Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict
The authors argue that some diagrams in biology textbooks and the popular press presented as depicting evolutionary relationships suggest an inappropriate (anagenic) conception of evolutionary history. The goal of this research was to provide baseline data that begin to document how college students...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of research in science teaching 2010-09, Vol.47 (7), p.861-882 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 882 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 861 |
| container_title | Journal of research in science teaching |
| container_volume | 47 |
| creator | Catley, Kefyn M. Novick, Laura R. Shade, Courtney K. |
| description | The authors argue that some diagrams in biology textbooks and the popular press presented as depicting evolutionary relationships suggest an inappropriate (anagenic) conception of evolutionary history. The goal of this research was to provide baseline data that begin to document how college students conceptualize the evolutionary relationships depicted in such noncladogenic diagrams and how they think about the underlying evolutionary processes. Study 1 investigated how students (n = 50) interpreted the evolutionary relationships depicted in four such evolutionary diagrams. In Study 2, new students (n = 62) were asked to interpret what the students in Study 1 meant when they used the terms evolved into/from and ancestor/descendant of. The results show the interpretations fell broadly into two categories: (a) evolution as an anagenic rather than cladogenic process, and (b) evolution as a teleological (purpose‐driven) process. These results imply that noncladogenic diagrams are inappropriate for use in evolution education because they lead to the misinterpretation of many evolutionary processes. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47:861–882, 2010 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/tea.20384 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_925740760</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ899786</ericid><sourcerecordid>925740760</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3604-b104fa1616e6cc720dfdfd2d3d2cb3c2ed6e45207cb2f41254d610e3fc94f65d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1PwzAQxS0EEuVjYGfIhhgC5484CRtULR9CwFCoxGK5zqUY0jjYKdD_nkCADd1ww_u9p7tHyB6FIwrAjlvURwx4JtbIgEKexSzlcp0MOo3FgkO2SbZCeAYAntN8QMaXdYu-8djaeh7hm6uWrXW19quosHru9SKcRNMnrKPWNa5y81Wk6yJqvDMYQmRcXVbWtDtko9RVwN2fvU3ux6PJ8CK-vj2_HJ5ex4ZLEPGMgig1lVSiNCZlUJTdsIIXzMy4YVhIFAmD1MxYKShLRCEpIC9NLkqZFHybHPS53QGvSwytWthgsKp0jW4ZVM6SVEAqoSMPe9J4F4LHUjXeLrq_FAX1VZXqqlLfVXXsfs-it-aPG11leZ5mspOPe_ndVrj6P0dNRqe_gXHvsKHFjz-H9i9KpjxN1PTmXImzh0mWPU7VHf8EiNuEKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>925740760</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Catley, Kefyn M. ; Novick, Laura R. ; Shade, Courtney K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Catley, Kefyn M. ; Novick, Laura R. ; Shade, Courtney K.</creatorcontrib><description>The authors argue that some diagrams in biology textbooks and the popular press presented as depicting evolutionary relationships suggest an inappropriate (anagenic) conception of evolutionary history. The goal of this research was to provide baseline data that begin to document how college students conceptualize the evolutionary relationships depicted in such noncladogenic diagrams and how they think about the underlying evolutionary processes. Study 1 investigated how students (n = 50) interpreted the evolutionary relationships depicted in four such evolutionary diagrams. In Study 2, new students (n = 62) were asked to interpret what the students in Study 1 meant when they used the terms evolved into/from and ancestor/descendant of. The results show the interpretations fell broadly into two categories: (a) evolution as an anagenic rather than cladogenic process, and (b) evolution as a teleological (purpose‐driven) process. These results imply that noncladogenic diagrams are inappropriate for use in evolution education because they lead to the misinterpretation of many evolutionary processes. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47:861–882, 2010</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-4308</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1098-2736</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/tea.20384</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>anagenesis ; cladogenesis ; Coding ; College Students ; Concept Formation ; Context Effect ; Descendants ; diagrammatic reasoning ; Diagrams ; Evolution ; evolution education ; evolutionary diagrams ; Goals ; Inappropriateness ; Sociolinguistics ; Student Attitudes ; Textbooks ; Topology ; tree thinking ; Undergraduate students ; Visual Aids</subject><ispartof>Journal of research in science teaching, 2010-09, Vol.47 (7), p.861-882</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3604-b104fa1616e6cc720dfdfd2d3d2cb3c2ed6e45207cb2f41254d610e3fc94f65d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3604-b104fa1616e6cc720dfdfd2d3d2cb3c2ed6e45207cb2f41254d610e3fc94f65d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Ftea.20384$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Ftea.20384$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,30979,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ899786$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Catley, Kefyn M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novick, Laura R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shade, Courtney K.</creatorcontrib><title>Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict</title><title>Journal of research in science teaching</title><addtitle>J. Res. Sci. Teach</addtitle><description>The authors argue that some diagrams in biology textbooks and the popular press presented as depicting evolutionary relationships suggest an inappropriate (anagenic) conception of evolutionary history. The goal of this research was to provide baseline data that begin to document how college students conceptualize the evolutionary relationships depicted in such noncladogenic diagrams and how they think about the underlying evolutionary processes. Study 1 investigated how students (n = 50) interpreted the evolutionary relationships depicted in four such evolutionary diagrams. In Study 2, new students (n = 62) were asked to interpret what the students in Study 1 meant when they used the terms evolved into/from and ancestor/descendant of. The results show the interpretations fell broadly into two categories: (a) evolution as an anagenic rather than cladogenic process, and (b) evolution as a teleological (purpose‐driven) process. These results imply that noncladogenic diagrams are inappropriate for use in evolution education because they lead to the misinterpretation of many evolutionary processes. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47:861–882, 2010</description><subject>anagenesis</subject><subject>cladogenesis</subject><subject>Coding</subject><subject>College Students</subject><subject>Concept Formation</subject><subject>Context Effect</subject><subject>Descendants</subject><subject>diagrammatic reasoning</subject><subject>Diagrams</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>evolution education</subject><subject>evolutionary diagrams</subject><subject>Goals</subject><subject>Inappropriateness</subject><subject>Sociolinguistics</subject><subject>Student Attitudes</subject><subject>Textbooks</subject><subject>Topology</subject><subject>tree thinking</subject><subject>Undergraduate students</subject><subject>Visual Aids</subject><issn>0022-4308</issn><issn>1098-2736</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL1PwzAQxS0EEuVjYGfIhhgC5484CRtULR9CwFCoxGK5zqUY0jjYKdD_nkCADd1ww_u9p7tHyB6FIwrAjlvURwx4JtbIgEKexSzlcp0MOo3FgkO2SbZCeAYAntN8QMaXdYu-8djaeh7hm6uWrXW19quosHru9SKcRNMnrKPWNa5y81Wk6yJqvDMYQmRcXVbWtDtko9RVwN2fvU3ux6PJ8CK-vj2_HJ5ex4ZLEPGMgig1lVSiNCZlUJTdsIIXzMy4YVhIFAmD1MxYKShLRCEpIC9NLkqZFHybHPS53QGvSwytWthgsKp0jW4ZVM6SVEAqoSMPe9J4F4LHUjXeLrq_FAX1VZXqqlLfVXXsfs-it-aPG11leZ5mspOPe_ndVrj6P0dNRqe_gXHvsKHFjz-H9i9KpjxN1PTmXImzh0mWPU7VHf8EiNuEKg</recordid><startdate>201009</startdate><enddate>201009</enddate><creator>Catley, Kefyn M.</creator><creator>Novick, Laura R.</creator><creator>Shade, Courtney K.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201009</creationdate><title>Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict</title><author>Catley, Kefyn M. ; Novick, Laura R. ; Shade, Courtney K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3604-b104fa1616e6cc720dfdfd2d3d2cb3c2ed6e45207cb2f41254d610e3fc94f65d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>anagenesis</topic><topic>cladogenesis</topic><topic>Coding</topic><topic>College Students</topic><topic>Concept Formation</topic><topic>Context Effect</topic><topic>Descendants</topic><topic>diagrammatic reasoning</topic><topic>Diagrams</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>evolution education</topic><topic>evolutionary diagrams</topic><topic>Goals</topic><topic>Inappropriateness</topic><topic>Sociolinguistics</topic><topic>Student Attitudes</topic><topic>Textbooks</topic><topic>Topology</topic><topic>tree thinking</topic><topic>Undergraduate students</topic><topic>Visual Aids</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Catley, Kefyn M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novick, Laura R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shade, Courtney K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of research in science teaching</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Catley, Kefyn M.</au><au>Novick, Laura R.</au><au>Shade, Courtney K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ899786</ericid><atitle>Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict</atitle><jtitle>Journal of research in science teaching</jtitle><addtitle>J. Res. Sci. Teach</addtitle><date>2010-09</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>861</spage><epage>882</epage><pages>861-882</pages><issn>0022-4308</issn><eissn>1098-2736</eissn><abstract>The authors argue that some diagrams in biology textbooks and the popular press presented as depicting evolutionary relationships suggest an inappropriate (anagenic) conception of evolutionary history. The goal of this research was to provide baseline data that begin to document how college students conceptualize the evolutionary relationships depicted in such noncladogenic diagrams and how they think about the underlying evolutionary processes. Study 1 investigated how students (n = 50) interpreted the evolutionary relationships depicted in four such evolutionary diagrams. In Study 2, new students (n = 62) were asked to interpret what the students in Study 1 meant when they used the terms evolved into/from and ancestor/descendant of. The results show the interpretations fell broadly into two categories: (a) evolution as an anagenic rather than cladogenic process, and (b) evolution as a teleological (purpose‐driven) process. These results imply that noncladogenic diagrams are inappropriate for use in evolution education because they lead to the misinterpretation of many evolutionary processes. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47:861–882, 2010</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><doi>10.1002/tea.20384</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0022-4308 |
| ispartof | Journal of research in science teaching, 2010-09, Vol.47 (7), p.861-882 |
| issn | 0022-4308 1098-2736 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_925740760 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
| subjects | anagenesis cladogenesis Coding College Students Concept Formation Context Effect Descendants diagrammatic reasoning Diagrams Evolution evolution education evolutionary diagrams Goals Inappropriateness Sociolinguistics Student Attitudes Textbooks Topology tree thinking Undergraduate students Visual Aids |
| title | Interpreting evolutionary diagrams: When topology and process conflict |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T13%3A56%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Interpreting%20evolutionary%20diagrams:%20When%20topology%20and%20process%20conflict&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20research%20in%20science%20teaching&rft.au=Catley,%20Kefyn%20M.&rft.date=2010-09&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=861&rft.epage=882&rft.pages=861-882&rft.issn=0022-4308&rft.eissn=1098-2736&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/tea.20384&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E925740760%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=925740760&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ899786&rfr_iscdi=true |