 |
|
Over
200,000 years ago, a woman gave birth to the ancestors of every
member of the human race... Or did she?
In 1987
the proposed discovery of our most recent common ancestor jolted the
world of evolutionary biology. The debate continues... |
 |
Mapping the Issue: Applying a teaching and learning framework
to promote reasoned student inquiry
Issues
such as Eve provide an opportunity to help secondary science students
understand how science works in a meaningful context. Eve is socio-scientific.
At her core lies new sciencenot yet completely accepteddealing
with heredity and biological evolution and blending imperceptibly with
social perspectives such as population growth. She demonstrates the impact
of technology on our search for solutions, but more so the nature of science,
as she begs solutions that require application of scientific criteria
to critically assess claims, make decisions, and construct solid lines
of argumentation related to the issue. The MAP Teaching/Learning
Framework (Figure 1) provides a structure for this type of exploration
in accordance with National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996),
and Eve serves to demonstrate how the framework, a sequential approach
consisting of three phasesmotivate, assess, and proposecan
apply to that issue and many others like it.

The Motivate Phase: Why should students know about Eve?
The
motivate phase of the MAP Framework establishes the relevance of
the issue, instills in students a "need-to-know," and creates
a reasonable structure to guide their upcoming investigations. With any
socio-scientific issue, we (and students) engage and seek to learn when
presented with compelling need.
In 1987 Allan
Wilson, Rebecca Cann, and Mark Stoneking changed our views on human origins
and the evolution of populations. Sans fossils, they analyzed loops of
genetic code called mitochondria (mtDNA) from 147 people on various continents,
and traced the evolution of the human species back 200,000 years to what
they surmised was the most recent common matrilineal (as mtDNA is acquired
maternally) ancestor, an African womanMitochondrial Eve.
The find seemed to remove a stumbling block in our attempts to make sense
of our ancestral lineage in the larger scheme of human evolution.
For evolutionary
biologists, there is clear enough need to explore the value and accuracy
of the mitochondrial "clock" for tracking lineage through millennia
and charting early migrations and population phenomena. With our students,
however, we must be more explicit. For instance, few students (or adults)
realize that mtDNA studies are now helping us to examine evolutionary
histories of disease-carrying parasites, effects of population sizes on
susceptibility and resistance, how to coordinate conservation efforts,
and even factors that may have contributed to visual distinctions among
races. Still fewer realize that decisions we make in these undertakings
are based on assumptions that rely on the accuracy of theoriesin
this case the single-point origin or out-of-Africa theory. When the theory
is inaccurate our assumptions are wrong and solutions based on the assumptions
falter. To help students acquire contextual background and see a need
to learn about the underlying science, provide an overview and one or
more prompts that elicit discussion. Modeling the theory (Figure 2) and
diagramming the out-of-Africa migration routes with divergence times and
locations works well to launch students' investigation of Eve. It is especially
effective when capped by discussion of distinctions between it and the
multi-regional origin hypothesisthe notion that our species slowly
developed in many regions and that present population differences resulted
from breeding and inheritance from hominid species occupying those regions.

As
students develop a need-to-know that sustains their drive to investigate,
they also generate questions that serve to structure their investigations.
The process requires care for follow-up investigations to be successful,
as students must construct the questions, and they must be designed so
that they establish reasonable goals for investigations in the next phase.
We can facilitate that by helping students to structure the wording of
their questions. The samples in Figure 3 are effective examples.
The Assess Phase: Of Motherhood, Mitochondria, and Migration
In
the assess phase of the MAP Framework students explore claims and
counterclaims that inform their questions while teachers guide their effort
to determine the adherence of claims to accepted scientific norms such
as precision, consistency, and opennessconstitutive values in science.
Eve's scenario
involves opposing claims that students can address with as much structure
as teachers wish. A good strategy is to provide a starting point with
original findings and a small set of claims and counters that highlight
uncertainties. Note that socio-scientific issues are complex, and Eve
and her relationship to human migration and diversity is no exception.
While there is inherent complexity in discerning levels of scientific
support for claims and how variables balance when proposing lines of argumentation,
there is not a need to fully assess every nuance. Overwhelming your students
will only compromise the true goal.
The
Search for Eve
Everyone has
inherited mtDNA, but code from a single person mutates over generations.
These mutations occur in different locations so that eventually, by looking
at differences in mtDNA, scientists can reconstruct the points at which
ancestral lines branched. Enter dating. If we know how much a person's mtDNA
has changed from that of an ancestor, and if we assume mutations occurred
at a steady rate (as did Wilson, Cann, and Stoneking), then we only need
to know the rate to determine when the ancestor lived. For example, if three
mutations separate a person's mtDNA from an ancestor, and mutations occurred
every 1000 years, we can infer that the ancestor lived 3000 years ago. That
inference requires known quantities, so Wilson and company used Australian
aborigines whose island arrival was calculated at 30,000 years and whose
divergence they could measure in order to obtain a reliable rate. Given
a rate, they determined that Eve lived around 200,000 years ago, and was
part of a small population that would eventually cover every region in the
world, replacing the hominid species inhabiting these regions. No consorting
with the natives. Therein lies the rub.
No More Mrs. Nice Girl
Was there
room for debate? Most certainly, and paleoanthropologiststhen and
nowlet it be known. It is understandable. Imagine having spent your
entire career collecting, cataloguing, painstakingly studying and correlating
fossil remains to study the worldwide development of hominid species,
arriving at estimates of human origins ranging from one to 15 million
yearsand then along comes Eve! Early on, Milford Wolpoff, an anthropologist
at the University of Michigan, even referred to Allan Wilson as "public
enemy number one" (Shreeve, 1990). Those are strong words, when the
debate is supposedly only about science. Most disheartening has been the
lingering claim that these migrating peoplesand therefore Eve by
associationwere just not pleasant folks. To have replaced indigenous
species so rapidly as they spread, they would have to have been violent,
perhaps even genocidal. Geneticists dispute the assumption that replacement
means that these recent migrants are, as the nickname that has stuck,
"Killer Africans."
A Mitochondrial Clock-Stopper?
So Eve's young?
Many anthropologists counter that the concept of "natural selection,"
which would eliminate some mutations while favoring others, stops the
mtDNA clock. Disadvantageous mutations are lost due to environmental pressures,
reducing the genetic variation we see among humans. Random lossthe
cessation of the clock every time a male is born instead of a femalewould
have the same effect. Therefore, adding two and two, or rather thousands,
makes poor Eve much older, as if being genocidal isn't bad enough. Meanwhile,
geneticists explain that the mutations used for dating only occur at places
"neutral" for selectionnone of the sequences where they
are found code for proteins and so do not affect how individuals being
studied adapt to their environment. But over time, times do vary, almost
every time... estimates now vary from narrow bands (120,000 to 150,000
years) to wide (50,000 to 500,000 years). Despite continuing support,
the variance in the clock calculations nag the model's proponents, recently
with an added spin that threatens validity as well as further impugning
the mechanism's accuracy. What if dads counted? What if mtDNA was not
only inherited maternally? See Counterclaim Exhibits A and B for two brief
classroom-ready claims that students can discuss and follow for further
leads.


Expanding the Search
To further assess opposing claims, students need sources and assistance.
To meet varying needs, the author prepares sources with varying degrees
of structure. These include teacher summaries (e.g., Exhibits A and B
above), news reports, full study texts, and lists of sources students
can track online or through Interlibrary Loan. Exhibits A and B are high
structure, something not feasible except at the early stages. News articles,
especially from university archives, are a great next step. For instance,
to help students assess comparisons of early hominids and humans from
Eve's time, try introducing Krings' (1997) findings of genetic differences
between one Neanderthal and humans that "laid to rest" the multi-regional
hypothesis, then follow with news briefs (Figure 5) showing that the battle
goes on. Though not original, news reports are readable and helpful in
deciding which studies warrant a full appraisal. They also provide background
on claimants themselvesbias that may or may not be prompting claims
(recall Wolpoff), why claimants may seek to only reveal certain data,
and so forth.

The
Propose Phase: Mapping Arguments and Further Investigation
The
propose phase of MAP provides students a chance to construct arguments
based on assessment of claims, engage in critical peer review and debate
in writing, oral presentation, and role play scenarios (e.g., hearing
enactments, town meetings, etc.).
With Eve,
students first construct supports for the out-of-Africa or multi-regional
hypothesis, or a compromise position. Then in pairs they present their
main points to their partner and refine arguments based on feedback. Each
student or pair then constructs a line of argumentation in written form.
Oral presentations provide a nice culmination. Students' work is assessed
for three principal components: clarity of concept understanding, incremental
nature of scientific argumentation, and the structure (lexical cohesion)
of the written or verbal argument. The last two are highly transferable
but difficult to teach, largely because of vagueness. Helping students
understand what it looks like when they see it is a major step forward.
When
effective, scientists' argumentation carefully progresses from factual
data to theoretical claims. Evidence stacks one layer on another, each
thought or support tied in language and concept to previous ideas, each
increasingly inferential. The terms and phrases that describe concepts
are used consistently at all levels, and the intent... is never to mystify,
but demystify. Befuddling readers may stymie rebuttal, but will not persuade
them of the value of a claim. Students can look for these characteristics
in claims and articles they assess in the second phase, and become fully
competent in their own abilities to construct solid arguments as they
work regularly with new issues in a supportive environment. A few practices
that can positively contribute to students' abilities to construct quality
scientific lines of argument are outlined in Figure 7. The understandings
that result also help to refocus investigations as time permits.
Mapping Student Success
Teaching
science with issues, whether Eve or another, confers natural advantages.
It's nice to address the inevitable student question "Why do we need
to learn this?" before it is asked. Equally effective is the explicit
focus on the nature of science and the ease with which an issue weaves
scientific and societal components into a meaningful whole. Using a framework
such as MAP ensures the advantages are not lost, and the students get
the benefit from the lessons.
REFERENCES
Cann, R.,
Stoneking, M., and Wilson, A. (1987). Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution.
Nature, 325, 31-36.
Eyre-Walker,
A., Smith, N. H., and Smith, J. M. (1999). How clonal are human mitochondria?
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 266, 477-483.
Krings, M.,
Stone, A., Schmitz, R. W., Krainitzki, H., Stoneking, M., and P‹‹bo, S.
(1997). Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell,
90, 19-30.
National
Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Schwartz,
M., and Vissing, J. (2002). Paternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA.
New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 576-580.
Shreeve,
J. (1990). Argument over a woman. Discovery, 11(8), 52-59.
If this is your
first time to visit LearningLeads, or if it has been awhile,
be sure to take a look at the LearningLeads
homepage while you are here.
If you teach
or have colleagues who work with preschoolers,
go to the PreKorner
homepage to browse similar resources.
|