↓ Skip to main content

Tree thinking cannot taken for granted: challenges for teaching phylogenetics

Overview of attention for article published in Theory in Biosciences, February 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 193)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tree thinking cannot taken for granted: challenges for teaching phylogenetics
Published in
Theory in Biosciences, February 2008
DOI 10.1007/s12064-008-0022-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanno Sandvik

Abstract

Tree thinking is an integral part of modern evolutionary biology, and a necessary precondition for phylogenetics and comparative analyses. Tree thinking has during the 20th century largely replaced group thinking, developmental thinking and anthropocentrism in biology. Unfortunately, however, this does not imply that tree thinking can be taken for granted. The findings reported here indicate that tree thinking is very much an acquired ability which needs extensive training. I tested a sample of undergraduate and graduate students of biology by means of questionnaires. Not a single student was able to correctly interpret a simple tree drawing. Several other findings demonstrate that tree thinking is virtually absent in students unless they are explicitly taught how to read evolutionary trees. Possible causes and implications of this mental bias are discussed. It seems that biological textbooks can be an important source of confusion for students. While group and developmental thinking have disappeared from most textual representations of evolution, they have survived in the evolutionary tree drawings of many textbooks. It is quite common for students to encounter anthropocentric trees and even trees containing stem groups and paraphyla. While these biases originate from the unconscious philosophical assumptions made by authors, the findings suggest that presenting unbiased evolutionary trees in biological publications is not merely a philosophical virtue but has also clear practical implications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 6 5%
United States 3 3%
Colombia 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
Sweden 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 97 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 22%
Student > Master 13 11%
Professor 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 3 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 72 62%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 6 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,155,273
of 22,673,450 outputs
Outputs from Theory in Biosciences
#24
of 193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,820
of 156,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theory in Biosciences
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,673,450 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 156,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them