高考改革与命题

“３＋Ｘ”高考科目改革,将生物学科重新纳入高考范围,既是生命科学自身发展的必然结果,也是全面推进素质教育的迫切需要。充分体现了“高考改革要有助于中学素质教育的开展,有助于高校选拔高素质的创新人才,有助于高校扩大办学自主权”的改革精神。高考制度改革,直接反映在高考命题模式的转变上。在“３＋Ｘ”高考改革以前,其高考生物命题随着高考制度改革大体分为３种模式：传统化命题、趋向标准化命题、标准化命题。与素质教育相适应,伴随“３＋Ｘ”高考科目改革的不断深入,高考生物命题已经进入到了一个新的模式──重视综合能…     

生物学高考复习的组织

高考属于选拔性考试,这种考试随着素质教育的不断深化呈现出了新的模式与特征,那么．指向高考的复习模式也必然产生适应性的变化。生物学高考复习的组织,属于宏观策略范畴．它立足于将高考复习看作一项系统工程．通过实施全程计划,组织研究,科学训练,反馈调整等一系列宏观和微观的策略与方法,积极促进学生的自主复习,有效培养学生的综合能力和科学素养。     

生物高考复习模式初探

抓了几年高考,对生物高考复习模式进行了初步探索。我按照这个模式进行复习比较顺利,效果较理想。这个复习模式包括以下几条原则。     

生物学科高考的回顾与展望

1　生物学科高考历史的回顾回顾 ,是对 1981年恢复生物高考至 1992年生物学科被逐出高考之外 ,近 11届生物高考的回顾。 1981年生物进入高考后 ,几经改革 ,分数从 1981年 30分 ,到1982年的 50分 ,再到 1986年开始的 70分。反映了生物学科在高中教学阶段的日益受到重视。同时 ,题型、考试范围都作了相应的调整和变化。 1981年始 ,生物高考试卷的题型是填空、选择、是非判断、问答……等各种形式 ,逐步改进并稳定到 1990年起的两大题型 ,即选择题(四选一 )和简答题。其特点之一是客观性命题所占比重很大。特点之二是紧扣《大纲》,紧扣教材。紧…     

一九八六年高考生物学试题浅析

一年一度的高考已经结束,现在我们就本年度的高考生物学试题作些初步分析和探讨,以供中学教师参考和讨论。我们认为今年的高考生物学试题,有不少新的特点。认真的研究和讨论这些特点,对指导今后中学的生物学教学,不断地提高教学质量是很有帮助的。     

近两年高考生物试题特点

1990年、1991年高考生物试题接连受到大家赞赏,究其原因是近两年的试题,在命题形式、内容、深广度、计分等方面得到了进一步的改进,使命体的总体要求更加切合中学生物教学的实际。具体来说,近两年的高考生物试题具有如下几个主要特点: 1、题型简化、分数分配恰当近两年高考生物试题题型均为两种,即选择题和简答题,较过去的五种题型进一步简化。     

生物高考必须恢复

生物高考必须恢复陈章良（北京大学生物学系１００８７１）得知高考取消生物学科目考试这一消息,我感觉这种作法是欠考虑、不妥当的。生命科学是全世界公认的ＺＩ世纪的领头学科,未来它将在大脑神经、发育、遗传及疾病治疗等许多领域产生重大突破,使人类获得真正全面的...     

高考生物学命题技术拾零(一)

近年来随着高考命题种类的增多,命题本身的复杂性也愈加凸现,而社会对高考的高度关注,更增加了命题工作的社会责任感。因此,开展高考命题研究和提高试题质量就显得更加重要。这里从命题的角度,就生物学高考命题的有关技术问题进行初步的探讨。     

高考命题特征与高考复习

2004年江苏省首次自主命题,从生物试卷的题量、难度、题型、结构和考试内容的分布以及能力要求等方面来看,总的来说已经完成了高考试卷由国家考试中心命题到地方自主命题的平稳过渡。     

高考生物学实验类题目解答的关键

“变量的确认”是生物学科高考考纲中“实验与探究能力”的一项重要要求,是高考要考查的重要的实验探究能力之一,是解答高考生物学实验类题目的关键.本文结合实例对此加以探讨.     

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