MamaSprout Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) So many of the non-digital biology favorites (Exploring the Way Life Works, Dragonfly Miller-Levine and Campbell's Exploring Life) for on-level 9th grade biology are 10-12 years old. If we use the older biology books for as a pre AP Bio class, what are we missing? Edited May 31, 2016 by elladarcy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Probably nothing. If you are worried about it, you could find the latest and greatest textbook out there and see if you can find a site that shows at least the table of contents and compare what is covered. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Unless you're using a decades old book, you should be good. Ten to twelve years old is absolutely fine. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmmetler Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Taxonomy and classification is changing rapidly in response to genetic sequencing. Any book that doesn't go into phylogenetics is out of date in this regard, and nomenclature is suspect as well. Microbiology classification has changed quite a bit, especially surrounding the Protista. Having said that, it's so rapid right now that it is next to impossible to find any text that is entirely accurate, and DD's mentor is OK with her using older versions of texts for the big picture, as long as she keeps in mind the areas that are changing quickly.m 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MamaSprout Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) So regardless of the the text, new or old, we should supplement taxonomy and classification areas with digital resources? The 2009 Exploring Biology text I have does have brief coverage of phylogenetics. I already added this to our lesson plans: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/tree-life-gets-makeover Can anyone recommend any other add on resources? Edited May 31, 2016 by elladarcy 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverMoon Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 (edited) You could browse at SciTechDaily.com for current articles. Edited May 31, 2016 by SilverMoon 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypamama Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Subbing to this thread. . . We're using the Miller-Levine biology book next year, because a great deal was a great deal, and I want to check out the supplements people recommend. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmmetler Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Here are slides from a great intro to cladistics talk by David Bapst at University of Chicago-using Pokemon :) http://www.slideshare.net/dwbapst/bapst-evolution-clades070412 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 I agree with this, although I also think that the basic information on phylogeny re, without having to know every single detail, is fine for general biology at thigh school level. I every think an older version of a book, say 10 years or so, is fine. One thing I also have noticed is that more recent textbooks have a busier layout, with more sidebars and more photographs that add very little to the biology knowledge base. Taxonomy and classification is changing rapidly in response to genetic sequencing. Any book that doesn't go into phylogenetics is out of date in this regard, and nomenclature is suspect as well. Microbiology classification has changed quite a bit, especially surrounding the Protista. Having said that, it's so rapid right now that it is next to impossible to find any text that is entirely accurate, and DD's mentor is OK with her using older versions of texts for the big picture, as long as she keeps in mind the areas that are changing quickly.m 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Academy Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) I agree with this, although I also think that the basic information on phylogeny re, without having to know every single detail, is fine for general biology at thigh school level. I every think an older version of a book, say 10 years or so, is fine. One thing I also have noticed is that more recent textbooks have a busier layout, with more sidebars and more photographs that add very little to the biology knowledge base. :iagree: High school text books are awful for this, what is up with that? We're using college textbooks mostly for the less busy, more businesslike layout, graphics, and meaningful figures and graphs more than for any other reason. Dd has a hard time with the high school textbooks we've looked at, she dislikes all the distractions immensely. I hope this isn't a trend that is moving into college-level texts. Blech. I also don't think that for a high school level general course in biology all of the latest details are critical. I know in botany, Latin names at the species and genus level are changing all the time, and you just have to deal with it. I wouldn't expect a general biology textbook to be perfectly up to date, and it wouldn't be for long anyway. I would want to make sure that Archae were included, along with the 3 domain/6 kingdom idea, rather than "The Five Kingdoms" being taught. Or at least if the book has that, make sure you present some more current ideas. I would also look for coverage of epigenetics and something slightly more sophisticated than the idea that the human genome is filled with "junk DNA". I think that was mentioned in an earlier post, so sorry if I'm being redundant. Edited June 14, 2016 by Chrysalis Academy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefgazer Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 The business of sidebars and useless photographs has already moved on to the college level. One particularly bad book my institution used a few years ago had a picture of Julia Roberts referenced when discussing the genetics of inheriting red hair. When I look back on my own college general biology textbook, I am stunned by the utter lack of photographs/drawings/diagrams. They were not used unless they were really necessary and added something important to the discussion. :iagree: High school text books are awful for this, what is up with that? We're using college textbooks mostly for the less busy, more businesslike layout, graphics, and meaningful figures and graphs more than for any other reason. Dd has a hard time with the high school textbooks we've looked at, she dislikes all the distractions immensely. I hope this isn't a trend that is moving into college-level texts. Blech. I also don't think that for a high school level general course in biology all of the latest details are critical. I know in botany, Latin names at the species and genus level are changing all the time, and you just have to deal with it. I wouldn't expect a general biology textbook to be perfectly up to date, and it wouldn't be for long anyway. I would want to make sure that Archae were included, along with the 3 domain/6 kingdom idea, rather than "The Five Kingdoms" being taught. Or at least if the book has that, make sure you present some more current ideas. I would also look for coverage of epigenetics and something slightly more sophisticated than the idea that the human genome is filled with "junk DNA". I think that was mentioned in an earlier post, so sorry if I'm being redundant. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faithr Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 One thing I noticed is that newer Biology books include a lot more on genetics. My son's high school text when he went to school in 9th grade had sooo much information in it. Really, I think it is too hard to cover all that stuff in one year. It was truly a mile wide and an inch deep. And no way could they even come near finishing the textbook. I honestly think Biology should take two years to cover, if educators are going to insist on putting all that detail into one textbook. JMHO. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Academy Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 One thing I noticed is that newer Biology books include a lot more on genetics. My son's high school text when he went to school in 9th grade had sooo much information in it. Really, I think it is too hard to cover all that stuff in one year. It was truly a mile wide and an inch deep. And no way could they even come near finishing the textbook. I honestly think Biology should take two years to cover, if educators are going to insist on putting all that detail into one textbook. JMHO. I completely agree with you. In order to cover all the domains you can only cover things very, very superficially. It's crazy to try and learn all of microbiology in the same year as all the organism/macro stuff. We're splitting biology into two classes, this year we're focusing on ecology, evolution, botany, and real-world stuff - the ability to identify the biological and ecological features of our local environment. We'll save cellular bio & genetics for a different class. I just couldn't see forcing her through all that info, knowing the majority of it would be lost due to the pace we'd have to keep up to get through it all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faithr Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Yes, if I were to design things for my students (I outsourced all our science) I'd have 9th grade be macro-biology (nature study, flora and fauna, ecosystems, etc) and then 10th grade would be the micro-biology stuff which leads pretty naturally into chemistry, I think for 11th grade. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.