We respond to the preceding commentary (Brower, 2016) regarding our “Inquiry & Investigation” articles (Davenport et al., 2015a, b) published recently in this journal. Our two articles describe a pair of activities, informed by biology education literature and national standards documents, whose primary goal is to help teachers assist introductory students in evaluating basic evolutionary datasets. In this short response to Brower's critique, we acknowledge that our activities, which address the complex field of systematics, contain simplifications and inaccuracies. At the same time, we hold that the activities are grounded in careful pedagogical decisions that allow students in general biology courses to readily understand major features of phylogenetic trees. We also argue that the design of the activities allows students to experience firsthand a vital component of the nature of science: prioritizing data when formulating a claim.
How to translate text using browser tools
1 May 2016
Tree-Thinking: A Response
K. D. Davenport,
Kirstin Milks,
Rebecca Van Tassell
ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE
It is not available for individual sale.
This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
It is not available for individual sale.
The American Biology Teacher
Vol. 78 • No. 5
May 2016
Vol. 78 • No. 5
May 2016
evolutionary biology.
nature of science
philosophy of biology
systematics
taxonomy