How humans evolved according to grade 12 students in Singapore

Abstract

Tree thinking, the understanding of the evolutionary relationships between organisms depicted in different types of tree diagrams, is an integral part of understanding evolution. Novice learners often read tree diagrams differently from specialists, resulting in diverse interpretations of the relationships depicted. The aim of this study is to understand how learners construct the picture of human phylogeny, focusing particularly on their views of the last common ancestor of two sister species, humans, and chimpanzees. A theoretical framework based primarily on the schema theory is used to interpret these views. The primary study gathered responses to an open-ended question about human ancestry at various time points in our evolutionary history. The data were coded into categories consisting of lineage, trait description, trait gain, trait loss, and others. The lineage responses were further categorized and examined in the secondary study, with the provision of a simplified phylogenetic tree and the main lineage responses obtained in the primary study. Thirteen students were also selected for interviews. Diverse interpretations, including those that consider humans as direct descendants of extant apes (transmutation) or products of hybridization between extant apes, were found to be affected by respondents' alternative schemata related to the last common ancestor and deep time. We also discuss the potential influence of religious and cultural worldviews on some of these interpretations and present nine alternative models of how learners visualize the last common ancestor that humans shared with the chimpanzee. Findings suggest that complex interactions between different sets of schemata (consilience) may result in diverse interpretations of simple phylogenetic trees. Implications for the teaching of tree thinking are provided.

Accepting, understanding, teaching, and learning (human) evolution: Obstacles and opportunities

“…Indeed, many Americans are deeply confused about scientific terms and concepts, including theory, law, model, proof, experiment, hypothesis, observation, inference, and testability (Lederman, ), and major textbooks on evolution frequently misrepresent evolutionary concepts (Linhart, ). Seoh et al () explore the multiple possible misconceptions entangled in the term “last common ancestor” due to diverse meanings of each of these words, noting that in colloquial usage, “ancestor” often refers to the people from whom you are descended; that “common” can mean ordinary, present in large numbers, unremarkable or ordinary, dominant, public, and what is felt or possessed by most people; and that “last” can mean the latest, the final, the remaining, the previous, the most recent, after a long period of time, or can signify a period of time for an event or situation. They note that counterintuitively, the last common ancestor of descendant taxa is actually the most recent “exclusive” ancestor shared by those taxa.…”

Visualizing biological data in museums: Visitor learning with an interactive tree of life exhibit

“…The idea that there can be dramatic changes in species over time runs counter to children's intuitive "essentialist" beliefs in the stability and immutability of kinds (Gelman & Rhodes, 2012;Samarapungavan & Wiers, 1997). Young children, in particular, are likely to argue that species remain unchanged over time or to use anthropomorphic (intentional) reasoning, stating that organisms want to change (Evans, 2000(Evans, , 2001(Evans, , 2013.…”

“…For example, high school and college students have more difficulty interpreting the relationships between species when their intuitive beliefs conflict with the information depicted (Novick, Catley, & Funk, 2011). Further, the results of a recent qualitative study revealed that high school students have considerable difficulty reasoning about the ancestors that humans share with other species even when these relationships are depicted diagrammatically (Seoh, Subramaniam, & Hoh, 2015).…”

“…Our interactive tree of life frames the core idea that all living things on earth are related, with the aim of clarifying and reinforcing visitors' intuitive concepts. Furthermore, by providing evidence of common ancestry, the tree of life counters the essentialist notion that each living kind has a unique essence, an acknowledged barrier to understanding common descent (Evans, 2000;Gelman & Rhodes, 2012;Shtulman & Schulz, 2008).…”

“…This kind of logic could also be applied to essentialist reasoning. Perhaps essentialism is not necessarily the barrier to macroevolutionary reasoning that prior research has claimed (Gelman & Rhodes, 2012;Shtulman & Schulz, 2008). By activating the relate function and conversing about species and their shared traits, youth were repeatedly exposed to the idea that diverse species are related.…”