SUBJECT: Calculus/math requirements for biology majors
DATE: 7/95
At Trinity we require our majors to take calculus as a
graduation requirement. At no time in our three course introductory core
do
we ask the majors to solve problems with calculus. In fact only two courses
in our entire undergraduate biology curriculum makes the remotest use of
calculus.
I would like to ask the whole list, to what extent does your major's
curriculum require THE USE of calculus in undergraduate biology courses?
The whole issue of numeracy in undergraduate biology education needs to
be
aired? Please consider the following statement.
***************
Undergraduate biology as it is taught today is a qualitative subject at
most
institutions. Qualitative courses lend themselves to descriptive rather
than
inquiry based teaching. Quantitative biology courses are rarely taught
because most biology faculty are uncomfortable in teaching subject material
in which significant numerical demands are made. In fact the most "popular"
topic in biology "molecular genetics" probably makes the least
quantitative
demands on the students and ecology makes the most quantitative demands
on the
students.
***************
To what extent would you agree, disagree, or alter the above statement?
Thank you for considering these comments.
Blystone in Texas
**********************
ROBERT V. BLYSTONE PHONE:(210)736-7243
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY FAX:(210)736-7229
Trinity University E-Mail:RBlyston@Trinity.edu
715 Stadium Drive
San Antonio, TX, 78212
In response to R. Blystone's questions about calculus, I am anxious to
hear the responses. When I studied ecological modelling, I used calculus,
and when I taught it, I used the integration of the exponential population
model in my teaching, but I know of no other place in our entire biology
curriculum where we even mention calculus and its connection to what
students are doing. Is it really necessary for every biologist? Wouldn't
most of our students be better off taking that many credits of additional
statistics courses? And if we do require it, why don't we require
statistics courses based on calculus instead of reserving those for math
majors only?
Janice
***********************************
Janice M. Glime
Department of Biological Sciences
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI 49931-1295
jmglime@mtu.edu
906-487-2546
FAX 906-487-3167
***********************************
Perhaps, however, we should start with a definition of what we mean by
calculus. My interpretation of the term is a course that presents not only
the techniques of applying the calculations, but the derivations and under-
lying assumptions that led to the set of formulas that students memorize.
It may be a unique aspect of our biology program, but we do actually address
some of the basic issues in thermodynamics (using calculus) in our
introductory biology course. It is the feeling of many in the department
that
Biology Majors should be prepared for a molecular understanding of their
subject, regardless of their ultimate interest. We try to develop the
concept of stochastic molecular interaction so that we can discuss the
ways in which Biological systems overcome the chaos.
Calculus also introduces a more profound understanding of approximation,
of graphical analysis, and of interacting forces. -principles that we
address throughout the curriculum.
It is fair to say that this feeling is not shared by every single member
of
the department, but a majority agree that it is a valid way to approach
introductory biology for majors. Obviously, the approach to non majors is
different.
Moreover,
I think that the goal of education in the sciences is to encourage a process
of thought -analysis, model building, testing, etc. Many of the courses
that
are required in the Biology curriculum encourage just that sort of thinking.
There is a kind of rigor that emerges from studies of Calculus and, for
that
matter, organic chemistry, or phy7sics, that can form the basis of the
intellectual framework that makes science special.
I wonder if one could ask the same questions that Bob Blystone asks about
Organic Chemistry or Physics. I suspect that you might get the same
kind of answer.
Joel B. Sheffield
Biology Department
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
jbs@sgibio.chem.temple.edu or
v5415e@TEMPLEVM.bitnet
(215) 204 8854
Blystone of Texas:
You don't have to provoke me...I have felt for the last several years that
we
are building too many prerequisites to Biology. There are so many hurdles
we
risk losing valuable future biologists.
We (a California community college) require calculusp;-because it is
required for
students to transfer as juniors in Biology. We had been requiring the 2-semester
sequence sometimes called applied calculus. Now, some Biology majors at
the
Univ. of California are requiring the 3-semester engineering calculus.
Most of us probably have our required integration (for me it's a growth
rate
equation). But I don't view this as using calculus--my students and I plug
numbers into a formula. Actually, now that the computer knows the formula
it's
even easier.
I believe we need math through calculus as a graduation requirement. The
calculus could be 1-semester applied calculus for everyone except the engineers,
physicists, computer scientists, biophysicists, bioengineers, etc.
While we're on the subject, why is O-chem a prerequisite for 1st-year majors
biology? Again, I believe we are losing future professionals by keeping
them
away from biology until they have all the tools necessary to be a biologist.
The
first-year courses can stimulate a student so they want to get to the upper
division subjects. There is certainly enough material in first-year biology
to
save the kinetics of DNA synthesis and thermodynamics of metabolism for
later
courses.
Christine Case
Skyline College
case@smcccd.cc.ca.us
I find the difficulty with calculus (and physics and Org. Chem)are several
fold:
- It's often taught as just memorization. I remember very little of
my one year of calculus because most of it was done in a cram session just
before the exam so I "wouldn't forget how to use it"
- It seems like it is just a bunch of formulas and numbers. I still remember
siting in my (algabraic) physics class when the teacher did a problem using
calculus, just for those interested. "Ah, now I see what's going on."
I
probably _did_ see it in calculus also... I was just too busy remembering
all those derivation and integration rules.
- Some people really enjoy integrations... but to me it's the result that
counts. Yes, one needs to understand the limitations of an equation, but
when you sit in a stat class and the instructor spends the whole hour
deriving one or two formulas, it gets old fast (1/3 of that graduate
level class, including all the biologist (inclding me), dropped that class
the first week.
- It takes a method of studying that many students haven't developed at
that
point in their college career. Up until then the bulk of the students (judging
from the freshman labs I have taught) study using the "cram" method.
As we
are all aware, the best way to remember things is to study frequently for
shorter periods of time. This would seem to be even more important in classes
requiring numerical calculations (calulus, phsyics, etc.
- Finally, I think one of the biggest difficulties is developmental
level of the students taking it. Many students try to take the classes
during their sophomore year in school which, IMHO is the toughest year
in school. Using myself as an example: I found my freshman year pretty
straight forward. The biggest hurdle was time management, but the
information wasn't all that difficult for me. It was my sophomore
year, when I tried to take calculus, organic chem, and other sciences
classes that my grades began to suffer. I found myself doing just the
minimum to get by and eventually dropped the "chemistry org chem"
and
took finished the "baby org chem" (the former a 2 sememster course
using Morrison and Boyd" the latter a one semester overview). After
my
sophomore year, things got much better. Physics (albeit algabraic) was
a breeze when taken during my Senior year.
With all that said, I now regret dropping the Chemistry Org-chem and I wish
I could remember _a lot_ more of my calculus. In spite of my experiences,
I
still would tell students to take the more intensive courses, unfortunetly
for most, it may mean cutting back on class loads (and delaying graduation)
until they develop "studying maturity" and to allow for extra
time to grasp
somewhat foreign matterial.
From: "JEFFREY C. LEWIN" <jclewin@mtu.edu>
Hi, labbers:
I haven't thought terribly deeply about the Calculus question, so these
are
pretty much preliminary thoughts.
First, although I completed a three-semester Calculus sequence by the middle
of my sophomore year, I actually never used it in any biology course,
including graduate courses. Nonetheless, having the Calculus background
helped me understand (in a kind of visceral way, if that makes any sense)
some basic concepts in both biology courses (especially ecology) and in
my
graduate statistics courses. At my previous institution (small state 4-year
school), we recommended Calculus for students anticipating graduate school,
but actually required only math through trigonometry (and then only because
they needed it for physics). For what it's worth, students lacking Calculus
were still able to enter and succeed in a local Master's program (very few
were interested in Ph.D. programs, for a variety of reasons). So in some
sense, we could say they didn't "need" Calculus.
Having said that, though, I should also mention that I was never terribly
comfortable with that conclusion. At least for students planning to attend
grad school, I think Calculus is an important and relevant tool for reasons
that have already been discussed. But it would be a lot easier to defend
that view if more courses actually used it. I'm also very sympathetic to
the view that, if we have to choose, statistics might be a more appropriate
undergraduate requirement than Calculus.
Of course, as students enter undergraduate programs less and less prepared
for college-level work (I generally accepted the fact that most of my new
biology majors had to remediate in math), and as state legislatures seem
to
be agitating for *shorter*, rather than longer undergraduate curricula,
the
issue of "adding requirements" becomes increasingly problematic.
I wish I
had a perfect answer :)
Cheers,
Kerry Kilburn
Old Dominion University
Just to mention one tangent to this discussion of Calculus - requirements
for our graduate program. Many of our graduate students, coming from small
liberal arts colleges, had not taken many of our prerequisites (e.g.,
calculus, two semesters of organic, etc.) as undergraduates. As a result,
their graduate studies were prolonged as they made up these courses (i.e.,
our "prerequisites" had become requirements for graduation). Additionally,
some of our graduate students came from non-biological backgrounds. These
students were severely hindered by the requirements. After very long and
heated debates, we finally decided to drop all of our existing
prerequisites. Individual graduate committees will decide which courses
a
particular graduate student must complete. Some of us traditionalists are
not too happy about this but it does allow students to better tailor their
education to their own pursuits.
Kent
*******************************
Kent A. Vliet, Ph.D.
Coordinator of Laboratories
University of Florida
Biological Sciences Program
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Office: (904) 392-1565
Fax: (904) 392-3704
The question of requirements for biology majors is complex, because it
really depends in part on what our students are going to do with their
degree. Many schools (and faculty) are geared to putting students into
grad school or a professional program, but the majority of students in
most public schools will not go that route. While there are good arguments
for requiring chemistry through organic or biochemistry for biology
majors, and maybe for physics, I'm not sure the same can be said of
calculus. In fact, I would argue that statistics is more important to
students. Calculus is of use in selected areas, while statistics is (or
should be) used in the process of designing and interpreting a wide variety
of studies, both inside and outside of science.
This does not deny that calculus does have an important role in some
areas, including my own (ecology), but perhaps it could be made a pre-
requisite only for those courses for which it is really needed.
********************************************************************
Gail Schiffer gschiffe@kscmail.Kennesaw.Edu
Biology, Kennesaw State College 404-423-6167
P.O. Box 444, Marietta GA 30061 Fax: 404-423-6625
*******************************************************************
Dear Biolabbers!
A good topic we have here. I wonder if it would be too great a
generalization to say that many biologists become biologists because the
abstractions of math and chemistry are not their forte. Or perhaps I am
projectig a bit. I took a year of calculus as a freshman. Got "A"s
both
semesters. It was one of those "memorization" courses. I never
used it
again. Now I couldn't even tell you what a limit is. Took a year of Orgo
as a sophomore. Got "B"s. Never used it again. Do I think Calculus
and
Chemistry (inorganic) should be prerequisites for General Biology?
Absolutely! For several reasons.
First, we all know how big biology is. It expands from minute to minute.
Yet most biology courses begin with at least a week of chemistry. I resent
having to spend this time talking about the chemistry of water (and other
critically important topics in basic chemistry) when I know damn well that
students get all this in inorganic chemistry. It is redundant and I don't
think we can afford the redundancy given the breadth of our own field.
Second (and more importantly), general biology is a highly conceptual and
synthetic course. Consequently, it requires a mature mind. Most of the
freshmen I encounter would do themselves a world of good if they put off
general biology until their sophomore years. If they are truly dedicated
and excited about biology from their contact with it in high school, then
this delayed gratification will not turn them off. I would rather not have
to waste my time on those students whose commitment is so little that it
could be doused by the mere fact of having to wait until their sophomore
year to take biology. Such students will propbably end up falling by the
wayside once they encounter some real obstacle along the way.
I am sooooo happy that my undergraduate institution discouraged freshmen
from taking biology. I am certain that if I had taken calculus, inorganic
chemistry and biology all at the same time, I would not be here today, i.e.
I would not have a Ph.D. in biology because my overloaded schedule would
have prevented me from learning anything! Which of those three should be
postponed if there is to be postponement? Biology. Biology majors may
never use the calculus again, but there is a certain rigor to it. Better,
in my opinion, that students cut their academic teeth on calculus than on
general bology. With more maturity and a previous exposure to a somewhat
rigorous course like calculus, students are much more apt to succeed at
a
truly rigorous course like general biology. In the long run, students will
come out ahead because they won't have to re-take general biology later
on
to replace the F, D or C they probably got in it as a freshman. Here at
Texas Tech, freshmen usually constitute 48-52% of the majors' bio. class.
They earn 59-65% of the Fs. I think that general biology for biology
majors is too important a course to turn into just one more course that
freshmen have to take. Let them get over the challenges of freshman year:
being away from home for the first time, pledging sororities and/or
fraternities, etc. Let those who are incapable of passing moderately
rigorous courses like calculus and chemistry be encouraged to go in
different directions. Then let's teach them biology. We may graduate
fewer biology majors, but I bet we will graduate better ones.
I see that some of us are worried about increasing the number of biology
majors we graduate. I cannot understand this concern. It is my
understanding (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that there are not
enough jobs, graduate school positions or slots in professional schools
to
handle all of the life science majors that the nation's college and
universities are currently graduating. How many of our students with B.S.
degrees in biology become insurance salesman, etc? How many of our recent
Master's and Ph.D. students in biology are out there looking for
non-existant positions? A lot!!! I thought the "leaky pipeline"
analogy
had been shown to be a myth several years back.
Well, I'm certain to have said some things here that will get me in
trouble. I look forward to the learning process.
Yours,
Michael Dini
Texas Tech Univ.
y3mld@ttacs.ttu.edu
Dear Colleagues:
There's lots of merit to many of the points being presented supporting
calculus and organic chem; however, I'd like to play Devil's Advocate in
this discussion. Specifically: Lots of us were "delayed gratification"
types of students; we put-off taking the subject we loved (Biology) to
march in step to chemistry and math; I'm not convinced that made us better
biologists (or added jewels to our crown to make us better people). It is
sad that so many of us see so little relevancy to some of the courses we
took (for my part, I took the required two years of chemistry as an UG;
and a semester of biochem. as a grad. student. It wasn't until biochem.
that I actually really, truly, truly understood pH and could see why
metabolic reactions energetically HAD to proceed the way they did/do;
biochem. fascinated me because I had maturity as a biologist to appreciate
it).
Perhaps we're missing the boat here. Perhaps our curricula should be
designed to play to people's strengths (i.e., their love of biology) - let
them test out that love and the need for the calculus and chemistry should
follow. If we had a problem-oriented approach to teaching (my department
doesn't) than students might be more motivated to do well in chemistry and
math -- not just because they have the discipline to do so -- but because
they're actually engaged by the subject. I am concerned that we biologists
are only too happy to let the chemists and the mathematicians do the dirty
work for us (i.e., weed out students); then we don't have to deal with the
marginally prepared. A lot of students will weed themselves out of biology
when they find out that biology is not just swimming with porpoises or
saving a life on the operating table. And the reward may be that we'll
actually encourage people who aren't just like us (the ones who were willing
to put up with the traditional curriculum) to become biologists - that
make for a richer mix of folks in the profession.
So much for Devil's Advocacy. Any reactions?
Best: Debbie
From: dmlangsa@unccvm.uncc.edu (Debbie Langsam)
I must express my concern for what appears to be a watering down of physical
science and math requirements for biology majors across the country. This
is
happening here at RPI as well, and I find the trend alarming.
It appears to me that a number of cutting edge areas of biology are becoming
more, not less, dependent on p-chem, advanced calculus, o-chem, and physics.
For example, anyone interested in doing anything worthwhile with proteins
soon finds themselves getting into structural studies. Microscopy is
becoming more dependent upon image processing and image analysis.
Mathematical models are playing a major role in a number of areas of biology.
I have observed that those of our students who have some insight take more
courses in math and physical science than are required. These are the people
being accepted into the best graduate programs in the country, not the
students who get by with our watered down minimum required "hard core"
courses. From what I've seen of the comments in this discussion group, I
would guess that the same is true in most colleges and universities in the
country.
Finally, I would argue that if we are not presently using physical science
and math in our biology courses, then we should probably take a look at
real
world biology and get our outdated courses up to speed ASAP.
Regards,
George
George Edick
RPI - Dept. Biology
Troy, NY 12180
edickg@rpi.edu
I'd like to disagree with George on this issue. The question we should
address is: What should constitute a biology major and how much
math/physical science should be a part of this mix? George seems to say
that the major should be based on preparation of students for a graduate
career leading to a PhD. Even at select institutions, many Bio majors
choose NOT to go on to graduate school, and many more choose health
professions as careers. While I don't disagree with the idea that
math/physical sciences have an important place in our curricula, WE are
about Undergraduate education and should NOT think of ourselves as merely
preparation for graduate training.
--
Joseph G. Pelliccia PP-SEL-IA * "A beginning is a delicate time"
Chairman, Department of Biology * -Princess Irulan
Bates College, Lewiston, ME 04240 * DUNE
Hi,
I strongly agree with George. A background in calc, p-chem and
other math, chem, and physics courses provides bio majors with more
flexibility for the future. To rephrase what George said, bio majors with
strong physical sciences background have more opportunities, better
opportunities and the opportunities probably occur sooner. Perhaps the
bio major may "never use it," but being able to make such a statement,
it seems to me, is far better than later strongly regretting she/he
passed up an opportunity to improve her/his background in math, physics,
& etc
and lost a wonderful opportunity which may not present itself again.
rrs@bradley.bradley.edu
Robert Rhea Stephens
Biology Department
Bradley University
Peoria, IL 61625
To the List:
As you may recall I have been trying to gather opinions about calculus as
a
requirement for the biology major and also gather comments about the state
of math useage, in general, in biology.
Based on the comments received to date, two threads have emerged.
1) Biologists need math and math based courses to do well in modern research
and
2) Too much emphasis on math is a deterent to promoting interest in biology
and science in general.
Would those of you who avidly read this list agree as to my interpretation
of
the emerged two threads? Have I or we overlooked anything concerning the
quantitative skill level required for doing biology? What should be the
state
of math preparedness of a graduated biology major, regardless as to whether
that student goes on to graduate school?
I am like a dog who is going to shake this subject till nothing moves anymore.
Blystone in Texas
**********************
ROBERT V. BLYSTONE PHONE:(210)736-7243
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY FAX:(210)736-7229
Trinity University E-Mail:RBlyston@Trinity.edu
715 Stadium Drive
San Antonio, TX, 78212
I agree with the first statement. I would modify the second statement to
say
that completion of calculus (and O-chem) are not necessary prerequisites
for
first year majors biology. I believe the deterrent is established when we
create
these prerequisites. A student who loves biology, wants to be wildlife or
agricultural biologist can't even take biology until s/he is a junior. We
need
to let this student nurture their interest and knowledge of biology -- so
the
other courses are viewed as valuable tools instead of hurdles/obstacles.
Having these courses as prerequisites will ensure that the students in that
Biology class are good students and dedicated to their goal. However, how
many
good biologists will be unwittingly sideline. We aren't doing society and
those
students any favors by making them find a default major.
Christine Case
Skyline College
case@smcccd.cc.ca.us
A tale of unnecessary courses and perchance my opinion on the matter of
prerequisites.
As an undergraduate biology major I was required to take a foreign
language. I felt that latin might possibly be of utility, but as I had
already completed 2 years of French in high school, I took the shorter
path. I resented it. I hated it. I ranted and raved that the language of
science is English. I passed. I majored in Biology.
Many years later, as a Congressional Fellow, I was involved in some
high level negotiations between the US and Canada. One of the most
contentious individuals was a French Canadian. He was determined to create
an international incident by haranging at the representative of the
arrogant US Senate--me. I was able to diffuse the situation, in part
because I attempted to speak to him in his preferred language. Incident
avoided, The Senator's name was not in negative press releases. I started
breathing again.
Had I gone to technical school to prepare for a career in Biology,
I probably would not have understood the historical and politcal
significance of his use of French, and I certainly would not have been able
to communicate with him.
Do we want to (or more likely can we afford to) continue the
tradition of a well rounded liberal arts education or are we destined to
provide career focussed education? The answer to that question is what
really decides the issue of prerequisites. Do students take calculus only
for the purpose of a possibly limited use in Biology or do they take
calculus because it is part of a well rounded education and because it
keeps the door open should that student decide that a career in Engineering
or Biochemistry or Business.... would be more productive than swimming with
the dolphins. --cmw
Charlene M. Waggoner, Ph.D. cwaggon@andy.bgsu.edu
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
I'll help you shake that that dog a little more. It seems that the
question we are asking is not so much whether calculus is going to be used
by our students, but is it more important than other courses we could put
in its place. One reason to keep it is the discipline it helps to
develop, the critical thinking skills that must be exercised. But for the
little use most of us make of it, I frankly prefer our students get a
solid foundation in statistics instead - not one cookbook course, but a
year of solid theory mixed with practice and decision-making about
appropriate tests and why they are appropriate - or not appropriate.
I am not taking this approach because I hate math. I don't. I took
calculus, and it was not required of me. I have even used it, and when I
was teaching modelling, I took differential equations while I was a
faculty member, sitting in the same class beside my students. But I wish
I had a stronger chemistry, physics, and statistics background - they
would be far more valuable to me than calculus.
If a student decides to pursue one of those fields in which calculus is
used (physiology?), then perhaps that student should take the calculus as
a graduate student like most of our students do now with statistics. I
would rather see a strong statistics background because so many of our
students must either use statistical analysis or interpret the statistical
results of others, and there are probably more abusers than there are
qualified users. Since we already would like to require more courses than
are possible in an undergraduate curriculum, our question is one of
tradeoffs, and I would trade in the calculus for statistics.
Does anyone out there agree with me? Or is that my ecological bias?
Janice
***********************************
Janice M. Glime
Department of Biological Sciences
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI 49931-1295
jmglime@mtu.edu
906-487-2546
FAX 906-487-3167
***********************************
I would agree that statistics should be a major part of our students education.
Someone suggested to me that exploratory data analysis (EDA) would be a
good
way to introduce students to powerful statistical analysis and that the
program Data Desk is friendly enough to be used by students with little
or
no background in formal statistics. We purchased the package and I found
it
to be very easy to use. Students also find it quite easy to master and its
sophistication allows them to get much deeper into statistics than they
themselves would have thought possible. If anyone wishes more info about
this program, feel free to contact me.
Having said that, I would like to respond to the above comments by Janice
and say that while I think statistics are important, I do not feel that
such
a course should be a substitute for calculus - I feel our students need
both.
Regards,
George
George Edick
RPI - Dept. Biology
Troy, NY 12180
edickg@rpi.edu
Hi, labbers:
Janice Glime wrote:
If a student decides to pursue one of those fields in which calculus is
>used (physiology?), then perhaps that student should take the calculus
as
>a graduate student like most of our students do now with statistics.
I
>would rather see a strong statistics background because so many of our
>students must either use statistical analysis or interpret the statistical
>results of others, and there are probably more abusers than there are
>qualified users.
To this, I would add that statistics courses teach students quite explicitly
about hypothesis testing -- a set of skills that surely is applicable across
biological disciplines in a way that calculus, perhaps, is not (for that
matter, if I were to select an "advanced math" class that all
undergraduates, regardless of major, should take, it'd be stats of some
sort). Of course, calculus is quite helpful for understanding much of
statistics -- but not totally necessary.
Especially for folks at smaller schools, it seems to me that the overall
"goal" of an undergraduate curriculum must include providing a
strong
foundation for future learning. In that context, at least to me, calculus
occupies a position more analogous to an upper-division elective than to
a
core course -- a course whose appropriateness depends upon the goals of
the
students. Statistics, on the other hand, is more like a core course -- one
that teaches skills and concepts that are necessary for just about any
application of the biological sciences.
Just a few thoughts -- is the dog still yet?
Kerry Kilburn
Old Dominion University
To the Net: I am going to take this dog huntin' one more time.
This list has a little over 200 subscribers and it has generated about a
1000
messages during it "lifetime."
I find the position of math (calculus or statistics) poorly defined in biology
curricula. Lou Gross perhaps explored it best in the Feb. 1994 issue of
BioScience. This list embodies a wonderful amount of teaching talent and
a great deal of experience with biology curricula. Yet fewer than 10 of
us has
participated in a discussion of math (calculus etc.) in biology. So I am
going
to make a statement:
The single most important issue in biology science education is the position
of
numeracy (math) in the biology curricula. It is more important than large
class / small class. It is more important than lecture notes. It is at the
heart of inquiry based labs. It has as much to do with access to science
as
any other factor. Biological numeracy is more important than cloning, genetic
variation or speciation, evolution. The use of numbers is the most poorly
done topic in biology education. Our students in general have no clue about
estimation, ranking, or quantitative evaluation. Most students have no idea
of
what dependent or independent variables are. From outliers to areas under
curves most students have no idea how to express the richness of biology
in
terms of its numerical data. The single most important deficiency in biology
textbooks is the inability to express numerical data in a way that students
understand its importance and how to use those data..
If the last great change in biology science education was the CUEBS etc
induced
changes bringing chemistry and DNA into the fold during the '60s perhaps
the
next great change should be the introduction of mathematical concepts
throughout the biology curricula during the next decade.
Am I whistlin' in the wind?? Do members of the list agree or disagree??
What is the most important question facing undergraduate biology science
education today if not the issue of biological numeracy???
I would really appreciate hearing the opinions of some of you who have been
on
the sidelines of this List...
Has the dog flushed out some quail? Thanks Blystone in Texas
**********************
ROBERT V. BLYSTONE PHONE:(210)736-7243
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY FAX:(210)736-7229
Trinity University E-Mail:RBlyston@Trinity.edu
715 Stadium Drive
San Antonio, TX, 78212
Bob, the number who have responded about calculus is not likely to be the
number that have followed and digested the info. My sense is that math
is a different talent, being good at biology does not necessarily mean
being good at math any more than it is linked to being good on the
piano. I'm "good" at math, but I can't spell worth a "hoot"
People in
journalism wonder , probably, what role spelling training should have in
their curriculum (here students used to have to pass a spelling test to
be admitted into the School of Journalism.) Certainly, being able to
spell is a real asset to a journalist, as being able to do, understand,
intuit, numbers is for a biologist. But I think the gist of it is that
one can be a good biologist and be really crummy with math. Admittedly
one may have to accept the loss of certain options within the field.
Related, I think, is the fact that less than half of all med schools
require a second semester of calculus when most used to. Why, do you
suppose, do some require one semester and some require two? Do you
suppose that a person is a better doctor with a second semester of
calculus? No, but there must be something that a person can do better
with a second semester of calculus. But I can't think what i might be.
In a professional presentation to a general audience, I think that
putting an equation on the board or screen (in a departmental seminar by
an outside speaker, for instance) elicits the same glazed response in the
audience as does the 10th slide of gels or sequence homologies.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jean DeSaix
Department of Biology Coker Hall CB#3280
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3280
Work Phone: 919-962-1068 Home Phone 919-929-1580
FAX 919-962-1625 email jdesaix@email.unc.edu
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Hello,
Some people have requested some more info on the statistical package Data
Desk. Below are some basic facts about the program and a few comments of
my
own [I should make it clear that I am not connected in any way with the
company that sells this program].
Program name: Data Desk 4.0
Company: Data Description, Inc.
P.O. Box 4555
Ithaca, NY 14852
(607)-257-1000
DataDesk@AppleLink.apple.com
Platform: Mac (I don't know if they have a Windows version for PC)
Price: Differs for education and non-education customers, license pricing
available. Check with company for latest prices.
Reviewed in: MacUser, Sep 1993 and MacWorld, May 1993
List of major features:
GRAPHICS: one-variable display, multiple group display, two-variable
display, multiple-variable display, special plots (3-D), non-linear
smoothers, regression lines, plot tools, all plots linked together.
STATISTICS: summary statistics, frequency tables and contingency tables,
standard tests and confidence intervals, correlation, multiple regression,
ANOVA, general linear model(N-way ANOVA, ANCOVA, MANOVA, MANCOVA), cluster
analysis, principal component analysis, transformations (> 75 types)
My comments: I found the documentation (2 manuals) to be excellent and very
easy to understand. My formal training in statistics is zero but I found
that I could jump right in. A free demo disk and manual are available which
convinced me how easy the program is to use. The feature that really hooked
me was the ease that exploratory data analysis could be used to see trends
and patterns in data. It is this feature that I plan to use the most with
students in a lab setting.
This program was clearly designed for professional use, but is so easy to
use and understand that I think it can be effectively used in undergraduate
labs and courses (including, I think, Freshman level).
I found the folks at Data Description to be very helpful and willing to
talk
about my proposed uses for the program. There are several other high-level
statistical packages out there, but I found this one to be extremely
friendly to the statistical novice (like me).
Regards,
George
George Edick
RPI - Dept. Biology
Troy, NY 12180
edickg@rpi.edu
I agree that the problem of math deficiency is rampant... both in me and
in my students.
Things were not always so, however. When in college, my math skills and
understanding were quite good (at least while I was in calculus and physical
science classes.) However, my biology classes made little use of the knowledge
and I have had little cause to use it in the 25 years that have intervened.
In
short, I'm rusty.
It's not that I'm not willing. In fact, I have been looking (albeit
leisurely) for statistics programs that I can match with lab ideas that
will be enlightening for both me and my non-major biology students.
Bottom line.... I agree. I think math in biology (especially statistics
at
the non-major level) is one of the more important issues in biology
today. And if we do not address the issue more fully for biology majors,
we
will have a new generation of biologists who feel less than adequate when
it
comes to more than token math usage .... just like me.
******************************* *************************
Bonnie Roohk Telephone (714) 895-8181
Biological Sciences Department FAX (714) 895-4835
Golden West College
15744 Golden West Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 EMAIL: BRoohk@cccd.edu
I'd argue even further than that - the second (after reading) most
important issue in understanding science in general, no, make that life
in general, is math. Not necessarily calculus, but a solid, basic
understanding of math.
It amazes me the number of students I see who are perplexed when I solve
a simple ratio problem using cross multiplication. Or the time I took
students to the cemetary to do population studies and watched the
number of students using calculators to determine the age of people
born _and_ died in the the _same century_ (we were doing this in the
winter time and a student complained she was getting cold fingers from
using her calculator, I was able to determine age at death (in my head)
for 4 people for her every one). Or helping my (then) highschool
step-daughter do homework: it involved determining which formula to
type into her HP calculator. On one probelm I found a short-cut (I
think it was to use a simple ratio rather than the formula) neither
she nor her teacher thought it was the correct way to do it, even
though I got the correct answer!! (The teacher later realized I was
doing the problem correctly). My father was once paying his bill in an
eatery in which _he_ had to teach the cashier how to count change
correctly....
Although I earlier lamented about the problems of taking advanced
math in the sophomore year, the flip side is that without the proper
mathmatical skills (yes, even calculus sometimes) it is next to impossible
to _really understand_ basic concepts, whether it be ecology, physiology,
statistics, molecular biology, chemistry, or what have you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Lewin, Lab Associate 1400 Townsend Drive
jclewin@mtu.edu Department of Biological Sciences
(906) 487-3435 Michigan Technological University
Fax (906) 487-3167 Houghton, MI 49931