“…The investigators then worked independently to identify evolutionary trees from these tree-shaped diagrams. In so doing, as per the criteria recommended by Kong et al (2016), they excluded any treeshaped diagrams that did not depict evolutionary history. Finally, the two investigators were joined by a third investigator, and together they reached 100 percent agreement about the selection of evolutionary tree articles for our study.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rooted trees show chronology because the roots represent the most distant ancestor in time. Unrooted trees do not show complete chronology, or the chronology is unclear because the most distant ancestor in time has not been indicated (Kong et al, 2016). Figure 2.…”
Section: Chronologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, an evolutionary biologist might compare trees developed with different methods to observe similarities in the outcome, and possibly generate a third tree to reconcile any differences. Evolutionary trees chronicle the sequence of events when new heritable traits emerge (Brooks & McLennan, 1991;Kong et al, 2016;O'Hara 1988). According to O'Hara (1988), evolution explanations depend on this chronicle.…”
Evolutionary trees are powerful tools used in modern biological research, and commonly used in textbooks and classroom instruction. Studies have shown that K-14 students have difficulties interpreting evolutionary trees. To improve student learning about this topic, it is essential to teach them how to understand and use trees like professional biologists. Unfortunately, few currently used teaching frameworks for evolution instruction are designed for this purpose. In this study we developed the Model of the Use of Evolutionary Trees (MUET), a conceptual model that characterizes how evolutionary trees were used by professional biologists as represented in their research publications. The development of the MUET was guided by the Concept-Reasoning Mode of representation (CRM) model as well as a “model of modeling” framework. The MUET was then used to review instructional and assessment material for K-14 classrooms. Future studies with the MUET may inform the development of teaching materials for K-14 classrooms aimed at improving students’ understanding of and learning about evolutionary trees.
“…The investigators then worked independently to identify evolutionary trees from these tree-shaped diagrams. In so doing, as per the criteria recommended by Kong et al (2016), they excluded any treeshaped diagrams that did not depict evolutionary history. Finally, the two investigators were joined by a third investigator, and together they reached 100 percent agreement about the selection of evolutionary tree articles for our study.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rooted trees show chronology because the roots represent the most distant ancestor in time. Unrooted trees do not show complete chronology, or the chronology is unclear because the most distant ancestor in time has not been indicated (Kong et al, 2016). Figure 2.…”
Section: Chronologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, an evolutionary biologist might compare trees developed with different methods to observe similarities in the outcome, and possibly generate a third tree to reconcile any differences. Evolutionary trees chronicle the sequence of events when new heritable traits emerge (Brooks & McLennan, 1991;Kong et al, 2016;O'Hara 1988). According to O'Hara (1988), evolution explanations depend on this chronicle.…”
Evolutionary trees are powerful tools used in modern biological research, and commonly used in textbooks and classroom instruction. Studies have shown that K-14 students have difficulties interpreting evolutionary trees. To improve student learning about this topic, it is essential to teach them how to understand and use trees like professional biologists. Unfortunately, few currently used teaching frameworks for evolution instruction are designed for this purpose. In this study we developed the Model of the Use of Evolutionary Trees (MUET), a conceptual model that characterizes how evolutionary trees were used by professional biologists as represented in their research publications. The development of the MUET was guided by the Concept-Reasoning Mode of representation (CRM) model as well as a “model of modeling” framework. The MUET was then used to review instructional and assessment material for K-14 classrooms. Future studies with the MUET may inform the development of teaching materials for K-14 classrooms aimed at improving students’ understanding of and learning about evolutionary trees.
“…An evolutionary tree, also known as a phylogenetic tree or cladogram, is a diagram created to represent proposed evolutionary relationships among populations or species (Halverson et al, 2011 ; Raven et al, 2014 ). Evolutionary trees provide a framework for evaluating evolutionary evidence and they are generated from data to facilitate understanding of evolutionary relationships (Kong et al, 2016 ). Interpretation of evolutionary trees as illustrated in Fig.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interpretation of evolutionary trees as illustrated in Fig. 1 makes it possible to answer research questions related to information contained in a phylogeny, such as the origin of an emerging disease like COVID-19 or the chronological sequence of evolutionary events (Brooks et al, 1991 ; Halverson et al, 2011 ; Kong et al, 2016 ; O'Hara, 1988 ; Sober & Steel, 2002 ). Fig.…”
Science educators report that students struggle with understanding, using, and evaluating the evidence underpinning scientific knowledge. However, there are not many studies focused on helping instructors address those difficulties. Here, we report on a laboratory instructor’s scaffolding of students’ evidentiary reasoning with and about evidence for evolutionary trees with guidance from the Conceptual Analysis of Disciplinary Evidence (CADE) framework, which links biological knowledge with epistemic considerations. To consider both domain-general and discipline-specific aspects of evidence, CADE was implemented to inform scaffolds in two ways: (1) generic evidence scaffolds (GES) reminded students of general epistemic considerations; (2) disciplinary evidence scaffolds (DES) explicitly reminded students of the disciplinary knowledge of relevance for considering biological evidence. An instructor’s lab discussions were compared before and after they had a workshop with CADE. CADE helped the lab instructor facilitate students’ evidentiary reasoning about evolutionary trees. In comparison to baseline, both GES and DES discussions covered more aspects and relationships among types of evidence for evolutionary tree-thinking and the instructor prompted more kinds of general epistemic considerations and biological knowledge. DES discussions emphasized the importance of disciplinary knowledge for research design. The CADE framework guided planning and implementation of intentional scaffolding aimed at guiding evidentiary reasoning.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11191-023-00435-6.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
