3.9 Article

Considering Instructional Approach & Question Design with the Hardy-Weinberg Principle

期刊

AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 191-194

出版社

NATL ASSOC BIOLOGY TEACHERS INC
DOI: 10.1525/abt.2021.83.3.191

关键词

Hardy-Weinberg; population genetics; introductory biology; mathematics; evolution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Hardy-Weinberg principle is crucial in population genetics, shedding light on the preservation of variation during evolution and the impact of natural and sexual selection on traits. It is a fundamental topic in introductory biology courses in the United States, where students need sufficient time to grasp the foundations of population genetics with clear information presented to ensure accurate understanding. Misconceptions regarding the HWP are common and pose a risk to students' comprehension, as highlighted through examples from university and AP-level standardized tests.
The Hardy-Weinberg principle (HWP) is an application of the binomial expansion theorem that is foundational to the field of population genetics. Because of the important history of the HWP in answering how variation is preserved during evolution, and the ability of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) to detect natural and sexual selection acting on a trait, the HWP is a staple of the introductory biology undergraduate curriculum in the United States. Introductory courses often cover a wide range of topics in ecology and evolution, and it is important that students have enough time during the semester to grasp the foundations of population genetics. At the same time, information needs to be presented clearly to ensure that the student gains a correct understanding of the HWP. This article discusses the importance of the HWP to undergraduate education in biology and describes misconceptions from the instructor's perspective. These misconceptions are pervasive and risk undermining a proper understanding of the HWP. We provide examples adapted from university- and AP-level standardized tests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据