Do you remember any specific aspects of it that you found particularly confusing or difficult?
At times it can be easy to gloss over things you incorrectly assume people will find straightforward.
Just doing a little informal survey here.
Question for any of you who have taken/are taking biology...
-
Guest
Gel electrophoresis? It's not too bad to understand at its most basic level...basically lets you separate molecules based on their mass as they fall through a gel matrix...
Toxic: A key mistake many people make is approaching biology as simple memorization. Yes, there is a lot of memorization to master the basic vocabulary, etc., but it is the ability to apply that basic knowledge that most students have trouble with. Open ended questions regarding things like experimental design, data interpretation, etc...those tend to be what really get people.
Toxic: A key mistake many people make is approaching biology as simple memorization. Yes, there is a lot of memorization to master the basic vocabulary, etc., but it is the ability to apply that basic knowledge that most students have trouble with. Open ended questions regarding things like experimental design, data interpretation, etc...those tend to be what really get people.
-
Guest
What grade level? In high school, learning the point the metabolic pathways was irritating. There seemed to be no overlieing picture in which I could apply the concepts. This was always a factor for me. For example, they always present cells as these organized structures that have specific pathways for molecules to go and be processed. In reality it's more of a soup in which concentrations and gradients drive the various reactions. This takes some imagination when you've been presented with blocky diagrams that represent protein interactions your whole life. The perspective of the processes are all out of whack.
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
tnf, I think answering this question depends a lot on individual experience, but I'll try anyway...
For me, I think context had a lot to do with how well I learned something; glossing over some things in high school didn't teach me much, but it gave me a footing when I had to focus specifically on the same subjects in college.
In high school, metabolism was a bitch, but when I learned it in biochem during college, it made far more sense (probably because we learned the specific chemical pathways, instead of abstract explanations like "the electrons go down a series of 'waterfalls' and release energy"). If students have a grasp of organic chemistry (which they probably don't), I'd suggest teaching the chemical pathways instead of just memorizing names of pyruvic acid and the net result of ATP. It's like physics: just because I know the diagram for "particle in a box" doesn't mean I understand quantum mechanics.
It was kind of the same with renal physiology -- once I relearned it in more detail in college, it made sense, but this was another tough one for me in HS.
Some things I never fully grasped because I didn't devote as much time to: neurobiology (but only with the CNS, not the PNS oddly enough), botany and some ecology. In high school, I know a LOT of people had a hard time with botany -- probably because it's so far removed from vertebrate physiology, yet it was included in the basic science classes. It's not that it's confusing -- it just doesn't get used enough to warrent a detailed approach. God knows I have little use for it.
That's all I could think of off the top of my head. Sorry for the long post. Hope it helps. :icon17:
For me, I think context had a lot to do with how well I learned something; glossing over some things in high school didn't teach me much, but it gave me a footing when I had to focus specifically on the same subjects in college.
In high school, metabolism was a bitch, but when I learned it in biochem during college, it made far more sense (probably because we learned the specific chemical pathways, instead of abstract explanations like "the electrons go down a series of 'waterfalls' and release energy"). If students have a grasp of organic chemistry (which they probably don't), I'd suggest teaching the chemical pathways instead of just memorizing names of pyruvic acid and the net result of ATP. It's like physics: just because I know the diagram for "particle in a box" doesn't mean I understand quantum mechanics.
It was kind of the same with renal physiology -- once I relearned it in more detail in college, it made sense, but this was another tough one for me in HS.
Some things I never fully grasped because I didn't devote as much time to: neurobiology (but only with the CNS, not the PNS oddly enough), botany and some ecology. In high school, I know a LOT of people had a hard time with botany -- probably because it's so far removed from vertebrate physiology, yet it was included in the basic science classes. It's not that it's confusing -- it just doesn't get used enough to warrent a detailed approach. God knows I have little use for it.
That's all I could think of off the top of my head. Sorry for the long post. Hope it helps. :icon17:
