Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing Undergraduates to the Nature of Science Through the Co-construction of Evolutionary Trees Evidence from a University Biology Course

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Contrary to the situation at primary, middle, and secondary school levels, university science courses provide students with very few opportunities to reflect upon the nature of science (NOS). The first goal of this study was to provide evidence that the co-construction of evolutionary trees, an important component of university biology education, can be used as a platform to introduce undergraduates to some aspects of NOS, such as the importance of (1) hypothesis, (2) human creativity, and (3) cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge. The second goal was to provide evidence that this approach could be used without sacrificing student mastery of the drawing of phylogenetic trees in a scientific and reasonable way. The data was derived from 68 undergraduates’ (39 females and 29 males, 17–22 years old) written responses and audio and video recordings in a university biology course in Colombia. The findings show that the co-construction of phylogenetic trees can offer potential contributions to the introduction of undergraduates to some aspects of NOS and the promotion of their understanding of these visual representations. This study contributes to the development of a research-based university science education that can inform the design of a NOS curriculum for higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: college students’ views of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 389–425). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of science in science education: toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1041–1060). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science course on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acevedo, J. A. (2009). Explicit versus implicit approaches in nature of science teaching. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 6(3), 355–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). “How should I know what scientists do?—I am just a kid”: fourth-grade students’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 17(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alan, Ü., & Erdoğan, S. (2018). Of course scientists haven’t seen dinosaurs on the beach: Turkish kindergartners’ developing understanding of the nature of science through explicit–reflective instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0892-z.

  • Alberts, B. (2009). Redefining science education. Science, 323(5913), 437.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). Australian curriculum: Science F-10 version 3.0. Sydney: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.

  • Aragón-Méndez, M. M., Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2018). Prospective biology teachers’ understanding of the nature of science through an analysis of the historical case of Semmelweis and childbed fever. Cultural Studies of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9868-y.

  • Aragón-Méndez, M. M., García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2016). Secondary students’ learning about the nature of science through the historical case of Semmelweis and childbed fever. Revista Científica, 27, 302–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A. (2014). How to teach and learn chemistry through argumentation? Saarbrücken: Éditions Universitaires Européennes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A. (2015). Using history and philosophy of science to promote students’ argumentation. A teaching–learning sequence based on the discovery of oxygen. Science & Education, 24(9), 1201–1226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A. (2017). Using drama to promote argumentation in science education: the case of “Should’ve”. Science & Education, 26(3–4), 345–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A., & Molina, J. (2018). Evolution and creationism: views of students in a Colombian university—findings from 7 years of data using a three-question survey. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9746-3.

  • Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2018). Using formative assessment to promote argumentation in a university bilingual science course. International Journal of Science Education, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504176.

  • Archila, P. A., & Truscott de Mejía, A.-M. (2017). Bilingual university science courses: a questionnaire on professors’ practices and espoused beliefs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1334756.

  • Archila, P. A. (2018). Evaluating arguments from a play about ethics in science: a study with medical learners. Argumentation, 32(1), 53–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arino de la Rubia, L. S., Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). Cross-cultural comparisons of undergraduate student views of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1685–1709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, D. A., & Offner, S. (2008). Phylogenics & tree-thinking. The American Biology Teacher, 70(4), 222–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, D. A., Smith, S. D., & Donovan, S. S. (2005). The tree-thinking challenge. Science, 310(5750), 979–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing, W., & Thomas, G. P. (2006). An examination of the change of the junior secondary school chemistry curriculum in the PR China: in the view of scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 403–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, L. R., & Stauss, A. N. (1968). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by secondary school science teachers. Science Education, 52(4), 358–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1909). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 9(3), 241–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, R. A., Hamm, J. M., & Parker, P. C. (2015). Promoting effective teaching and learning in higher education. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: handbook of theory and research (pp. 245–274). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J., & Momsen, J. L. (2016). Student construction of phylogenetic trees in an introductory biology course. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 9(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J., Momsen, J. L., Niemi, J., & Montplaisir, L. (2014). Student interpretations of phylogenetic trees in an introductory biology course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 666–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desaulniers Miller, M. C., Montplaisir, L. M., Offerdahl, E. G., Cheng, F.-C., & Ketterling, G. L. (2010). Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience majors. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, S. L., Crowe, A. J., Wenderoth, M. P., & Freeman, S. (2013). How should we teach tree-thinking? An experimental test of two hypotheses. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 6(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearnhill, E., Gourlay, A., Malyuta, R., Simmons, R., Ferns, R. B., Grant, P., Nastouli, E., Karnets, I., Murphy, G., Medoeva, A., Kruglov, Y., Yurchenko, A., & Porter, K. (2017). A phylogenetic analysis of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 sequences in Kiev: findings among key populations. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 65, 1127–1135. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an identity. The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Carmona, A., & Acevedo-Díaz, J. A. (2017). Understanding the nature of science through a critical and reflective analysis of the controversy between Pasteur and Liebig on fermentation. Science & Education, 26(1–2), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, G. E., & Walters, K. L. (2015). Collaborative teams as a means of constructing knowledge in the life sciences: theory and practice. In E. de Silva (Ed.), Cases on research-based teaching methods in science education (pp. 221–242). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, D. W. (2003). The great clade race: presenting cladistic thinking to biology majors & general science students. The American Biology Teacher, 65(9), 679–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, T. R. (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(2), 121–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, A. K., & Barry, M. (1991). Secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of science. Research in Science Education, 21(1), 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, K. L., & Friedrichsen, P. (2013). Learning tree thinking: developing a new framework of representational competence. In D. F. Treagust & C.-Y. Tsui (Eds.), Multiple representations in biological education (pp. 185–201). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, K. L., Pires, C. J., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Exploring the complexity of tree thinking expertise in an undergraduate systematics course. Science Education, 95(5), 794–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (Ed.). (2013). The philosophy of biology: a companion for educators. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. (2017). Science teaching in university science departments. Science & Education, 26(3–4), 201–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., & Nehm, R. H. (2014). History and philosophy of science and the teaching of evolution: students’ conceptions and explanations. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 377–399). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470–496.

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong, Y., Anderson, T., & Pelaez, N. (2016). How to identify and interpret evolutionary tree diagrams. Journal of Biological Education, 50(4), 395–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, Y.-S., Manigbas, N. L., Kim, D. H., & Yi, G. (2017). Phylogenic analysis of 246 Korean rice varieties using core sets of microsatellite markers. Philippine Journal of Crop Science, 42(1), 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2006). Research on nature of science: reflections on the past, anticipations on the future. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2015). Nature of science: assessing of. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 694–694). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavrou, K., Douglas, G., & Lewis, A. (2007). The use of Transana as a video analysis tool in researching computer-based collaborative learning in inclusive classrooms in Cyprus. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(2), 163–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, K. (2016). The nature of scientific knowledge: an explanatory approach. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (2014). The language of science education: an expanded glossary of key terms and concepts in science teaching and learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2017). Exploring nature of science and argumentation in science education. In B. Akpan (Ed.), Science education: a global perspective (pp. 7–43). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (Eds.). (2017). Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: a global perspective. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V., & McRobbie, C. J. (2012). Utilising argumentation to teach nature of science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 969–986). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meir, E., Perry, J., Herron, J. C., & Kingsolver, J. (2007). College students’ misconceptions about evolutionary trees. The American Biology Teacher, 69(7), 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meisel, R. P. (2010). Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(4), 621–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, H., & Neumann, I. (2016). Nature of science and science content learning. The relation between students’ nature of science understanding and their learning about the concept of energy. Science & Education, 25(9–10), 951–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, France (MENESE). (2012). School education in France. Paris: Éduscol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of National Education (Colombia) (MEN). (2006). Estándares básicos de competencias en lenguaje, matemáticas, ciencias y ciudadanas. Bogotá: Ministerio de Educación Nacional, Colombia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education & Science (Spain) (MEC). (2007). Real Decreto 1631/2006 Enseñanzas mínimas educación secundaria obligatoria. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (MEXT). (2000). Education in Japan 2000: a graphic presentation. Tokyo: Gyosei Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S., & Southerland, S. A. (2009). Development and preliminary evaluation of the measure of understanding of macroevolution: introducing the MUM. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(2), 151–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Curriculum in England (NCE). (2014). Science programmes of study. London: Department for Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. H., & Kampourakis, K. (2014). History and philosophy of science and the teaching of macroevolution. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 401–421). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, C. E., Nickels, M. K., & Beard, J. (1998). The nature of science as a foundation for teaching science: evolution as a case study. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 315–328). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2013). Next generation science standards: for states by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: dynamics of scientific progress. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2016). Chemistry education and contributions from history and philosophy of science. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, L. R., & Catley, K. M. (2007). Understanding phylogenies in biology: the influence of a gestalt perceptual principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13(4), 197–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick, L. R., Stull, A. T., & Catley, K. M. (2012). Reading phylogenetic trees: the effects of tree orientation and text processing on comprehension. BioScience, 62(8), 757–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H., Nielsen, W., & Woodruff, E. (2014). Students’ conceptions of the nature of science: perspectives from Canadian and Korean middle school students. Science & Education, 23(5), 1169–1196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peñaloza, G., & Robles-Piñeros, J. (2016). The tree-thinking challenge: Analyzing the use of evolutionary trees with secondary education students. Revista de Educación en Biología, 19(1), 54–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettersen, S. (2005). The relevance of teaching about the “Nature of Science” to students of the health sciences. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 269–282). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafferty, N. E., & Nabity, P. D. (2017). A global test for phylogenetic signal in shifts in flowering time under climate change. Journal of Ecology, 105(3), 627–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2015). Cognitive labs. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 167–171). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandvik, H. (2008). Tree thinking cannot taken for granted: challenges for teaching phylogenetics. Theory in Biosciences, 127(1), 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schussler, E. E., & Bautista, N. U. (2012). Learning about nature of science in undergraduate biology laboratories. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 207–224). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: the influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 721–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, W.-Z., & Wang, J. (2017). Comparison on views of nature of science between math and physics students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1), 77–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, F., Hagen, J. B., & Sheehy, R. R. (2001). The comparative method, hypothesis testing & phylogenetic analysis: an introductory laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 63(7), 518–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somarelli, J. A., Ware, K. E., Kostadinov, R., Robinson, J. M., Amri, H., Abu-Asab, M., Fourie, N., Diogo, R., Swoffordg, D., & Townsend, J. P. (2017). PhyloOncology: understanding cancer through phylogenetic analysis. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1867(2), 101–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunal, D. W., Sunal, C. S., Wright, E. L., Mason, C. L., & Zollman, D. (Eds.). (2014). Research based undergraduate science teaching. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2017). Reflecting the nature of science in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education. An international course companion (pp. 23–37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieman, C. (2017). Improving how universities teach science. Lessons from the science education initiative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, L., Woelert, P., Millar, V., & O’Connor, K. (2017). Knowledge at the crossroads? Physics and history in the changing world of schools and universities. Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, A. K., White, B. T., & Skurtu, T. (2013). Teaching undergraduate students to draw phylogenetic trees: performance measures and partial successes. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 6(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Zaide Katherine Montes Ortiz and Juan Diego Pyco Gutiérrez for their assistance in transcribing the audio recordings. Also, we would like to express our deepest appreciation to the participants who agreed to contribute to this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Universidad de los Andes, Cra 1 No. 18A-12, Bogotá, 111711, Colombia

    Pablo Antonio Archila & Anne-Marie Truscott de Mejía

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, Universidad de los Andes, Cra 1 No. 18A-12, Bogotá, 111711, Colombia

    Jorge Molina

Authors
  1. Pablo Antonio Archila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne-Marie Truscott de Mejía
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pablo Antonio Archila.

Appendices

Appendix 1. The Diversity of Life Survey (adapted from Young et al. 2013, p. 5)

Part One

Assume that you are working for the natural history museum of your university. Your museum has specimens of the following 20 groups of organisms in its collection. Your task is to design a tree that will help guide visitors to the collection.

Your tree should include all the groups of organisms listed below and communicate the ways they are evolutionarily related to one another. On the next page, draw a tree diagram to show the relationships between these organisms.

You can include additional text and graphics that you think will help visitors understand how you have organized these groups of organisms. There is no right or wrong answer to this task, but it is important that you are able to argue why you organized these groups of organisms in that way.

figure a

Part Two

In your opinion, is the tree you designed valid? Explain why or why not.

Appendix 2. Survey

  1. 1.

    The list of 20 groups of organisms was in English. Was this a difficulty for you to carry out the activity? Explain why or why not.

  2. 2.

    In addition to (1) developing of hypotheses, (2) creativity, and (3) collaborative and cooperative work, what other aspects of the nature of science do you consider that could be represented in the activity?

  3. 3.

    Have you had the opportunity to reflect explicitly on the nature of science in other university courses?

    1. a.

      Yes

    2. b.

      No

  4. 4.

    In your opinion, is it important to reflect explicitly on the nature of sciences in the Biology of Organisms course? Explain why or why not.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Archila, P.A., Molina, J. & de Mejía, AM.T. Introducing Undergraduates to the Nature of Science Through the Co-construction of Evolutionary Trees Evidence from a University Biology Course. Res Sci Educ 50, 1917–1942 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9758-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9758-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation