高中生物学教学应配合复习初中生物学知识

生物学是中学必修的一门基础课程。初中生物学和高中生物学基础知识既有所分工,又互相衔接。初中生物学知识是高中生物学知识的基础,高中生物学则是初中生物学知识的综合、概括和提高。高中生物学教学中时常涉及到许多初中生物学知识,因此,学生对初中生物学知识的掌握程度直接关系到高中生物学的教学。通过对历年高考生物试题分析表明:高考生物命题范围只考高中生物和初中生理卫生,不考初中植物学、动物学内容,但并不排除高中生物学与初中生物学相关内容的联系和延伸。所以,近年高考生物学试题中出现了较     

初中生物学实验与概念整合的教学

阐述了初中生物学教学中开展实验教学与概念教学整合的意义,对如何开展实验教学与概念教学整合进行了研究,并就相关典型案例进行了探讨,旨在促进初中学生对生物学的认知能力,全面提升初中学生的综合素质。     

"肘部运动简易模型"的制作及应用

以初中生物学(人教版)8年级肘部运动自制教具为例,阐述了 自制教具在初中生物学教学中的设计、制作与应用过程.     

谈提高初中生物课堂教学的有效性

<正>新课程标准要求初中生物教学要从三维目标培养初中学生的生物学素养,为了在学生学业负担重,学习压力很大的情况下,完成初中生物教育教学任务,达成初中生物学教学的教学目标,我们应从提高中学生物     

初中生物学教学中培养学生观察能力的探索与实践

观察是进行生物学研究的基本方法之一,也是学生学习生物学知识需要具备的重要能力之一。初中生物学教学是学生学习生物学知识的初级阶段,教师要在教学过程中创造好的教学环境,并根据不同的教学内容,为学生提供观察材料,并能提供不同类型的观察对象,使学生养成良好的观察习惯,逐步培养学生的观察能力。从当前初中生物学教学中存在的一些现象,分析这些现象产生的原因,针对现象及新课程改革的要求,在培养学生观察能力方面进行探索与实践。     

要更多地关注教学内容的钻研和把握

这轮课程改革，初中生物学教学的变革已进入第10个年头，高中也已进入第7个年头．成绩斐然。广大生物学教师在教学目标的厘定上：在创设生动活泼的教学情境上；在改变学生学习的方式上；在使用现代化教学媒体上；在评价、考核的改革方面等都付出了许多精力，颇有创新和建树，     

以实验促进初中生物学重要概念的理解

生物学重要概念是初中生物学课程标准的核心内容。实验教学既是一类探究活动,也是生物学教学的基本形式之一。从几个方面论述如何发挥实验在初中生物学重要概念教学中的作用:以关注实验结果的实验解决术语类概念;以关注实验过程的实验解决内涵类概念、以亲身体验实验解决外延类概念;从而促进学生对生物学重要概念的理解。     

重庆市初中实施生物学新课程的课堂教学研究报告

为推进生物学新课程改革工作,选取了重庆市具有代表性的2个区县初中生物学教师和初中学生作为研究对象,采取座谈和问卷的调查方法,对重庆市实施生物学新课程课堂教学情况进行了研究。研究结果表明,目前重庆市实施初中生物学新课程的状况是良好的,新课程理念已经为多数教师和学生所接受,多数教师的教学观念和学生的学习方式已初步转变。     

基于进化思想和理论对初中生物学课程思政的探讨——以北师大版初中生物学八年级（下册）为例

初中生物学涉及的生物进化知识蕴含着许多思政元素,而融入生物进化思想观念不仅有利于实现课程育人功能,也对核心素养提升大有裨益。在初中生物学大概念教学的基础上渗透生物进化思想,不仅可以帮助教师提高教学效果,也有利于提高学生生物学学科核心素养。     

差异·合作教学模式在初中生物学课堂中的探索——以“植物的光合作用”为例

以苏科版初中生物学教材"植物的光合作用"一课为例,探索差异·合作教学模式在初中生物学课堂中的运用,包括如何在教学目标、教学策略、教学评价等方面进行差异化设计,以适应学习者的需要、学习风格和学习习惯。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor