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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Teaching Tree-Thinking to Undergraduate Biology Students
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Evolution: Education and Outreach, July 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12052-010-0254-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard P. Meisel |
| Abstract |
Evolution is the unifying principle of all biology, and understanding how evolutionary relationships are represented is critical for a complete understanding of evolution. Phylogenetic trees are the most conventional tool for displaying evolutionary relationships, and "tree-thinking" has been coined as a term to describe the ability to conceptualize evolutionary relationships. Students often lack tree-thinking skills, and developing those skills should be a priority of biology curricula. Many common student misconceptions have been described, and a successful instructor needs a suite of tools for correcting those misconceptions. I review the literature on teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate students and suggest how this material can be presented within an inquiry-based framework. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 5% |
| Brazil | 3 | 1% |
| Malaysia | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 180 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 42 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 35 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 20 | 10% |
| Other | 39 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 119 | 57% |
| Social Sciences | 22 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 7% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 24 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 23 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,013,001
of 24,397,600 outputs
Outputs from Evolution: Education and Outreach
#50
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,892
of 97,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evolution: Education and Outreach
#4
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 97,751 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.