Abstract
MY colleague Prof. D. G. Catcheside has not, I think, had much experience either of teaching elementary biology or of devising syllabuses. If he had, he would know that his proposals1 for unifying the teaching of biology, at present consisting largely of long words that are meaningless until they are defined, will have to be translated into lecture notes, text-books and examination questions. When this has been done he will find, I suspect, that, allowing for natural evolution, what is presented to the student will be much the same as has been given to him for a good long time. My own school education in physics and chemistry, for example, now more than thirty years old, included almost everything in his list, the only omissions being things such as high-energy bonds which were not then known. It included also the method of dimensions, surface tension, sound, general wave theory, and other topics that are not in his list, but which are just as necessary to the zoologist as any that are.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Catcheside, D. G., Nature, 197, 427 (1963).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
YAPP, W. The Teaching of Biology. Nature 198, 409 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1038/198409a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/198409a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.