Traits of mammals. Nice to know if you’re focused on the evolutionary ladder or Linnean taxonomy, but meh.
The product of the baker’s expertise, then, to make the analogy hold, is the written recipe.
Because it’s a deeper level of understanding. In any field.
Let’s turn this around. Assuming one divides biology into basic, intermediate, and advanced areas of study, what justifies putting evolution in the basic area? What sort of things do you consider intermediate?
… carried out.
So one sees them add the various ingredients.
Early morning - writing not yet clear.
Good lord–you’re saying that knowing the traits of mammals is not a part of a basic understanding of biology? This just keeps getting weirder.
…carried out. An essential aspect of the analogy.
Easily answered. If I consider evolution in the basic area, the sort of thing I put in the intermediate area is evolution. What do I put in the advanced area? If you guessed evolution, you’d be right.
Other aspects of biology that fall in all three areas:
-The traits of all living organisms.
-The differences between different species.
-The behaviors of living organisms.
There are some things that fall only in one category: I wouldn’t study DNA sequencing in kindergarten, for example. I can’t think of anything I’d study in kindergarten that I wouldn’t study at a postdoctoral level, in a more in-depth fashion.
But an intermediate understanding of bioogy will build on a basic understanding of biology, not cover entirely new ground, for the most part.
Daniel
It can be, it’s just not especially… helpful.
Yes, I caught that myself. And that’s not the cake, that’s the observation of the actual baking. The cake would be analogous to a student’s mind, subsequent to the course.
So you agree with the “deepening” approach at least. I notice you didn’t really justify lumping evolution in with basic.
With regard to your second paragraph - that’s entirely compatible with what I’m suggesting. Evolution is building on the basic understanding of reproduction / heredity.
You mean that in the one paragraph dealing with the deepening approach, I didn’t re-justify the point that I’ve justified with concrete examples, references to several organizations of scientists and professional educators, and logical structures? Too bad: the thread must be read as a whole, and the lack of justification of the point in every single sentence is immaterial.
As for the cake analogy, you seem determined to miss the central point, which is that your observation of professional educators does not in some way qualify you to be a professional educator. You can try to twist the analogy into absurdity, but that point remains: you’re basically talking out your ass on this issue, wholly unsupported by anyone who’s actually involved in imparting a basic understanding of biology. The best support you can come up with for your position is your own dimly-remembered biology education–which is really no suport at all.
Daniel
Well, I explicitly requested such justification, which doesn’t obligate you to provide it, but it was an unaddressed point nonetheless. And to say everything you’ve presented thus far has been unconvincing - well, that’d be understatement. I merely want to try and cut back to the core of the matter, since this thread HAS become so long and unwieldy.
It may not qualify me to become a professional educator, but it does give me a large body of evidence form which to draw conclusions about their methods and the effectiveness of those methods. Remember, uninvolved observation is the foundation of the scientific method. And it’s not just my ‘dimly remembered’ biology education - it’s my scientific/tehcnical education as a whole.
What justifies putting evolution in the basic area? It answers the question, “Why?” That is a question that students will ask from the very earliest stages of understanding biology, and failing to answer that question until the intermediate stage is stupid.
I know you’ve not been convinced by the view that I share with the National Academy of Science, the College Board, the North Carolina Standard Course of Study, Jean Craighead George, et al. That’s more to do with you than with me.
Daniel
And I’ve demonstrated with concrete examples that ‘whys’ aren’t basic topics, generally speaking. Especially the ones that are several layers removed from the area of focus.
Even if I did accept them, as far as I can tell, they just advocate the teaching of evolution, as do I, and refrain from classifying it as basic, intermediate, or advanced. Perhaps I missed something.
Yes, you missed something: they teach it at very young ages. This whole “basic” thing is a classification scheme of your own invention; the closest that reality comes to it is the teaching of science in elementary, middle, and high school, and then in college.
The folks I listed mostly advocate teaching evolution at the elementary grade level, at a very simple level. The college board, the only exception, doesn’t touch on this issue at all.
And there’s a difference between claiming something and demonstrating it. Refusing to answer “why” questions when students ask them is, from a pedagogic perspective, idiotic.
Daniel