1887

Prevalence and Persistence of Misconceptions in Tree Thinking

    Authors: Tyler A. Kummer1,*, Clinton J. Whipple1, Jamie L. Jensen1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 389-398. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1156
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    75.15 Kb
  • XML
  • PDF
    576.21 Kb

    Abstract:

    Darwin described evolution as “descent with modification.” Descent, however, is not an explicit focus of most evolution instruction and often leaves deeply held misconceptions to dominate student understanding of common ancestry and species relatedness. Evolutionary trees are ways of visually depicting descent by illustrating the relationships between species and groups of species. The ability to properly interpret and use evolutionary trees has become known as “tree thinking.” We used a 20-question assessment to measure misconceptions in tree thinking and compare the proportion of students who hold these misconceptions in an introductory biology course with students in two higher-level courses including a senior level biology course. We found that misconceptions related to reading the graphic ( and ) were variably influenced across time with decreasing and increasing in prevalence. On the other hand, misconceptions related to the fundamental underpinnings of evolutionary theory ( and ) proved resistant to change during a typical undergraduate study of biology. A possible new misconception relating to the length of the branches in an evolutionary tree is described. Understanding the prevalence and persistence of misconceptions informs educators as to which misconceptions should be targeted in their courses.

Key Concept Ranking

Population Genetics
0.4761164
Trout
0.46495146
0.4761164

References & Citations

1. Atman CJ, Cardella ME, Turns J, Adams R 2005 Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: an in-depth follow-up study Design Studies 26 4 325 357 10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.005
2. Azizi-Fini I, Hajibagheri A, Adib-Hajbaghery M 2015 Critical thinking skills in nursing students: a comparison between freshmen and senior students Nurs Midwifery Stud 4 1 e25721 10.17795/nmsjournal25721 25830160 4377532 http://dx.doi.org/10.17795/nmsjournal25721
3. Baum D, Smith S 2012 Tree thinking: an introduction to phylogenetic biology Roberts Greenwood Village, CO
4. Baum D, Smith S, Donovan S 2005 Evolution: the tree-thinking challenge Science 310 5750 979 980 10.1126/science.1117727 16284166 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1117727
5. Bransford J, Brown A, Cocking R 2000 Learning: from speculation to science How people learn brain, mind, experience, and school 14 16 The National Academies Press Washington, DC
6. Catley K, Novick L 2008 Seeing the wood for the trees: an analysis of evolutionary diagrams in biology textbooks BioScience 58 10 976 987 10.1641/B581011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/B581011
7. Dees J, Momsen J, Niemi J, Montplaisir L 2014 Student interpretations of phylogenetic trees in an introductory biology course CBE Life Sci Educ 13 4 666 676 25452489 4255353
8. Eddy S, Crowe A, Wenderoth M, Freeman S 2013 How should we teach tree-thinking? An experimental test of two hypotheses Evol Educ Outreach 6 13 24 10.1186/1936-6434-6-13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-13
9. Genco N, Hölttä-Otto K, Seepersad CC 2012 An experimental investigation of the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineering students J Eng Educ 101 1 60 81 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00041.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00041.x
10. Gregory T 2008 Understanding evolutionary trees Evol Educ Outreach 1 2 121 137 10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x
11. Gregory T, Ellis C 2009 Conceptions of evolution among science graduate students BioScience 59 9 792 799 10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.11 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.11
12. Halverson K, Pires C, Abell S 2011 Exploring the complexity of tree thinking expertise in an undergraduate systematics course Sci Educ 95 5 794 823 10.1002/sce.20436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20436
13. Kampourakis K 2007 Teleology in biology, chemistry and physics education: what primary teachers should know Rev Sci Math ICT Educ 1 2 81 93
14. Kline P 2000 The handbook of psychological testing 2nd ed 13 Routledge London, England
15. Kögce D, Yıldız C 2011 A comparison of freshman and senior mathematics student teachers’ views of proof concept Proc Soc Behav Sci 15 1266 1270 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.274 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.274
16. Lawson A 1978 The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning J Res Sci Teach 15 1 11 24 10.1002/tea.3660150103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660150103
17. Ludlow D, Evenson W 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism 340 343 Macmillan Publishing New York
18. Meir E, Perry J, Herron J, Kingsolver J 2007 College students’ misconceptions about evolutionary trees Am Biol Teach 69 7 E71 E76 10.1662/0002-7685(2007)69[71:CSMAET]2.0.CO;2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2007)69[71:CSMAET]2.0.CO;2
19. Manwaring KF, Jensen JL, Gill RA, Bybee SM 2015 Influencing highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution: Mormons as a case study Evol Educ Outreach 8 1 1 12 10.1186/s12052-015-0051-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12052-015-0051-6
20. Moore R, Cotner S, Bates A 2009 The influence of religion and high school biology courses on students’ knowledge of evolution when they enter college J Eff Teach 9 2 4 12
21. Novick L, Catley K, Funk D 2011 Inference is bliss: using evolutionary relationship to guide categorical inferences Cog Sci 35 4 712 743 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01162.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01162.x
22. Phillips BC, Novick LR, Catley KM, Funk DJ 2012 Teaching tree thinking to college students: it’s not as easy as you think Evol Educ Outreach 5 4 595 602 10.1007/s12052-012-0455-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12052-012-0455-5
23. Rice JW, Clough MP, Olson JK, Adams DC, Colbert JT 2015 University faculty and their knowledge & acceptance of biological evolution Evol Educ Outreach 8 1 1 15 10.1186/s12052-015-0036-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12052-015-0036-5
24. Vosniadou S 1994 Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change Learn Instruct 4 45 69 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1156
2016-12-02
2019-01-20

Abstract:

Darwin described evolution as “descent with modification.” Descent, however, is not an explicit focus of most evolution instruction and often leaves deeply held misconceptions to dominate student understanding of common ancestry and species relatedness. Evolutionary trees are ways of visually depicting descent by illustrating the relationships between species and groups of species. The ability to properly interpret and use evolutionary trees has become known as “tree thinking.” We used a 20-question assessment to measure misconceptions in tree thinking and compare the proportion of students who hold these misconceptions in an introductory biology course with students in two higher-level courses including a senior level biology course. We found that misconceptions related to reading the graphic ( and ) were variably influenced across time with decreasing and increasing in prevalence. On the other hand, misconceptions related to the fundamental underpinnings of evolutionary theory ( and ) proved resistant to change during a typical undergraduate study of biology. A possible new misconception relating to the length of the branches in an evolutionary tree is described. Understanding the prevalence and persistence of misconceptions informs educators as to which misconceptions should be targeted in their courses.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/17/3/jmbe-17-389.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1156&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1

Click to view

FIGURE 1

A sample item set from the assessment used to measure student misconception and examples of student responses to the item set.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 389-398. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1156
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2

Click to view

FIGURE 2

The proportion of students who gave answers indicating they held each of the misconceptions assessed in this study for the INTRO course and the EVO course. Error bars represent one standard error. < 0.01; < 0.05.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 389-398. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1156
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3

Click to view

FIGURE 3

The proportion of students who gave responses based on branch length in the INTRO course and the EVO course. Error bars represent one standard error. < 0.01.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 389-398. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1156
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 4

Click to view

FIGURE 4

A comparison of overall performance on the assessment for each group in the study. Error bars represent one standard error.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2016 vol. 17 no. 3 389-398. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1156
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error