DOCSLIB.ORG

ED037343.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ED037343.Pdf DOCUMENT RESUME ED 037 343 SE 008 003 AUTHOR Bingman, Richard M.; Ed. TITLE Inquiry Objectives in the Teaching of Biology. INSTITUTION Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Foulder, Colo.; Mid-Continent Regional Education Lab., Inc., Kansas City, Mo. SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Sep 69 CONTRACT OEC-3-7-062876-3076 NOTE 153p. EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$0.75 HC-$7.75 DESCRIPTORS *Affective Objectives, Behavioral Objectives, *Biology, Cognitive Objectives, *Critical Thinking, *Educational Objectives, *Inquiry Training, Secondary School Scierce IDENTIFIERS Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ABSTRACT Five perspectives are identified for viewing inquiry: "Guiding Principles:(for example the antecedent-consequent principle), Inquiry Factors or logical steps in inquiry, Behavioral Objectives, Affective or Attitudinal Qualities, and Inquiry into inquiry. Many components of these perspectives are enumerated, together with related student behaviors which would exemplify the components. Two examples of class discussion which illustrate inquiry into inquiry are given and analyzed in terms of strategy. The "interim summaries" of the Invitations to Enquiry from the BSCS "Biology Teachers Handbook" are printed as an appendix,as also is the paper (Mendel's "Experiments in Plant Hybridization")on which the class discussions were based. An extensive annotated bibliography on behavioral objectives and inquiry teaching in biology is divided into five sections: Behavioral Objectives- Some Considerations, The Inquiry Process, Inquiry as a Teaching Strategy, Preparing the Teacher for Inquiry, and Evaluating the Inquiry Process. (EB) "9" TeachingInquiry Objectivesof FEBBiologyin the U DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EDUCATION & WELFARE THIS DOCI)MENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDOFFICE OF EDUCATION EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSONPOSITIONSTATED 00'JR OR NOT ORGANIZATION POLICY NECESSARILY ORIGINATING REPRESENT IT OFFICIALPOINTS OffICE OF VIEW OF EDUCATION OR OPINIONS ct,O ELMID-CONTINENTEDUCATIONAL LABORATORY REGIONAL CURRICULUMBIOLOGICAL SCIENCES STUDY INQUIRY OBJECTIVESDeveloped IN THE JointlyTEACHING By: OF BIOLOGY Mid-continent104Kansas East Regional City,Independence Missouri Educational Avenue64106 Laboratory BiologicalUniversity SciencesP. 0. andBox of Curriculum Colorado930 Study RichardBoulder, M. Colorado Biiigman, 80302 Editor MhELMID-CONTINENTEDUCATIONAL LABORATORY REGIONAL CURRICULUMBIOLOGICAL SCIENCES STUDY lit4g '4 11 Position Paper,September Volume 1969 1, Number 1 This document was written to be used by administrators, supervisors, curriculum designers, teacher educators, evaluators and students for awide range of activities from revising currentinstructional objectives to developing evlauation instruments. Although the objectives were developed for usepri- marily at the high school level, they may be useful at theelementary and college levels. The document may be used in classroom situations inwhich students and teachers demonstrate varying degrees of inquiry skill andattitude development. Recently the document has served as a basis for a doctoral dissertation (Steiner, 156). The instruments developed in this study are being used to evaluate components of the Developing Inquiry Skills program atthe Mid- continent Regional Educational Laboratory. This document is viewed as a preliminary draft rather than a final state- ment of objectives. Feedback on the use ofthis document will be helpful. A questionnaire has been inserted for your comments and suggestions. Published by Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory, a private non-profit corporation supported in part as a regional educationallaboratory by funds from the United States Office of Education, Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare under contract number OEC-3-7-062876-3076. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the position of policy of the Office of Education, and no official endorsementby the Office of Education should be inferred. ii CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS John R. Anderson Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory Richard M. Bingman Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory Jacob W. Blankenship Oklahoma State University Jack L. Carter Colorado College Thomas J. Cleaver Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Willard G. Jones Colorado State College Manert H. Kennedy Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Evelyn Klinckmann San Francisco College for Women Paul G. Koutnik Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory Addison E. Lee University of Texas at Austin Jimmy R. Stothart Northwestern State College of Louisiana iii SciencesThe pioneeringCurriculum efforts Study, in led1967 to of this Willard document. Jones, InatACKNOWLEDGEMENTS additionMid-continentRegional Educational Laboratory, and Jack Carter,at Biological in reviewing the preliminary editions: GeorgePaulElba DeHart Dawson,0. Carrier, Hurd, Floridato Harvard Stanfordthe principal State University University University contributors, the followingpersons were very helpful RalphGlenIngrith H. E. Ojemann, Joseph Peterson,D.Frank Olsen, J. X. EducationalSchwab, Biological UniversitySutman, University Temple Sciences Researchof Washington University ofCurriculum Council Chicago at Seattleof StudyAmerica to theirSpecialAppreciation students acknowledgements who is also supplied expressed the teacher-student to KennethStanley Bingman interactionE. Williamson, and Williammaterial Oregon Humphries,in Chapter State University Seven.teachersat Shawnee Mission West high school, and material.Manning,PressFinally, for their who credit ideas prepared isand given materials.the tobibliography, Virginiaare (See given AlfandaryAppendices andto Joseph to Connie and AJ. JerroldandSchwab, Le B, Elgan, pp.Spady, the 85, VirginiaBiological 107.)who helpedMcBride, Sciencesto edit and Curriculumthe Jean final Pearson, document, Study, who and Joan typed the Bartel Harvard and organizedand University Chiquita the However,plifiedEducationalThis by work thiscontent. Laboratory. publication is a product It is Thisan presents of impossible aeffort cooperative representative has task produced effort to delineate betweena categorization all theFOREWORD the Biological behavioral of behavioral Sciences objectives objectives, Curriculum to be derived emphasizing Study fromandthe inquiryany Mid-continent educationalprocesses program. Regionalas exem- thatBiologicalbehavioralscience. sense They they Sciencesobjectives are are not pervasive Curriculum mandatoryby concerned outcomes Study,outcomes teachers. ofthey teaching butare, While rather bythatexamples their thebehavioral combine objectivesvery of nature, behaviors bothguideposts were content applicable originallyinvolving to andencourage toprocess. bothderivedany modern inquiryfurther in relation developmentprocessescourse toin specifictheand ofbiological content a variety materials in sciences. ofbiological specific of the In andforing amethodology.as TheBothwide an valueinitial teachersvariety of interim Ascooperative of andapurposes. group seteducators of of goalsefforts examplesThe of for objectives betweenteachers modern of behavioral Biologicalwill inbiology this find publication objectives, teaching.thatdelineation thisserve publication ofboth objectives asan provides introduction tends entryto sharpen tointo construction theteaching selfleneration goals and useand ofof focus objectivesobjectives teach- improvementtory is, in our of judgment, education. established by the developmentSciences of this Curriculumpublication, Study which andWilliam should Mid-continent V. promote Mayer, RegionalDirectora goal sharedEducational by us all Labora-the UniversityMid-continentRobertBiological J. Stalcup,, Sciencesof Colorado 1?.,.gional Director Curriculum Educational Study Laboratory rti W CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE.The SubstantiveNatureRATIONALE of Inquiry Knowledge and itsofRelation Biological to Sciencethe Organization and Use of this Document I1 CHAPTER TWO.Recognition GUIDINGI. The and TaxonomicPRINCIPLES Differentiation Principle OF INQUIRY 56 SkillsTV.III.II.V. in CarryingTheThe Antecedent-ConsequentStructure-FunctionRegulationSelf-Regulatory out Principles and Homeostasis System of PrincipleInquiry PrinciplePrinciplePrinciple 876 II.I. TheActivities student Characteristic will carry out of activities the TaxonomicAntecedent-ConsequentcharacteristicMode of the Mode taxonomicantecedent-consequent mode mode 1098 IV.III. TheActivitiesActivities student Characteristic will recognizecarry out of activities activities thethe Self-RegulatoryRegulation-HomeostasisStructure-FunctioncharacteristiccharacteristicMode ofMode the Mode regulation-homeostasisstructure-function mode mode 111012 CHAPTER THREE.VI.V.I. MAJORATheFormulating Biological student FACTORS will aProblem Problem recognizeIN INQUIRY Stated activities in Termscharacteristic ofthe Five Guiding of the self-regulatory Principles mode 131214 III.IV.II.V. FormulatingInterpretingDesigningSynthesizingExecuting athe StudytheHypotheses Knowledge Plan Data of orInvestigation Findings Gained from theInvestigation 15171618 VI. ix CHAPTER FOUR.AdditionalI. TOWARDSINSTRUCTIONProblem Specificity THEFormulation forAND USE Inquiry DEVELOPOF BEHAVIORAL Factors EVALUATION (Antecedent-Consequent OBJECTIVESINSTRUMENTS TO Mode)DESIGN 20 III.IV.II.V. InterpretingDesigningFormulatingExecuting athe Study theHypotheses Plan Data of or Investigation Findings 24282725 SamplesVII.VI.I. ofSynthesizingFormulatingDifferentiation Instructional aKnowledge StrategiesProblem of the Various toGained Bring Principles
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nature Medicine Essay
    COMMENTARY LASKER BASIC MEDICAL RESEARCH AWARD Of maize and men, or peas and people: case histories to justify plants and other model systems David Baulcombe One of the byproducts of molecular biology cork is altogether filled with air, and that air is has been support for the ‘model system’ con- perfectly enclosed in little boxes or cells distinct cept. All living organisms are based on the same from one another.”)2 (Fig. 1). Two hundred fifty genetic code, they have similar subcellular years later, Beijerinck discovered a contagium structures and they use homologous metabolic vivum fluidum in extracts of diseased tobacco pathways. So, mechanisms can be investigated plants that he later referred to as a virus3. using organisms other than those in which In contemporary science, a green alga— the knowledge will be exploited for practical Chlamydomonas reinhardtii—is a useful model benefit. Model systems are particularly use- in the analysis of kidney disease4. However, ful in the early discovery phase of a scientific in this article, I refer to the contribution of endeavor, and recent progress in biomedical plant biology to a family of mechanisms that I science has fully vindicated their use. Jacques refer to as RNA silencing. This topic has been Monod, for example, famously justified his reviewed comprehensively elsewhere5,6, so here work on a bacterial model system by stating I focus on personal experience and my view of that “what is true for Escherichia coli is also future potential from this work. true for elephants.” My fellow laureates, Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun, can defend the use The early history of RNA silencing in of the worm Caenorhabditis elegans as a good plants model system and so I will focus on plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Historical Perspective
    Chapter 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” modified by the developmental history of the organism, Theodosius Dobzhansky its physiology – from cellular to systems levels – and by the social and physical environment. Finally, behaviors are shaped through evolutionary forces of natural selection OVERVIEW that optimize survival and reproduction ( Figure 1.1 ). Truly, the study of behavior provides us with a window through Behavioral genetics aims to understand the genetic which we can view much of biology. mechanisms that enable the nervous system to direct Understanding behaviors requires a multidisciplinary appropriate interactions between organisms and their perspective, with regulation of gene expression at its core. social and physical environments. Early scientific The emerging field of behavioral genetics is still taking explorations of animal behavior defined the fields shape and its boundaries are still being defined. Behavioral of experimental psychology and classical ethology. genetics has evolved through the merger of experimental Behavioral genetics has emerged as an interdisciplin- psychology and classical ethology with evolutionary biol- ary science at the interface of experimental psychology, ogy and genetics, and also incorporates aspects of neuro- classical ethology, genetics, and neuroscience. This science ( Figure 1.2 ). To gain a perspective on the current chapter provides a brief overview of the emergence of definition of this field, it is helpful
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of DNA Technology 1865 - Gregor Mendel the Father of Genetics
    A Short History of DNA Technology 1865 - Gregor Mendel The Father of Genetics The Augustinian monastery in old Brno, Moravia 1865 - Gregor Mendel • Law of Segregation • Law of Independent Assortment • Law of Dominance 1865 1915 - T.H. Morgan Genetics of Drosophila • Short generation time • Easy to maintain • Only 4 pairs of chromosomes 1865 1915 - T.H. Morgan •Genes located on chromosomes •Sex-linked inheritance wild type mutant •Gene linkage 0 •Recombination long aristae short aristae •Genetic mapping gray black body 48.5 body (cross-over maps) 57.5 red eyes cinnabar eyes 67.0 normal wings vestigial wings 104.5 red eyes brown eyes 1865 1928 - Frederick Griffith “Rough” colonies “Smooth” colonies Transformation of Streptococcus pneumoniae Living Living Heat killed Heat killed S cells mixed S cells R cells S cells with living R cells capsule Living S cells in blood Bacterial sample from dead mouse Strain Injection Results 1865 Beadle & Tatum - 1941 One Gene - One Enzyme Hypothesis Neurospora crassa Ascus Ascospores placed X-rays Fruiting on complete body medium All grow Minimal + amino acids No growth Minimal Minimal + vitamins in mutants Fragments placed on minimal medium Minimal plus: Mutant deficient in enzyme that synthesizes arginine Cys Glu Arg Lys His 1865 Beadle & Tatum - 1941 Gene A Gene B Gene C Minimal Medium + Citruline + Arginine + Ornithine Wild type PrecursorEnz A OrnithineEnz B CitrulineEnz C Arginine Metabolic block Class I Precursor OrnithineEnz B CitrulineEnz C Arginine Mutants Class II Mutants PrecursorEnz A Ornithine
    [Show full text]
  • DNA: the Timeline and Evidence of Discovery
    1/19/2017 DNA: The Timeline and Evidence of Discovery Interactive Click and Learn (Ann Brokaw Rocky River High School) Introduction For almost a century, many scientists paved the way to the ultimate discovery of DNA and its double helix structure. Without the work of these pioneering scientists, Watson and Crick may never have made their ground-breaking double helix model, published in 1953. The knowledge of how genetic material is stored and copied in this molecule gave rise to a new way of looking at and manipulating biological processes, called molecular biology. The breakthrough changed the face of biology and our lives forever. Watch The Double Helix short film (approximately 15 minutes) – hyperlinked here. 1 1/19/2017 1865 The Garden Pea 1865 The Garden Pea In 1865, Gregor Mendel established the foundation of genetics by unraveling the basic principles of heredity, though his work would not be recognized as “revolutionary” until after his death. By studying the common garden pea plant, Mendel demonstrated the inheritance of “discrete units” and introduced the idea that the inheritance of these units from generation to generation follows particular patterns. These patterns are now referred to as the “Laws of Mendelian Inheritance.” 2 1/19/2017 1869 The Isolation of “Nuclein” 1869 Isolated Nuclein Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss researcher, noticed an unknown precipitate in his work with white blood cells. Upon isolating the material, he noted that it resisted protein-digesting enzymes. Why is it important that the material was not digested by the enzymes? Further work led him to the discovery that the substance contained carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and large amounts of phosphorus with no sulfur.
    [Show full text]
  • Goings on in Mendel's Garden
    40 Evolutionary Anthropology CROTCHETS & QUIDDITIES Goings on in Mendel’s Garden KENNETH WEISS The honorable monk probably didn’t cheat. But he led us astray in other ways. Gregor Mendel gave us the tools by discussed. But this may have inadver- which to do modern genetics, and we tently led us astray, in ways for which have a century of progress to show for we are paying a price today. The arti- it. We properly credit Mendel and his ficial nature of his experiments lured peas for showing us the particulate us into confusing the inheritance of nature of inheritance, but his work traits with the inheritance of genes. both enabled and disabled evolution- And this in turn has led to an unwar- ary thinking for several decades after ranted phenogenetic (see Note 1) de- its rediscovery. Since the factors he terminism that impairs our under- studied didn’t change over genera- standing of biology. tions, Mendel’s discoveries solved the problem that perplexed Darwin, that BLENDING IN blending inheritance would swamp variation and prevent evolution from Mendel wasn’t trying to explain evo- happening. Yet, for the same reason, lution. He knew of traits that varied Mendel’s work impeded evolutionary continuously in his experimental pea thought because evolution requires species, Pisum sativum, and appeared Figure 1. Mendel. change, and discrete variation was to blend in darwinian fashion from also incompatible with darwinian one generation to the next. But he gradualism. Eventually things were wanted to breed agriculturally valu- worked out, we got our unified theory able strains, so he avoided such traits used pea strains that differed only by (the neodarwinian Synthesis), and it and instead selected strains of pea the single traits he reported for each rested on Mendel’s discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION to GENETICS Table of Contents Heredity, Historical
    INTRODUCTION TO GENETICS Table of Contents Heredity, historical perspectives | The Monk and his peas | Principle of segregation Dihybrid Crosses | Mutations | Genetic Terms | Links Heredity, Historical Perspective | Back to Top For much of human history people were unaware of the scientific details of how babies were conceived and how heredity worked. Clearly they were conceived, and clearly there was some hereditary connection between parents and children, but the mechanisms were not readily apparent. The Greek philosophers had a variety of ideas: Theophrastus proposed that male flowers caused female flowers to ripen; Hippocrates speculated that "seeds" were produced by various body parts and transmitted to offspring at the time of conception, and Aristotle thought that male and female semen mixed at conception. Aeschylus, in 458 BC, proposed the male as the parent, with the female as a "nurse for the young life sown within her". During the 1700s, Dutch microscopist Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) discovered "animalcules" in the sperm of humans and other animals. Some scientists speculated they saw a "little man" (homunculus) inside each sperm. These scientists formed a school of thought known as the "spermists". They contended the only contributions of the female to the next generation were the womb in which the homunculus grew, and prenatal influences of the womb. An opposing school of thought, the ovists, believed that the future human was in the egg, and that sperm merely stimulated the growth of the egg. Ovists thought women carried eggs containing boy and girl children, and that the gender of the offspring was determined well before conception.
    [Show full text]
  • Gregor Mendel and ‘‘Myth-Conceptions’’
    COMMENTS AND CRITICISM Gregor Mendel and ‘‘Myth-Conceptions’’ JULIE WESTERLUND Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA DANIEL FAIRBANKS Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA Received 4 November 2003; accepted 11 December 2003 DOI 10.1002/sce.20007 Published online 7 June 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). In a recent article, in Science Education, entitled “Scientific Myth-Conceptions” (Allchin, 2003), the author aptly criticized “popular histories of science that romanticize scien- tists, inflate the drama of their discoveries and cast scientists and the process of sci- ence in monumental proportion” (p. 329). The first example cited of such romanticism is Gregor Mendel. However, there is also tendency among some historians, such as Monaghan and Corcos (1990) and Di Trocchio (1991), to disparage Mendel’s contributions with claims that contradict his original writings (Orel, 1996; Orel & Hartl, 1994; Fairbanks & Rytting, 2001). Such is also the case with the depiction of Gregor Mendel in Allchin’s article. Following the lead of Monaghan and Corcos (1990), the article credits Mendel’s principle of independent assortment not to him but to geneticists who worked several years after the rediscovery of his work. It states: “in his classic 18651 paper, Mendel did not explicitly formulate a ‘Second Law,’ the principle of independent assortment,” and “geneticists did not distinguish ‘Mendel’s’ 1st and 2nd laws until several years after the revival of his work when they encountered anomalous ratios in the offspring” (Allchin, 2003, p. 332). These assertions concerning Mendel’s Second Law are easily refuted. Although Monaghan and Corcos (1990) claimed that Mendel did not articulate the principle of independent assortment, other authors, among them Di Trocchio (1991), Orel (1996), and Fairbanks and Rytting (2001), pointed out that Mendel clearly stated the principle of independent Correspondence to: Julie Westerlund; e-mail: [email protected] 1 Although Mendel presented his paper verbally in 1865, it was published in 1866.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Influence on Mendel: Evidence from a New Translation Of
    | PERSPECTIVES Darwin’sInfluence on Mendel: Evidence from a New Translation of Mendel’s Paper Daniel J. Fairbanks*,1 and Scott Abbott† *Department of Biology and †Department of Integrated Studies, Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah 84058 ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7422-0549 (D.J.F.) ABSTRACT Gregor Mendel’s classic paper, Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybrids), was published in 1866, hence 2016 is its sesquicentennial. Mendel completed his experiments in 1863 and shortly thereafter began compiling the results and writing his paper, which he presented in meetings of the Natural Science Society in Brünn in February and March of 1865. Mendel owned a personal copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, a German translation published in 1863, and it contains his marginalia. Its publication date indicates that Mendel’s study of Darwin’s book could have had no influence while he was conducting his experiments but its publication date coincided with the period of time when he was preparing his paper, making it possible that Darwin’s writings influenced Mendel’s interpretations and theory. Based on this premise, we prepared a Darwinized English translation of Mendel’s paper by comparing German terms Mendel employed with the same terms in the German translation of Origin of Species in his possession, then using Darwin’s counterpart English words and phrases as much as possible in our translation. We found a substantially higher use of these terms in the final two (10th and 11th) sections of Mendel’s paper, particularly in one key paragraph, where Mendel reflects on evolutionary issues, providing strong evidence of Darwin’sinfluence on Mendel.
    [Show full text]
  • Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin
    Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin B. E. Bishop Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988), has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution. Yet careful scrutiny of Mendel's Pisum pa- per, published in 1866, and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that It Is antievolutlonary In content, but also that it was specif- ically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859, and that Mendel's and Darwin's theories, the two theories which were united in the 1940s to form the modern synthesis, are completely antithetical. Mendel does not mention Darwin in his Pi- [Mendel] in so far as they bore on his anal- sum paper (although he does in his letters ysis of the evolutionary role of hybrids." to Nlgeli, the famous Swiss botanist with Olby's (1979) article, entitled "Mendel whom he initiated a correspondence, and No Mendelian?," led to a number of revi- in his Hieracium paper, published In 1870), sionist views of Mendel's work and his in- but he states unambiguously in his intro- tentions, although no agreement has been duction that his objective is to contribute reached. For instance, some writers, un- to the evolution controversy raging at the like de Beer, Olby, and Callender, overlook time: "It requires a good deal of courage or minimize the evolutionary significance indeed to undertake such a far-reaching of Mendel's paper, while others maintain task; however, this seems to be the one that Mendel had little or no interest in he- correct way of finally reaching the solu- redity, an interpretation that has been op- tion to a question whose significance for posed by Hartl and Orel (1992): "We con- the evolutionary history of organic forms clude that Mendel understood very clearly must not be underestimated" (Mendel what his experiments meant for heredity." 1866).
    [Show full text]
  • 1. the Phenomenon of 'Like Begets Like' Is Due to (A) Genetics (B) Heredity
    1. The phenomenon of ‘like begets like’ is due to (A) genetics (B) heredity (C) germplasm (D) variation 2. Transmission of characters from one generation to the next or from parents to offsprings is called (A) heredity (B) variation (C) recombination (D) mutation 3. Variation is (A) differences between parents and offsprings. (B) differences between individuals of same species. (C) differences among the offsprings of the same parents. (D) all of the above. 4. The term “genetics” was coined by (A) Morgan (B) William Bateson (C) Johannsen (D) Karl Correns 5. The greek word which means ‘to grow into’ is (A) genetics (B) genesis (C) inheritance (D) factor 6. The first scientific explanation regarding inheritance was given by (A) William Bateson (B) Gregor Johann Mendel (C) Griffith (D) Johannsen 7. Who is known as “Father of Genetics”? (A) Theophrastus (B) Stephen Hales (C) Mendel (D) Aristotle 8. Organisms produced by asexual reproduction are called (A) clones (B) offsprings (C) factors (D) both (A) and (B) 9. Organisms produced by sexual reproduction are called clone (A) offsprings (B) s (C) characters (D) genes 10. Offsprings are (A) exactly identical to either of their parents. (B) not exactly identical to either of their parents. (C) show intermediate characters inherited from both the parents. (D) both (B) and (C) 11. The term “factor” for gene was coined by (A) William Bateson (B) Johann Mendel (C) Johannsen (D) F. Griffith 12. Gregor Mendel was born in (A) U.K (B) Austria (C) Russia (D) Czechoslovakia 13. Mendel was a (A) physiologist (B) mathematician (C) cytologist (D) taxonomist 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Genome DNA Structure: the Double Helix Gregor Mendel, An
    Human genome DNA Structure: The Double Helix Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, concluded in 1865 from genetic crossing experiments that hereditary information is passed from parents to offspring in discrete packets. Later on, these units of heredity were called genes. The biological nature of genes was not revealed until 1944, when it was demonstrated that genetic information is carried by a biological substance with the chemical designation deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA is a polymer composed of deoxyribonucleotides, each of which typically contains one of four different bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), thymine (T), or cytosine (C). The discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, certainly one of the most significant scientific discoveries of the 20th century, provided the first clues on how DNA can be accurately duplicated in order to transmit genomic information from one generation to the next. Watson and Crick’s double-helix structure was based on two major kinds of evidence: 1. When Erwin Chargaff and colleagues analyzed the composition of DNA from many different organisms, they found that the concentration of thymine was always equal to the concentration of adenine and the concentration of cytosine was always equal to the concentration of guanine. Their results strongly suggested that thymine and adenine as well as cytosine and guanine were present in DNA in some fixed interrelationship. Their data also showed that the total concentration of pyrimidines (thymine plus cytosine) was always equal to the total concentration of purines (adenine plus guanine). 2. When X rays are focused through fibers of purified molecules, the rays are deflected by the atoms of the molecules in specific patterns, called diffraction patterns, which provide information about the organization of the components of the molecules.
    [Show full text]
  • MENDEL: BIOLOGY, MATHEMATICS and HISTORY of SCIENCE Soledad ESTEBAN*, María P
    The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project Proceedings of the International Conference The Decidable and the Undecidable in Mathematics Education Brno, Czech Republic, September 2003 MENDEL: BIOLOGY, MATHEMATICS AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE Soledad ESTEBAN*, María P. GONZÁLEZ* and Luis TEJERO** *Dpt. Química Orgánica y Biología-Facultad de Ciencias-UNED c/ Senda del Rey, 9-28040 Madrid-Spain **Dpt. Matemática Aplicada I-Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales-UNED, Ciudad Universitaria-Apartado 60149-28040 Madrid-Spain Abstract: Brno is the place where the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel carried out his studies in genetics, initiating with that a new and important branch of biology. In the small orchard of the Augustinian Monastery- Abbey of this city, he experimented with about 27.000 pea plants for nine years, from 1854 to 1863. Nevertheless, Mendel would not have been able to come to the magnificent conclusions of this work without the help of mathematics. In this way, he applied a simple but effective mathematical method in the analysis of the empirical data obtained by means of those experiments with plants. Thus, all these elements together, Mendel, Brno, mathematics, biology..., in sum, interdisciplinarity and history of science, represent a good opportunity to be discussed in a conference on mathematics, like this one, hold in the city of Brno. Introduction When we hear the name “Mendel” we always associate it to the laws of inheritance in the living beings. The theory of heredity always appears in secondary school biology. So, it is a typical theme that, if it is presented in an adequate way, becomes very attractive for the students of biology.
    [Show full text]