lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (04/28/91)
Marc R. Roussel has complained about the quality of "service" courses at
University. I assume that he means large introductory courses and my comments
will be restricted to those type of courses, particularly biology. Perhaps
Marc could explain to us why he calls them "service" courses - the term seems
derogatory to me.
It is difficult to teach introductory biology because the instructor can not
be an expect in the entire subject. If the course uses a good textbook then
this problem is not severe because the instructor can rely on the text.
Marc Roussel's opinion of introductory biology texts must not be very high
since he says,
"As a result of the generally low standards in service courses, the
large publishing houses seem to have decreed that all textbooks
intended for them shall be thoroughly pablumized. The whole
experience seems to be designed to turn students off, no matter
how hard an individual instructor tries to find ways to reach them."
This point of view seems to be shared by Stanley Friesen when he says,
"Yeah, its true I can scarcely stand most beginning texts."
I am involved in writing introductory textbooks, including biology textbooks.
In my opinion the most popular books on the market are quite good and the
authors have made a major effort to make the subject interesting and accurate.
This discussion began with a quiz from a biology test. Marc Roussel objected
(as did I) to one of the questions concerning the reduction of NAD+. He points
out that oxidation and reduction have to do with transfer of electrons and
not with oxygen, as implied by the multiple choice question. Marc says,
"I can teach my class about redox chemistry until I'm blue in the
face, but if the biology teacher expects them to "know" that
oxidation has something to do with oxygen, what am I to do?"
Now, it may be the case that the instructor in question does not understand
redox reactions but I think that Marc and Stanley are way off base if they
go on to assume that introductory biology TEXTBOOKS are also wrong. Here
is a quote from the text that is being used in the course in question,
"When an atom or molecule gives up one or more electrons, it is
said to be OXIDIZED. When it accepts one or more electrons it is
REDUCED. The term OXIDATION-REDUCTION refers to an electron
transfer."
Starr, C. and Taggart, R. (1989) Biology (5th ed), Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Belmont, California, page 106
There are many other places in the text where this point is emphasized.
A brief examination of the other leading biology textbooks reveals that they
ALL say the same thing. The Starr and Taggert book is the most popular text
in non-majors courses. In majors courses the best selling text is by Neil
Campbell and he says,
"In many chemical reactions, there is a transfer of one or more
electrons from one reactant to another. These electron transfers
are called oxidation-reduction reactions, or REDOX reactions for
short. During a redox reaction, the loss of electrons from one
substance is called OXIDATION, and the addition of electrons to
another substance is known as REDUCTION."
Campbell, N. (1990) Biology (2nd ed), Benjamin/Cummings,
Redwood City, California, page 183
If Marc and/or Stanley have any substantive criticisms of introductory biology
textbooks I would like to hear about them. I suspect that neither of them
have actually read an introductory biology book lately. Certainly their
comments on evolution suggests that their libraries are deficient! (-:
Large introductory courses are an unfortunate necessity at today's Colleges
and Universities. Textbook writers are doing their very best to produce
high quality works that will help the student. If the instructors in a course
don't want to be there (because they see it as a "service"?) then the
quality of the texbook becomes irrelevent. Marc Roussell seems to think that
there are many opposite examples - that is high quality instructors who
cannot teach because the textbooks are bad (see above quotation). I disagree.
-Larry Moran
Dept. of Biochemistrymroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr28.134746.6024@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes: >Marc R. Roussel has complained about the quality of "service" courses at >University. I assume that he means large introductory courses and my comments >will be restricted to those type of courses, particularly biology. Perhaps >Marc could explain to us why he calls them "service" courses - the term seems >derogatory to me. I must have been extraordinarily unclear in my original posting. I guess I thought that "service course" was standard terminology. By a service course, I mean things like "Physics for the Life Sciences" or "Mathematics for Commerce", i.e. non-specialist introductory. I've honestly never heard of a service Biology course. What I mostly wanted to hear from this forum is whether those of us outside Biology should continue to try to provide such courses since, in my opinion, we're not doing a great job at it (for whatever reason). Are there alternative ways of delivering the core curriculum in (say) physical chemistry to biologists that don't involve extra-departmental service courses? I will not reply to the rest of Larry's article since we were obviously talking at cross-purposes. I merely wish to emphasize that my comments were not aimed at Biology courses. I apologize if I left that impression. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) (04/29/91)
Marc Roussel writes,
"I must have been extraordinarily unclear in my original posting.
I guess I thought that "service course" was standard terminology.
By a service course, I mean things like "Physics for the Life
Sciences" or "Mathematics for Commerce", i.e. non-specialist
introductory. I've honestly never heard of a service Biology
course."
I did not recognize that Marc was excluding biology courses from his
definition of "service courses". It is not clear to me why he has never
heard of a "service" biology course since at most universities the
introductory biology course is the largest such course on campus. Most
non-science students take biology to fulfill their science requirement so
this means that a large number of students in introductory biology are
not even science majors.
At the University of Toronto we do not have a biology department and the
large introductory biology courses are taught by members of the Zoology
and Botany departments. In my experience most lecturers in biology courses
feel that they are mainly engaged in teaching non-biologists, including
chemists and physicists. I think that biology qualifies as a "service"
course by Marc's own definition.
Marc also says,
"What I mostly wanted to hear from this forum is whether those of
us outside Biology should continue to try to provide such courses
since, in my opinion, we're not doing a great job at it (for
whatever reason). Are there alternative ways of delivering the
core curriculum in (say) physical chemistry to biologists that
don't involve extra-departmental service courses?"
In my opinion the biologists should take the same physical chemistry course
as the physicists and the chemists. Also there should be only one biology
course for all students. Unfortunately few universities have the resources
to mount such courses effectively so for the foreseeable future we will have
to continue to offer "watered down" versions of some introductory courses
for large numbers of non-majors. How sad.
-Larry Moran
Dept. of Biochemistrymroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr29.163115.2113@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes: >I did not recognize that Marc was excluding biology courses from his >definition of "service courses". It is not clear to me why he has never >heard of a "service" biology course since at most universities the >introductory biology course is the largest such course on campus. Most >non-science students take biology to fulfill their science requirement so >this means that a large number of students in introductory biology are >not even science majors. I'll admit that I have little idea of what goes on at the U of T outside of my own department. At my alma matter (Queen's University), there were no science requirements for non-science students, and very few physicists or chemists took biology. The biology course was filled with biologists and pre-med students. I always assumed that it was the same elsewhere. I suppose that the pre-med students were taking biology as a service course, although I'll admit that (for some reason) I never thought of it that way. (To be honest, having learned all my biology in an ad hoc way, I can't intelligently comment on the way in which biology courses are taught anyway.) In any event, I'm more curious about what people think of courses aimed at a specific non-major audience (e.g. Physics for the Life Sciences). Most of the people I've talked to think that they're a deplorable necessity. I can't make up my mind, thus these postings to this forum. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca