Tree thinking involves using cladograms, hierarchical diagrams depicting the evolutionary history of a set of taxa, to reason about evolutionary relationships and support inferences. Tree thinking is indispensable in modern science. College students’ tree-thinking skills were investigated using tree (much more common in professional biology) and ladder (somewhat more common in textbooks) cladogram formats. Students’ responses to questions assessing five tree-thinking skills provided evidence for several perceptual and conceptual factors that impact reasoning (e.g., the Gestalt principles of good continuation and spatial proximity, prior knowledge). Instructional implications of the results include using the tree format for initial instruction and clarifying that most recent common ancestry determines evolutionary relatedness. Broader implications for designing scientific diagrams and promoting diagrammatic literacy are considered.
BaumD. A.SmithS. D.DonovanS. S. (2005). The tree thinking challenge. Science, 310, 979–980.
4.
CatleyK. M. (1994). Descriptions of new Hypochilus species from New Mexico and California with a cladistic analysis of the Hypochilidae (Araneae). American Museum Novitates, 3088, 1–27. Retrieved from http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/4985
5.
CatleyK. M. (2006). Darwin’s missing link: A new paradigm for evolution education. Science Education, 90, 767–783.
6.
CatleyK. M.LehrerR.ReiserB. (2005). Tracing a prospective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution (Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement). Retrieved from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Evolution.pdf
7.
CatleyK. M.NovickL. R. (2008). Seeing the wood for the trees: An analysis of evolutionary diagrams in biology textbooks. BioScience, 58, 976–987.
8.
CatleyK. M.NovickL. R. (2009). Digging deep: Exploring college students’ knowledge of macroevolutionary time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 311–332.
9.
CatleyK. M.NovickL. R. (2012). Evidence for a confirmation bias in students’ reasoning about relationships depicted in cladogram. Manuscript in preparation.
10.
CatleyK. M.PhillipsB. C.NovickL. R. (2012). Snakes and eels and dogs! Oh, my! Evaluating high school students’ tree-thinking skills: An entry point to understanding evolution. Manuscript submitted for publication.
11.
ChinnC. A.BrewerW. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
CorterJ. E.NickersonJ. V.TverskyB.ZahnerD.RhoY. J. (2008). Using diagrams to design information systems. In LoveB. C.McRaeK.SloutskyV. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2259–2264). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
14.
CromleyJ. G.PerezA. C.FitzhughS.TanakaJ.NewcombeN.WillsT. W. (2010, May). Teaching effective use of diagrammatic reasoning in biology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
15.
EvansE. M.SpiegelA. N.GramW.FrazierB. N.TareM.ThompsonS.DiamondJ. (2010). A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors’ understanding of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 326–353.
FutuymaD. J. (2004). The fruit of the tree of life. In CracraftJ.DonoghueM. J. (Eds.), Assembling the tree of life (pp. 25–39). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
GoldsmithD. W. (2003). Presenting cladistic thinking to biology majors & general science students. The American Biology Teacher, 65, 679–682.
19.
GoldstoneR. L.BarsalouL. W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65, 231–262.
20.
GregoryT. R. (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 121–137.
21.
GyselinckV.CornoldiC.DuboisV.De BeniR.EhrlichM-F. (2002). Visuospatial memory and phonological loop in learning from multimedia. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 665–685.
22.
HegartyM.CarpenterP. A.JustM. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In BarrR.KamilM. L.MosenthalP.PearsonP. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 641–668). New York, NY: Longman.
23.
HegartyM.StullA. T. (in press). Visuospatial thinking. In HolyoakK. J.MorrisonR. G. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
HennigW. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
KaupB.LüdtkeJ.ZwaanR. A. (2006). Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed?Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1033–1050.
27.
KaupB.YaxleyR. H.MaddenC. J.ZwaanR. A.LüdtkeJ. (2007). Experiential simulations of negated text information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 976–990.
28.
KendeouP.van den BroekP. (2005). The effects of readers’ misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235–245.
29.
KindfieldA. C. H. (1993/1994). Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 1–36.
30.
KozmaR. B.RussellJ. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.
31.
LandyD.GoldstoneR. L. (2007). How abstract is symbolic thought?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 720–733.
32.
LarkinJ. H.SimonH. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
33.
LynchM. (1990). The externalized retina: Selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In LynchM.WoolgarS. (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice (pp. 153–186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
MaienscheinJ. (1991). From presentation to representation in E. B. Wilson’s The Cell. Biology and Philosophy, 6, 227–254.
35.
MatlinM. W. (2009). Cognition (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
36.
MeirE.PerryJ.HerronJ. C.KingsolverJ. (2007). College students’ misconceptions about evolutionary trees. The American Biology Teacher Online, 69(7), e71–e76.
37.
MorabitoN.CatleyK. M.NovickL. R. (2010). Reasoning about evolutionary history: The effects of biology background on post-secondary students’ knowledge of most recent common ancestry and homoplasy. Journal of Biological Education, 44, 166–174.
38.
MorseR.CalderoneN. W. (2000). The value of honey bees as pollinators of U.S. crops in 2000. Bee Culture, 128, 1–15.
39.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
NovickL. R. (2001). Spatial diagrams: Key instruments in the toolbox for thought. In MedinD. L. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 279–325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
41.
NovickL. R. (2004). Diagram literacy in pre-service math teachers, computer science majors, and typical undergraduates: The case of matrices, networks, and hierarchies. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 307–342.
42.
NovickL. R. (2006a). The importance of both diagrammatic conventions and domain-specific knowledge for diagram literacy in science: The hierarchy as an illustrative case. In Barker-PlummerD.CoxR.SwobodaN. (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (Diagrams 2006), LNAI 4045 (pp. 1–11). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
43.
NovickL. R. (2006b). Understanding spatial diagram structure: An analysis of hierarchies, matrices, and networks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1826–1856.
44.
NovickL. R.CatleyK. M. (2007). Understanding phylogenies in biology: The influence of a Gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 197–223.
45.
O’HaraR. J. (1988). Homage to Clio, or, toward an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Systematic Zoology, 37, 142–155.
46.
ReeceJ. B.UrryL. A.CainM. L.WassermanS. A.MinorskyP. V.JacksonR. B. (2010). Campbell biology (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Benjamin Cummings.
ThanukosA. (2009). A name by any other tree. Evolution: Education & Outreach, 2, 303–309.
49.
WinnW. (1989). The design and use of instructional graphics. In MandlH.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 125–144). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
50.
YatesT. L.Salazar-BravoJ.DragooJ.W. (2004). The importance of the tree of life to society. In CracraftJ.DonoghueM. J. (Eds.), Assembling the tree of life (pp. 7–17). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
51.
YehY-F. Y.McTigueE. M. (2009). The frequency, variation, and function of graphical representations within standardized state science tests. School Science and Mathematics, 109, 435–449.
