Thursday, November 29, 2012

Studying the "Best Practices in Teaching Biology"


November 29, 2012

Best Practices in Teaching Biology

Hypothesis:  Biology can be taught in a way that students and their teachers will feel better about their lives as a whole, feel more optimistic about the upcoming week, make progress toward important personal goals (academic, interpersonal and health-based), feel higher levels of the positive states of alertness, enthusiasm, determination, attentiveness and energy, be more likely to report having helped someone with a
personal problem or having offered emotional support to another, have a greater sense of feeling connected to others, sleep longer and arise feeling more rested, be more empathic and understand the perspective of others, believe in the interconnectedness of all life with a commitment to and
responsibility to others, and place less importance on material goods.  Biology can be taught in a way that students and their teachers are less likely to judge their own and others success in terms of possessions accumulated, be less envious of others; and are more likely to share their possessions.

How can the teaching of biology have these effects?  The most direct way would be to have biology students and teachers keep a gratitude journal and experience these changes according to the Robert Emmons research at the following website:


As well as keeping a gratitude journal, biology and science might be taught from a perspective of gratitude.  We can be personally grateful for all the forces and conditions that are present and must be present for life on this planet.  Biology facts can be taught showing how they personally effect every student, and how they make the life of the student possible. 

Instead of testing only for the information learned by students “Best Practices in Teaching Biology” would study other ways the teachings affect the students. 

What would be the simplest way to measure these other effects?  What effects would be monitored?  Would optimism be measured?  Would a sense of well being be measured?

Hopefully biology teachers will want to study their students as closely as biologists study their research subjects.

Why is there an urgent need to study the effects of learning biology?  I think of two readers of Richard Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene.  One reviewer on amazon.com said he was depressed for 20 years after reading The Selfish Gene. 


Jeffrey Skilling read The Selfish Gene and thought his life and his work should make full use of The Selfish Gene as he interpreted it.  According to the following website

http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/empathy/Reviewfiles/Seed.html


“Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling claimed he was inspired by Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene when he implemented a system known as “rank and yank” that sought to apply nature’s lessons to the energy industry. Skilling had all employees in the company ranked every six months. Then he offered lavish bonuses to the top 5 percent while the bottom 15 percent were relocated or fired.
This system of ruthless competition advanced just the type of personalities that one would expect: crazy people. As one Enron employee put it, “If I’m going to my boss’s office to talk about compensation, and if I step on some guy’s throat and that doubles it, then I’ll stomp on that guy’s throat.”

http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/journal/archive/winter-2009/features/how-bad-biology-killed-the-economy

Enron went on to bankruptcy. Jeffrey Skilling was sentenced to 24 years in prison and fined $45 million. The pensions of some 20,000 Enron employees were devastated in varying degrees as well; 62% of the company pension plan was in worthless Enron stock.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Enron+Corporation

It appears how biology is taught effects the lives of students.  How might we find the best practices in teaching of biology?

Monday, November 5, 2012


What thoughts might help us come together?
I like Albert Einstein's idea:
“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest-a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of  prison, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty.”  
What is the nature of this prison?

Is it our sense of self, and our emotions and ideas, which have helped our ancestors and us survive?  Now that people are getting better and better at helping each other, would we be better off seeing ourselves as part of the whole of human society and part of nature?  Is our feeling of isolation, and our emotions such as anger and envy, unnecessary in a society where helping others is rewarded more than beating up on others?

Now that we have survived, might we examine closely what biologists mean by “survival of the fittest”.  Darwin originally meant those who survived "fit" in their environment, and those that "fit" in their environment survived.  Can we examine closely what it means to “fit” in our environment?  Are the "fittest" the strongest, meanest and best fighters able to force their will on others?  Or are the "fittest" those whose cells are successful caring for all their other cells?    Think of those who survive.  Their heart cells are successful pushing blood near all their other cells.  Think of their red blood cells.  Their red blood cells are successful delivering oxygen to all their other cells.  In those who survive and are healthy, all their cells are successful caring for all their other cells.  

Might people one day live in a society as successful as the society of their cells?  Might people one day care for each other as well as their cells care for each other?