Effects of Phylogenetic Tree Style on Student Comprehension in an Introductory Biology Course

Phylogenetic trees have become an important component of biology education, but their utility in the classroom is compromised by widespread misinterpretations among students. One factor that may contribute to student difficulties is style, as diagonal and bracket phylogenetic trees are both commonly...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American biology teacher 2017-11, Vol.79 (9), p.729-737
Hauptverfasser: Dees, Jonathan, Freiermuth, Danielle, Momsen, Jennifer L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Phylogenetic trees have become an important component of biology education, but their utility in the classroom is compromised by widespread misinterpretations among students. One factor that may contribute to student difficulties is style, as diagonal and bracket phylogenetic trees are both commonly used in biology. Previous research using surveys found that students performed better with bracket phylogenetic trees across a variety of interpretation tasks. The present study builds on prior research by comparing how students interpret diagonal and bracket phylogenetic trees in the context of an introductory biology course and by expanding the style comparison to include construction tasks. Students performed significantly better with bracket phylogenetic trees for some, but not all, interpretation tasks. In addition, students who constructed bracket phylogenetic trees were significantly more accurate compared to those who used the diagonal style. Thus, our results reinforce previous research for interpretations, and the performance gap between styles extended to construction tasks. It remains to be seen, however, if such differences persist after instruction that balances the use of diagonal and bracket phylogenetic trees.
ISSN:0002-7685
1938-4211
DOI:10.1525/abt.2017.79.9.729