This preprint was vastly improved and made into Chapter 5 of my book.
This is a brief summary of my new (preprint) paper in which:
I argue that a whole organism approach to biology education would help students make meaning of both nature and the course contents, but it is currently entirely absent.
I argue that the core ideas of a course should take priority in curricula design, to which sequencing is subordinate - currently sequencing of knowledge is often the priority.
I provide the how of this whole organism approach to biology in terms of the content to be learnt and curriculum design.
A preprint is an author's original manuscript that has not yet been through peer review or accepted in a journal, but which is accessible to all. Find it here.
If you are in anyway interested in meaning making and curricular design, or biology education, then the full paper is a must read for you.
Here's the summary:
Reading the organism: Studying the whole [organism] to give meaning to the parts.
Aren't biology curricula already all about organisms? Yes, and no.
They are currently all about the parts of organisms, or high-level ecological patterns. Students learn components and mechanisms of the physiology of organisms, of the development of organisms, some ecology and some evolution of organisms, but what about the organism itself? It's absent.
The best we can find is a descriptive list of what organisms do, but no explanatory, generalisable theory. I ask, seriously, how students can make meaning of the parts if they have no scientifically coherent concept of the whole.
This is important, because students will inevitably, as organisms themselves, bring their own intuitive, or folk, theories of the whole organism, which will be used by students to make their own meaning of biology.
If everything in biology relates to the organism, if all the life students experience in their lives consists of observing other organisms, and living as an organism, shouldn't the study of biology be about providing students with more efficient ways of seeing and thinking about organisms?
We need students to study the whole organism for two reasons:
Firstly, to make meaning of what we teach in biology courses:
1(a) to correctly make meaning of the parts we study in biology, the physiological and developmental systems.
1(b) to correctly make meaning of higher scale processes, such as in ecology and evolution, in which organisms and their behaviour play the central role.
Secondly, to enhance our students' relationship with nature. Our world, as we experience it, is one of organisms, not collections of parts. When students see organisms in nature, they see a whole with agency, with goals. Biology courses need to bridge the gap between theoretical school biology, and what students observe in nature.
Reading the organism is a concept I'd like to see in biology curricula generally, and is already part of mine. It's a skill, based on deep meaningful knowledge of biology, which is typically not discernable by just learning of all these components and mechanisms we teach.
Reading the organism refers to a student’s ability, in natural settings, to observe organisms and rationalise about their behaviour, goals, and purpose. This depends on the ability to qualitatively interpret and predict what is in an organism’s interest.
In my paper I make these principal arguments:
(1) Being able to read organisms is central to:
(a) helping students make meaning of the course content.
(b) bridging the theory-practice gap in secondary biology education.
(2) To acquire the skill of reading organisms, students must make meaning of two core concepts:
(a) the processual nature of organisms (underpinned by thermodynamics).
(b) life history theory & life strategies (underpinned by evolution).
Why reading the organism matters
I firstly write extensively on 'why reading organisms matters'. Here I dip into philosophy, pedagogy, and biology, to make an argument for the whole organism as a central feature of biology curricula. Yet, a currently absent concept. I take considerable influence from Ausubel's theory of learning, and Ference Marton.
Sequencing curricula is subordinate to core concept development
I then talk about making meaning and curriculum design, taking influence from Sikorski and Hammer (2017), who argue, with evidence, that prioritising sequences in science curricular design has not worked out as expected. I give my own suggestion for what can be done about it, and this section is probably applicable beyond biology alone.
In the next two sections, I explain the two elements of reading organisms: the processual nature of organisms, and life history strategies.
The processual nature of organisms
I take considerable influence from the work of Daniel Nicholson who shows how organisms are not a substance, but a continual process of construction and renewal. They are open systems that self-create. A necessary fact in light of the second law of thermodynamics. I take misconceptions found in literature, and those of my own experience, to show how they could be solved if students study and understand this aspect of organisms.
I summarise the section with a graphic I made (presented in a previous blog post) that can be used with students to help them understand the concept. I also present a version for lower secondary students in the paper.
Life history strategies
I take considerable influence from Phillip Grime's CSR theory. The theory shows how ecological and evolutionary constraints tend to produce organisms with traits that correlate to their conditions and strategy. What's important is that this is a theory of traits, visible and observable traits that students can discern in nature. It is not about abstract entities such as alleles.
For example, plants that are r-selected live in precarious conditions, high disturbance and chance of death. In such conditions, a suite of traits tends to arise: Fast growth, small size, early and strong investment in reproductive organs (flowers), quick production of many small seeds (for dispersal), and short lifespan. Typical traits found annual plants. Traits that students can see with their own eyes.
CSR theory has three extreme life strategies: r-selected (traits for rapid reproduction), c-selected (traits for aggressive competition), and s-selected (traits for surviving stressful conditions, like deserts), and placed in a triangle there are the intermediate strategies of these three.
This theory links organisms, their physiology, and their development to both ecology and evolution. It gives meaning to the parts.
Copied from Pierce & Cerabolini (2018)
To finish this section, I show how knowledge of these theories helps students make meaning of the rest of the course, and with interpreting the nature they experience in their lives.
What it means for secondary biology curricula
In the final section I speak directly to teachers about how they could approach teaching these models, in lower secondary and in higher secondary. I give examples of questions that link these models to other topics in the course, and offer a direct comparison between the current conventional curricula and one with a whole organism focus. If you've liked this then check out my book, or my other posts.
Christian Moore-Anderson
@CMooreAnderson (twitter)
Acknowledgements
I'd like to thank those who have supported and encouraged me through the long process of developing my ideas, writing the paper, and improving it. Thank you Alex Sinclair, Brett Kingsbury, Martyn Steiner, Jo Castelino.
References
Pierce, S. and Cerabolini, B. 2018. "Plant economics and size trait spectra are both explained by one theory." Found here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326069336_Plant_economics_and_size_trait_spectra_are_both_explained_by_one_theory
Sikorski, T., and Hammer, D. 2017. “Looking for Coherence in Science Curriculum.”
Science Education 101 (6): 929-43.