I am a graduate student who years ago took my basic ecology at Hampshire college, a non-traditional place to put it mildly. We read papers, had no textbook, used handouts etc...and I have to say I felt rather hamstrung by this approach. I now happen to be a phd student at the University of Vermont, where my advisor has an ecology textbook that I have to say is the best I've seen, in my humble opinion. Its also not expensive at $39 USD. Its highly quantitative, has examples and its style is one of brevity and conciseness while not sacrificing informativeness. At UVM its used to teach the intro ecology class, and then is used in more depth in an advanced ecology class. Everywhere I've gone in the US (which is only a few places admittedly) the structure for ecology would be a freshman intro class that covers it, a mid level class with more detail usually mixed with evolution, and finally for those who want to study ecology further, there is an advanced course.
In terms of framing ecology in terms of our environmental crisis, I tend to think basic ecology should stay away from that. After all, ecology is not environmental activism, and I don't think should be tied towards a particular activist agenda, but that we should also not teach that science exists in a box. Instead focusing on the understanding of processes and interactions, and if that evidence suggests a course of action to better society, then we should take that action. But to begin confounding activism and science is dangerous, you don't want to switch the causality such that activism drives science, not the other way around. Either way, I think a textbook is useful as long as its a good one, and I think Nick's book is a good one. http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Ecology-Nicholas-J-Gotelli/dp/0878932739/ ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195339717&sr=8-2 Cheers, Ted On Nov 17, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Andrew Park wrote: > Hi Ecologgers, > > Responses are invited to the following thoughts, especially from > experienced teachers: > > I teach a 2nd year course in basic Ecology at an undergraduate > university. After four years of teaching this course, I am being > drawn to the following conclusions: > > [1] ? The textbook is awful. Not only that, but all the textbooks > I have > looked at that are aimed at teaching an overview of Ecology > seem to be > chronically faulted: > * There is simply too much stuff in them. My course is one semester > long, but > even if it were a full year course, I could probably cover less > than 50% of > this book. > > ** The books are grossly overpriced. Some students are unable to > afford them, > and since the publisher is constantly coming out with slightly > altered ?new? > editions, the resale price is low. > > *** The material they cover and their overall emphasis, appears to > be poorly > selected and framed given the tenor of current public > discourse on ecology > and environment. > > **** Finally, I believe that I can do this stuff better myself. > Although there > are commonalities among all universities, the sociocultural > backgrounds of > students and the bioregional contexts in which we work differ > greatly. > How can a mass-produced textbook ever hope to capture that? > > [2] ? Students today are different. Numerous research studies and > even more > anecdotal evidence suggest that numerical skills, basic > literacy, the > ability to organize information into coherent arguments, and > engagement > with the natural world are all worse than they were (even) a > decade ago. > And yet textbooks speak to students as though they know how > to read a > graph, as though they are sophisticated reasoners, and > perhaps most > importantly, as though they already understand the > difference between > salamanders and lizards, spiders and insects. NEWSFLASH ? > THEY DON?T. > > [3] Because of [1] and [2], I conclude that I need to take a > radically > different approach to teaching this basic course: > > * The course needs to be longer, probably split into ?Basic? and ? > Advanced? > Semesters > > ** A module on the basic variety of life needs to be built into the > course. > > *** The course has to contain materials relevant to modern > environmental > discourse. For example, discussions of energy transfer and > primary > productivity cannot really be taught without reference to the > human > appropriation of primary productivity. > > **** At the same time, the traditional technical basis for > teaching ecology > cannot be abandoned. the question is, how to make it as > engaging as some > of the more sexy, issue-based stuff. > > ***** Finally I believe that I may throw away the textbook, along > with most of > the powerpoints, the WEB-CT site and a lot of the other > technological > paraphernalia that often seems to distract as much as it > informs. > > I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOME RESPONSE TO THESE THOUGHTS FROM > TEACHERS. IN > PARTICULAR: > > * Have any of you decided to chuck the required text and simply use > handouts > and readings? > > ** Have you changed the ways that you teach, either to reflect our > current > environmental crisis, or to reflect the preparedness of students. > > *** What, in your opinion, are the ESSENTIAL things that we have > to teach in > basic Ecology courses. > > Sincerely, > > Andy Park (Biology Department, University of Winnipeg)
