Steve -- Well said. Like many others in this profession, I am a first=20 generation college graduate. I am pleased that my two sons are a second=20 generation. I remember how disappointed I initially was when they did not =
aspire to go into ecology for a program of study. But am now very pleased = that they have taken their understanding of ecology that they apparently=20 learned from me and their excellent high school and university teachers=20 into their professions. It is good to have "ecologists" in financial=20 planning and interior architecture. I hope we continue to have more=20 people thinking about ecology in other professions. mas tarde, EJF=20 Stephen Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>=20 Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"=20 <[email protected]> 11/18/2007 07:36 PM Please respond to Stephen Crowley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To [email protected] cc Subject Re: Throwing away the textbooks As a high school teacher who sees an enormous=20 variation in student body from year to year, some=20 of whom go off to top colleges and succeed, many=20 of whom are first generation college hopefuls,=20 and a large number of whom are even refugees here=20 with at best erratic educational histories, I=20 find the preoccupation with "should's" here a bit=20 quaint. This is the 21st Century. My group may=20 be an extreme example, but students are showing=20 up these days with vastly different experiences=20 than those we might have expected, even a decade=20 ago. Whatever No Child Left Behind=20 straightjackets or standardized testing they=20 squeeze our kids through, there is no turning=20 back. More and more students are seeking to=20 include higher education in their lives, that's=20 good. More and more students are seeking out=20 courses that have to do with how our planet=20 works, that's good, too. Whether it's Ecology,=20 Environmental Science, whatever the course, when=20 people ask me what I teach, I always have to=20 remind them that, most importantly, I teach=20 people. Whether it's my catch-all high school, a=20 premium private school, or college, we all share=20 an opportunity here, which is to shape the=20 future. I think we have an obligation to meet=20 our students where they are, and only then bring them as far as we can. Steve Crowley At 05:39 AM 11/18/2007, James J. Roper wrote: >I teach ecology to grad students here in Brazil, and the problems are >similar. However, the simple truth of the matter is that Andy is=20 apparently >teaching "ecology" to students who do not have the appropriate >pre-requisites.... Sure, the university may not force formal=20 pre-requisites >on the students, but to study ecology, the student should already have >studied introductory biology (and so SHOULD know the difference between a >lizard and a salamander) and preferably other, more advanced, courses in=20 the >biological sciences. Also, a fundamental premise of ecology is evolution = by >natural selection - the students should understand that first. > >So, if the students do not have that background, then I think you are >wasting your time teaching "ecology" and what you should be teaching is >"environmental studies." That could easily be geared to unprepared >undergrads, and could fill in some of those voids that you mentioned you >students have. > >Cheers, > >Jim > >On 11/17/07, Andrew Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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=20 have > > looked at that are aimed at teaching an overview of Ecology=20 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=20 than > > 50% of > > this book. > > > > ** The books are grossly overpriced. Some students are unable to=20 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=20 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=20 even > > more > > anecdotal evidence suggest that numerical skills, basic=20 literacy, > > the > > ability to organize information into coherent arguments, and > > engagement > > with the natural world are all worse than they were (even) a=20 decade > > ago. > > And yet textbooks speak to students as though they know how to=20 read > > a > > graph, as though they are sophisticated reasoners, and perhaps=20 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=20 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=20 environmental > > discourse. For example, discussions of energy transfer and=20 primary > > productivity cannot really be taught without reference to the=20 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=20 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=20 teach > > in > > basic Ecology courses. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Andy Park (Biology Department, University of Winnipeg) > > > > > >-- >James J. Roper, Ph.D. > >Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais >de Vertebrados Terrestres > >Caixa Postal 19034 >81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil > >E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Telefone: 55 41 33857249 >Mobile: 55 41 99870543 > >http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR > >http://jjroper.googlespages.com Personal Pages
