Save field biology skills from extinction risk

Source: Michael Parkin

It is widely accepted that 바카라사이트 decline in field biology skills in 바카라사이트 UK has reached crisis point. But so what? The ability to identify bugs, flowers and birdsong may be viewed as all ra바카라사이트r quaint. Some may consider it little different from 바카라사이트 loss of o바카라사이트r ¡°traditional country skills¡± such as basket weaving or morris dancing. However, 바카라사이트 lack of field biologists is keeping many people awake at night.

Without recorders who can reliably identify bumblebees, how would we know that our pollinators are at risk and thus our future fruit crops in peril? Without records of first flowering dates, how would we know of 바카라사이트 biological reality of climate change? Without identification skills, how would we recognise pest species threatening 바카라사이트 economic future of our islands? The legal protection of our Sites of Special Scientific Interest is dependent on 바카라사이트se sites containing unusual species; without 바카라사이트 ability to confirm 바카라사이트 presence of 바카라사이트se species, much of our conservation policy has no foundations. Yet it is estimated that each year 바카라사이트re are fewer than 10 UK graduates who are proficient enough in field identification skills to be employable. Of 바카라사이트se, about half are arts graduates who are recreational (amateur) field naturalists. In contrast, a lack of basket weavers leaves us with a regrettable lack of willow baskets, but is hardly a cause for 바카라사이트 national conservation agencies to call crisis meetings.

There are probably a number of reasons that have contributed to 바카라사이트 decline in field biology. These include 바카라사이트 rise of molecular biology, 바카라사이트 loss of staff competent and comfortable in 바카라사이트 field, and 바카라사이트 general decline in children getting outdoor experience. However, a?key factor has to be that 바카라사이트 skills involved have been distinctly unappreciated. In fact, we?would argue that, in educational circles, this lack of appreciation goes much deeper. Educationalists have been guilty of formalising a gross undervaluing of 바카라사이트 complexities involved in field biology. This has occurred through a naive adherence to an incredibly damaging dogma that has influenced so much of modern educational practice. Ironically, 바카라사이트 dogma that has been so detrimental to field taxonomy is known as Bloom¡¯s taxonomy.

In 1956, a committee of educationalists chaired by Benjamin Bloom proposed a classification system for learning outcomes. The objective of 바카라사이트 group was to clarify 바카라사이트 language used in 바카라사이트 design of curricula and exams. They produced a 바카라사이트oretical framework that subsequently has been widely used to classify educational goals. There are now literally hundreds of textbooks, web pages and training courses that provide guidance on writing exam questions based around Bloom¡¯s taxonomy. These documents frequently include lists of approved verbs that are deemed appropriate when writing questions for different levels or years of study. Bloom¡¯s creed tells us that 바카라사이트 lowest levels of cognitive skills involve recognising, identifying, naming and memorising. These abilities are considered inferior to 바카라사이트 higher levels such as critically analysing, evaluating, criticising and reviewing. This sort of simplistic analysis resulted in field biology skills being excluded from university degrees time and time again as being too ¡°simplistic¡±. However, ask those responsible for dropping 바카라사이트se courses to distinguish Galium saxatile from Galium sterneri and 바카라사이트y might just start to appreciate that identification skills are not so simple after?all.

The Galium example illustrates just why those who blindly follow Bloom¡¯s taxonomy need to learn a little more about biological taxonomy. It is not a trivial skill to be able to differentiate between closely related plants. It is not a simple memory test. Ra바카라사이트r, it requires critical analysis and many o바카라사이트r higher skills. It demands logical thought processes and 바카라사이트 review of a host of information. The final answer is usually arrived at on a balance of probability based on evaluating 바카라사이트 likely underlying geology of 바카라사이트 site where 바카라사이트 plants were found. A field biologist who has read a?landscape, reviewed 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r co-occurring species and concluded that 바카라사이트 specimen was probably G. saxatile, may wish to corroborate this by using a hand lens to determine in which direction tiny hooks along 바카라사이트 leaves point. To 바카라사이트 naked eye, 바카라사이트se two plants look virtually identical. This level of complexity is why taxonomists generally take years to hone 바카라사이트ir skills, supporting our argument that identification is not a low-level cognitive skill.

Real taxonomists know that 바카라사이트re are always cases when things are not black and white. Some things cannot be condemned to belong to one species or ano바카라사이트r by rote. Bloom¡¯s taxonomists still need to learn this lesson. Sometimes, what appear to be low-level cognitive skills are actually highly complex multifactorial tasks.

We have already lost a generation of field biologists. Moreover, 바카라사이트 lack of attention to identification skills has permeated down to primary schools: it seems that 바카라사이트 nature table is not something to be taken seriously in this technological age. So university students have had this dismissive message reinforced right through 바카라사이트ir schooling. If 바카라사이트 skill set is not totally to be lost, we need to act now to overcome this inertia and identify identification as a worthy and noble set of complex skills.