Exhibiting Evolution

Diamond, Judy; Scotchmoor, Judy

doi:10.1179/msi.2006.1.1.21

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One exception may be an introduction to dinosaurs in elementary school; yet, while young elementary school children may be skilled at classifying dinosaurs, this does not mean they understand their role in an evolutionary framework (Evans, 2000;Poling & Evans, 2004b). Natural history museums, on the other hand, are the repositories of the evidence for macroevolution (Diamond and Scotchmoor, 2006), but they do not necessarily explain the mechanisms. More often they present evolution as a linear concept, with single individuals from particular lineages linked across geological time (Diamond and Scotchmoor, 2006).…”

Section: Implications For Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Natural history museums, on the other hand, are the repositories of the evidence for macroevolution (Diamond and Scotchmoor, 2006), but they do not necessarily explain the mechanisms. More often they present evolution as a linear concept, with single individuals from particular lineages linked across geological time (Diamond and Scotchmoor, 2006).…”

Section: Implications For Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors' understanding of evolution

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Museum visitors are an ideal population for assessing the persistence of the conceptual barriers that make it difficult to grasp Darwinian evolutionary theory. In comparison with other members of the public, they are more likely to be interested in natural history, have higher education levels, and be exposed to the relevant content. If museum visitors do not grasp evolutionary principles, it seems unlikely that other members of the general public would do so. In the current study, 32 systematically selected visitors to three Midwest museums of natural history provided detailed openended explanations of biological change in seven diverse organisms. They were not told that these were evolutionary problems. Responses were coded as: informed naturalistic reasoning, featuring some understanding of key evolutionary concepts, novice naturalistic reasoning, featuring intuitive explanations that are also present in childhood, and creationist reasoning, featuring supernatural explanations. All visitors were mixed reasoners, using one or more of these patterns in different permutations across the seven organisms: 72% used a combination of informed naturalistic reasoning and novice naturalistic reasoning, while a further 28% added creationist reasoning to this mix. Correlational analyses indicated that for many visitors these reasoning patterns were coherent rather than fragmented. The theoretical model presented in this article contributes to an analysis of the developmental and cultural factors associated with these patterns. This could help educators working in diverse educational settings understand how to move visitors and students toward more informed reasoning patterns. ß

show abstract

Section: Implications For Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors' understanding of evolution

et al. 2009

Self Cite

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

“…The graphic representation of the tree in each new exhibit usually reflects the 41 current usage or discipline preferences, but since older depictions often are kept on display, a 42 range of different presentations of tree diagrams are depicted even within a single institution 43 (Diamond & Scotchmoor, 2006;MacDonald, 2010). Some galleries intentionally use more than 44 one depiction of the tree of life to emphasize to visitors the validity of alternative approaches or 6 45 different elements (Diamond, 2005), but often it simply reflects the reality of long-lived exhibits 46 in museum settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Diamond & Scotchmoor (2006) emphasized in their review of evolution exhibits in 48 museums, the way phylogenies are used determines their effectiveness in reinforcing 49 fundamental concepts about evolution, and consideration of the conceptual and developmental 50 issues of how people understand evolution can make such exhibits accessible to more audiences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating Phylogeny: Evolutionary Tree Diagrams in Museums

MacDonald

Wiley

2012

Evo Edu Outreach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Tree of life diagrams are graphic representations of phylogeny-the evolutionary history and relationships of lineages-and as such these graphics have the potential to convey key evolutionary ideas and principles to a variety of audiences. Museums play a significant role in teaching about evolution to the public, and tree graphics form a common element in many exhibits even though little is known about their impact on visitor understanding. How phylogenies are depicted and used in informal science settings impacts their accessibility and effectiveness in communicating about evolution to visitors. In this paper, we summarize the analysis of 185 tree of life graphics collected from museum exhibits at 52 institutions and highlight some potential implications of how trees are presented that may support or hinder visitors' understanding about evolution. While further work is needed, existing learning research suggests that common elements among the diversity of museum trees such as the inclusion of anagenesis and absence of time and shared characters might represent potential barriers to visitor understanding.

show abstract

Exhibiting Evolution

Cited by 23 publications

References 10 publications

A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors' understanding of evolution

A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors' understanding of evolution

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

Communicating Phylogeny: Evolutionary Tree Diagrams in Museums

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About