BEDROCK: Whippo problem space. 2006. Available at: http://www.bioquest.org/bedrock/problem-spaces/whippo/. Accessed 15 Oct 2006.
5. Botzer G, Reiner M. Imagery in physics: from physicists' practice to naive students' learning. In: Gilbert JK, editor. Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. p. 147-68.
6. Catley KM, Novick LR, Shade C. Reinforcing macroevolutionary misconceptions: students' interpretations of textbook diagrams. Garden Grove: National Association for Research in Science Teaching; 2009.
7. Chi MTH, Feltovich PJ, Glaser R. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cogn Sci. 1981;5:121-52.
8. Clement J, Zietsman A, Monaghan J. Imagery in science learning in students and experts. In: Gilbert JK, editor. Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. p. 169-84.
9. Cobern WW, Gibson AT, Underwood SA. Conceptualizations of nature: an interpretive study of 16 ninth graders' everyday thinking. J Res Sci Teach. 1999;36:541-64.
10. Cook MP. Visual representations in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Sci Edu. 2006;90:1073-91.
11. Cooper RA. Scientific knowledge of the past is possible: confronting myths about evolution and scientific methods. Am Biol Teach. 2002;64:427-32.
12. Gendron RP. The classification & evolution of caminalcules. Am Biol Teach. 2000;62:570-6.
13. Gilbert JK. Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In: Gilbert JK, editor. Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. p. 9-27.
14. Gregory TR. Understanding evolutionary trees. Evol Edu Outreach. 2008;1:121-37.
15. Halverson KL. Using hypothetical flowering plants to develop fundamental phylogenetic tree-reading and tree-building skills. Memphis, TN: National Association for Biology Teachers. 2008. Available at: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4304176/ConferencePapers/InterpretingPseudocotsLessonPlan.doc. Accessed 15 Oct 2008.
16. Halverson KL. Investigating the development and use of representations by undergraduates in a plant systematics course. Columbia: Doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri; 2009.
17. Halverson KL. Exploring the link between mental rotation and college student learning with phylogenetic trees. Philadelphia: National Association for Research in Science Teaching; 2010a.
18. Halverson KL. Using pipe cleaners to bring the tree of life to life. Am Biol Teach. 2010b;74:223-4.
19. Halverson KL, Pires JC, Abell SK. Exploring the complexity of tree thinking expertise in an undergraduate systematics course. Sci Ed. 2011. doi: 10.1002/sce.20436.
20. Kozma RB, Russell J. Modelling students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. In: Gilbert JK, editor. Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer; 2005. p. 121-45.
21. Mathewson JH. Visual-spatial thinking: an aspect of science overlooked by educators. Sci Edu. 1999;83:33-54.
22. Matuk C. Images of evolution. J Biocommun. 2007;33(3):E54-61.
23. Meir E, Perry J, Herron J, Maruca S, Stal D, Kingsolver J. How effective are individual-based simulations in EvoBeaker at overcoming misconceptions in evolution? Montreal: ESA Annual Meeting; 2005.
24. Meir E, Perry J, Herron JC, Kingsolver J. College student's misconceptions about evolutionary trees. Am Biol Teach. 2007;69:71-6.
25. Novick LR, Catley KM. Assessing students' understanding of cladograms. Balitmore: National Association for Research in Science Teaching; 2008.
26. Omland KE, Cook LG, Crisp MD. Tree thinking for all biology: the problem with reading phylogenies as ladders of progress. BioEssays. 2008;30:854-67.
27. Patrick MD, Carter G, Wiebe EN. Visual representations of DNA replication: middle grades students' perceptions and interpretations. J Sci Edu Technol. 2005;14:353-65.
28. Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.
29. Perry J, Meir E, Herron JC, Maruca S, Stal D. Evaluating two approaches to helping college students understand evolutionary trees through diagramming tasks. CBE Life Sci Edu. 2008;7:193-201.
30. Roth WM, Bowen GM, McGinn MK. Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. J Res Sci Teach. 1999;36:977-1019.
31. Sandvik H. Tree thinking cannot taken for granted: challenges for teaching phylogenetics. Theory Biosci. 2008;127:45-51.
32. Thanukos A. A name by any other tree. Evol Edu Outreach. 2009;2:303-9.
33. University of California Museum of Paleontology. Understanding Evolution. 2009. Available at: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0-0-0/evo-03. Accessed 22 Aug 2008.
34. Van Fraassen BC. Scientific representation: paradoxes of perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.