scholarly journals Tree Thinking

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Mattern
Keyword(s):  
Tree Thinking

scholarly journals Fostering 21st-Century Evolutionary Reasoning: Teaching Tree Thinking to Introductory Biology Students

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. ar66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura R. Novick ◽  
Kefyn M. Catley
Keyword(s):  
21St Century ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Medium Size ◽  
Introductory Biology ◽  
Biology Students ◽  
Tree Thinking ◽  
Experimental Instruction ◽  
Vital Component ◽  
New Research ◽  
Business As Usual

The ability to interpret and reason from Tree of Life (ToL) diagrams has become a vital component of science literacy in the 21st century. This article reports on the effectiveness of a research-based curriculum, including an instructional booklet, laboratory, and lectures, to teach the fundamentals of such tree thinking in an introductory biology class for science majors. We present the results of a study involving 117 undergraduates who received either our new research-based tree-thinking curriculum or business-as-usual instruction. We found greater gains in tree-thinking abilities for the experimental instruction group than for the business-as-usual group, as measured by performance on our novel assessment instrument. This was a medium size effect. These gains were observed on an unannounced test that was administered ∼5–6 weeks after the primary instruction in tree thinking. The nature of students’ postinstruction difficulties with tree thinking suggests that the critical underlying concept for acquiring expert-level competence in this area is understanding that any specific phylogenetic tree is a subset of the complete, unimaginably large ToL.

Tree thinking and species delimitation: Guidelines for taxonomy and phylogenetic terminology

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank E. Zachos
Keyword(s):  
Species Delimitation ◽  
Tree Thinking

scholarly journals The Uses and Abuses of Tree Thinking in Cultural Evolution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cara Evans ◽  
Simon J. Greenhill ◽  
Joseph Watts ◽  
Johann-Mattis List ◽  
Carlos A. Botero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Cultural Evolution ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Tree Thinking ◽  
Phylogenetic Methods ◽  
Cultural Research ◽  
Cross Cultural Research ◽  
Cultural Traits ◽  
Lines Of Evidence ◽  
Over Time

Modern phylogenetic methods are increasingly being used to address questions about macro-level patterns in cultural evolution. These methods can illuminate the unobservable histories of cultural traits and identify the evolutionary drivers of trait-change over time, but their application is not without pitfalls. Here we outline the current scope of research in cultural tree thinking, highlighting a toolkit of best practices to navigate and avoid the pitfalls and ‘abuses’ associated with their application. We emphasise two principles that support the appropriate application of phylogenetic methodologies in cross-cultural research: researchers should (1) draw on multiple lines of evidence when deciding if and which types of phylogenetic methods and models are suitable for their cross-cultural data, and (2) carefully consider how different cultural traits might have different evolutionary histories across space and time. When used appropriately phylogenetic methods can provide powerful insights into the processes of evolutionary change that have shaped the broad patterns of human history.

scholarly journals Críticas ao "Tree Thinking": elucidando o significado das relações filogenéticas

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 115
Author(s):  
Rafael Gomes De Souza
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Phylogenetic Relationships ◽  
Causal Explanations ◽  
Tree Thinking ◽  
Philosophical Basis ◽  
Systematic Biology

<p>O "Tree Thinking" é tido como a metodologia dominante na Biologia Sistemática atual. Todavia, críticas aos procedimentos executados pela mesma são diversas. Neste trabalho serão apresentadas e defendidas aquelas feitas por Fitzhugh no que tange a sua base filosófica e as consequências de tais modificações. Assim, o presente trabalho tem como objetivo demonstrar que o "Tree Thinking" é incompleto, por não reconhecer que as relações filogenéticas são do tipo causal, i.e., são hipóteses explanatórias, sumarizadas de forma prévia em um esquete explanatório (cladograma). Além disso, para embasar tal argumentação, será apresentada uma discussão sobre a definição e os objetivos da Biologia Sistemática e do "Tree Thinking". Como resultado, será possível observar uma confusão entre classificar e sistematizar o conhecimento por aqueles que seguem o "Tree Thinking". Ademais, o "Tree Thinking" falha na aquisição de explicações causais quanto à origem e fixação das características estudadas. Desta forma, o "Tree Thinking" pode ser considerado como uma prática incompleta dentro da Biologia Sistemática e, portanto, recomenda-se a aplicação das propostas de Fitzhugh.</p><p><strong>Palavras chave</strong>: Biologia Sistemática, Cladística, Fitzhugh, Hennig, Sistemática Filogenética, Zimmerman.</p><p><strong>"Tree Thinking" Criticism: elucidating the meaning of phylogenetic relationships</strong></p><p><strong>Abstract</strong>: The "Tree Thinking" is regarded as the dominant methodology in current Systematic Biology. However, criticisms of the procedures carried out by it are diverse. Here the criticisms made by Fitzhugh regarding its philosophical basis and the consequences of such modifications are presented and defended. Thus, the present work aims to demonstrate that "Tree Thinking", as it has been used, is incomplete because it does not recognize that phylogenetic relationships are of the causal type previously summarized in an explanatory sketch (cladogram). In addition, to support such an argument, a discussion on the definition and objectives of Systematic Biology and "Tree Thinking" is provided. As a result, it is possible to observe confusion between classifying and systematizing the knowledge by those who follow "Tree Thinking". In addition, "Tree Thinking" fails to provide causal explanations regarding the origin and fixation of the characteristics studied. In this way, "Tree Thinking" can be considered an incomplete practice within Systematic Biology and, therefore, the application of the proposals of Fitzhugh are recommended.</p><p><strong>Key words</strong>: Systematic Biology, Cladistics, Fitzhugh, Hennig, Systematic Phylogenetics, Zimmerman.</p>

scholarly journals Teaching Tree Thinking to College Students: It’s Not as Easy as You Think

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 595-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenda C. Phillips ◽  
Laura R. Novick ◽  
Kefyn M. Catley ◽  
Daniel J. Funk
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Tree Thinking

Tree thinking: an introduction to phylogenetic biology

2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (09) ◽  
pp. 50-4979-50-4979
Keyword(s):  
Tree Thinking

scholarly journals Assessment of Student Learning Associated with Tree Thinking in an Undergraduate Introductory Organismal Biology Course

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 542-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Smith ◽  
Kendra Spence Cheruvelil ◽  
Stacie Auvenshine
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Strategy ◽  
Phylogenetic Trees ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Objective Criterion ◽  
Tree Thinking ◽  
Organismal Biology ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Alternative Hypotheses ◽  
Assessment Of Student Learning ◽  
Using Data

Phylogenetic trees provide visual representations of ancestor–descendant relationships, a core concept of evolutionary theory. We introduced “tree thinking” into our introductory organismal biology course (freshman/sophomore majors) to help teach organismal diversity within an evolutionary framework. Our instructional strategy consisted of designing and implementing a set of experiences to help students learn to read, interpret, and manipulate phylogenetic trees, with a particular emphasis on using data to evaluate alternative phylogenetic hypotheses (trees). To assess the outcomes of these learning experiences, we designed and implemented a Phylogeny Assessment Tool (PhAT), an open-ended response instrument that asked students to: 1) map characters on phylogenetic trees; 2) apply an objective criterion to decide which of two trees (alternative hypotheses) is “better”; and 3) demonstrate understanding of phylogenetic trees as depictions of ancestor–descendant relationships. A pre–post test design was used with the PhAT to collect data from students in two consecutive Fall semesters. Students in both semesters made significant gains in their abilities to map characters onto phylogenetic trees and to choose between two alternative hypotheses of relationship (trees) by applying the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor). However, learning gains were much lower in the area of student interpretation of phylogenetic trees as representations of ancestor–descendant relationships.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document