|
Biology
K. Christopher Riegle, Lead Discipline Faculty
Irvine Valley College
Summary of Identified
Issues
The various regional groups used the 'Topics for Future Discussion'
from the 2000-2001 year end report as the initial basis for
discussion. From these topics, two key questions were identified.
First, what is appropriate content for a lower division core
curriculum in the biological sciences? Second, can the CAN
course descriptors be modified to accurately reflect this
content? Participating faculty also discussed a new proposal
calling for a general education (GE) transfer pattern for
science students. These discussions generated an additional
question: What would be the contents of such a transfer pattern
for biology majors? These three questions were the focus of
discussions at regional and state meetings this past year.
Question 1. What is the appropriate content
for a lower-division core curriculum in the biological sciences?
An analysis of lower-division core curriculum
content began with several assumptions. First, core curricula
vary considerably among community colleges, CSUs and UCs.
This diversity reflects the expertise and philosophy of each
institution's faculty as well as limitations of budget and
facilities. Second, any attempt to generate an Intersegmental
Major Preparation Articulated Curriculum (IMPAC) should embrace
this diversity rather than reduce it. Third, the actual content
of the various core curricula was probably not as diverse
as course organization and course sequence make it appear.
With these assumptions in mind, faculty groups
at the various regional and statewide meetings attempted to
define key elements common to most lower-division core curricula.
The results are presented as a table in Appendix
A. The content was divided into six key Topic areas: diversity,
ecology, evolution, genetics, cell biology and biochemistry.
Detail was then added to each of these topics as a list of
key Elements, each with associated content. Ideally, the table
of Topics/Elements as developed is intended to state clearly
the minimum criteria for a lower-division core curriculum,
which when completed by students at community colleges will
allow transfer to CSUs and UCs with junior-level standing
in the major.
There was only minor disagreement among faculty
concerning the curriculum content represented in this document.
However, some specific issues became evident during discussion
of this core content. As you peruse Appendix
A consider the follow comments made by faculty.
1. Although Topics in the grid (diversity,
ecology, evolution, genetics etc.) are arranged in a macro
to micro sequence, this arrangement is not intended to suggest
a teaching sequence. It is assumed that faculty at each institution
will arrange the Topics/Elements according to its own expertise
and philosophy.
2. The Elements placed under each topic are
intended to represent sections common to lower-division core
courses in the field. They are not intended to be lecture
topics but groups of lectures that would normally take 1-2
weeks to complete, the equivalent of a 30-32 week core curriculum.
3. The organization of Elements under each
Topic is not intended to suggest a sequence for developing
and teaching undergraduate core courses. They are intended
as a set of criteria against which individual core curricula
can be assessed.
4. The content of each Element is intended
to suggest a definable body of knowledge. It is not however
intended to limit inclusion of additional content. Faculty
expressed a desire to include specific content derived from
their particular expertise. Although the specific content
cited by these faculty does not necessarily appear in the
core content, its inclusion is not precluded.
5. Some components of each Element are often
assigned primarily to an associated lab course or are supported
directly by laboratory experiments. In other cases, the knowledge
is conveyed primarily via lecture. No attempt has been made
to assign content to laboratory time although some effort
was expended to identify key laboratory elements appropriate
to a core curriculum. Further details remain to be identified.
6. As it stands, this core curriculum does
not meet all needs of either community colleges or California's
four-year institutions. Some community colleges (CCs) cannot
provide for all of the core content. For instance, faculty
from smaller CCs may have problems with content in molecular
biology, especially a laboratory component, due to budgetary
concerns or facilities. In these instances, comparison with
the proposed core curriculum may highlight weaknesses, allowing
for subsequent curricular changes and fiscal arguments to
support them.
7. Conversely, some California State University
(CSUs) and University of California campuses (UCs) teach certain
specific core content that is not addressed directly by curricula
at most CCs and many CSUs and UCs. For instance, physiological
ecology is taught as a core element or a core course at some
CSUs and UCs. Although this element is included with discussion
of animal, plant and microbe diversity in curricula of most
CCs and many UCs and CSUs, this approach that may not meet
the criteria of institutions teaching it as a separate core
element. While in some instances, minor curricular changes
may be the solution to such problems, in other cases the budgetary
and/or facilities constraints may make it difficult for CCs
to adjust. The proposed core curriculum will allow identification
of such content, and provide a basis for discussion and resolution
that is more broadly based than individual articulation agreements.
In summary, the proposed lower-division core
curriculum is a potential critical step toward development
of an Intersegmental Major Preparation Articulated Curriculum
for the biological sciences. While providing for a set of
topics and elements that characterize a core curriculum, it
does not limit content, restrict organization of content nor
dictate philosophy. It will make it relatively easy to identify
key elements missing from the transfer core curricula of individual
institutions, i.e. community colleges, which can then be addressed.
With such a core, it will also be relatively easy to identify
core content that is specific to individual CSUs and UCs and
is therefore not a component of the proposed core or likely
to be within the experience of transfer students. Accommodations
or recommendations that will minimize the impact on transfer
students can then be generated. It provides a set of criteria
against which individual articulation agreements may be assessed.
This approach to defining a core curriculum does not necessarily
demand major curricular changes. And finally, it provides
a vehicle for easily modifying core content.
Question 2: Can the CAN course descriptors
be modified to accurately reflect core content?
The answer to this question was addressed
at the statewide meeting in April. Once the core curriculum
was clarified and content added, the faculty group formulated
an answer with two distinct but mutually dependent approaches
to CAN articulation. First, the group defined a CAN core curriculum
(transfer pattern) comprising the Topics and Elements in Appendix
A. With this approach, individual institutions can articulate
to the CAN core curriculum by demonstrating that the sum of
their core courses included the entire CAN core Topics and
Elements. Second, the group rewrote the present CAN descriptors
to match the proposed CAN core curriculum. This approach provides
a set of clearly define courses to be used by institutions
already aligned with the existing CAN courses. With a defined
core curriculum, rewriting the CAN descriptors proved to be
a relatively simple task. The proposed CAN course descriptors
are presented in Appendix
B. These descriptions are limited to courses included in the
lower-division core, and do not include courses such as anatomy
and physiology, which were not addressed in the discussions.
Question 3: What should be the components
of a general education (GE) transfer pattern for majors in
biological sciences?
Science faculty from UC Davis proposed a
general education transfer pattern to provide science and
engineering students an alternative to the IGETC pattern.
This proposal attempts to address the following problems specific
to science and engineering majors who follow the IGETC pattern.
First, science students who complete IGETC often transfer
with severe deficits in the math and science requirements
for the major. This outcome for students occurs because the
minimum math and science requirements stated in IGETC were
designed, and work well for, most non-science majors but are
suitable for most science majors. For example, math for liberal
arts meets requirements for many non-science majors but calculus
is required for most science majors. As a result of following
IGETC pattern, many science students transfer with serious
deficits in prerequisite and corequisite science and math
courses, which delays completion of upper division courses
in the major and delays graduation. The alternative GE proposal
addresses this problem by setting the minimum science and
math requirements for transfer to correlate with the minimum
requirements for the major. Second, science and engineering
majors who complete both IGETC and the major requirements
in math, science and engineering must in many cases complete
70-80 units before transfer. The proposal addresses this concern
by reducing non-science GE transfer requirements (Humanities,
Social Sciences, Arts, etc.) by two courses and then guarantees
that transfer students must take only two additional GE courses
at the receiving institution.
A number of benefits accrue from this proposal.
It allows students to apply more units to major requirements
by delaying some GE courses until transfer. By meshing GE
and major requirements, the proposal minimizes the total units
required to complete the combination of the major and GE requirements
for transfer. Allowing science students to delay some GE courses
until after transfer has two benefits. It permits them to
mix GE courses with their upper division major courses and
it guarantees they can complete their lower-division GE according
to the provisions of the GE proposal in lieu of meeting all
of the GE requirements of the receiving institution. All these
benefits combine to reduce time to degree completion at the
receiving institution without compromising academic integrity.
The key element to this proposal is that it provides to science
and engineering students a clearly define and efficient transfer
path.
The benefits of this proposal clearly apply
to biology majors, who must complete biology core courses
plus minimum math, chemistry and physics requirements for
the major in addition to GE courses. A potential GE transfer
pattern for biology majors was submitted to get the ball rolling
(see Appendix C), but a
number of significant problems must be addressed before advancing
beyond the proposal stage. These involve the minimum math,
chemistry and physics requirements. While some institutions
require a single semester of calculus, others require two
semesters, and still others require calculus plus a semester
of statistics. Completion of a year of inorganic chemistry
is required at virtually all institutions, but not all require
a year of organic chemistry. The physics requirement also
varies considerably from one institution to another. It was
pointed out by biology faculty that setting the minimum math,
chemistry, and physics requirements to those in the proposal
(Appendix C) effectively
dictates curriculum changes for many universities. That is
not the intent. If biology faculty find the concept of an
alternative GE transfer pattern acceptable, we must come to
some agreement about the minimum requirements.
Identified Trends/Future
Directions
Discussion at the regional and statewide meetings suggested
several potential trends within biology curricula, although
these were not a primary topic of discussion. (For summary
information of CSU and UC biology curricula see Appendix
D.) The possible trends are enumerated below for purposes
of continued discuss at next year's meetings.
1. There seems to be a tendency to increase
lower-division coursework in the major beyond the two-semester
(three-quarter) core outlined in the existing CAN sequences.
Presently one third of the CSUs and UCs have core sequences
longer than one year. In addition, faculty from several CCs
indicated they were either in the process of creating or already
had created a third semester (or fourth quarter) to enhance
the molecular biology elements of their core curricula.
2. A number of institutions representing
all three higher education segments offer a diversity-cell-biology-molecular
biology framework in lieu of a botany-zoology-cell biology
core. Whether or not this represents a trend is debatable
(see Appendix D for comparisons).
3. Many institutions have eliminated the
cell biology requirement for diversity of life, botany and
zoology courses to allow students to take these courses before
completing chemistry and to provide time for students to complete
chemistry prior to taking a course in cell-molecular biology.
Presently, chemistry is a requirement for the cell-molecular-genetics
component of the lower-division core curriculum at 22 of the
27 CSUs and UCs, and is required as a prerequisite for all
core courses at 11 CSUs/UCs.
These observations raise two very important
questions that need to be addressed at regional meetings next
year. First, should the core transfer curriculum for biology
be three-semesters (or four-quarters) instead of two-semesters
(three-quarters)? Second, should chemistry be a requirement
for any core course that includes cell/molecular biology and
genetics?
Recommendations for the Discipline
Faculty attending the statewide meeting agreed with the following
recommendations:
1. The biology core curriculum developed
at this year's IMPAC meetings (Appendix
A) should be proposed as a CAN sequence.
2. The biology core curriculum should be sent all CCs, CSUs
and UCs for review and comment of the content.
3. New CAN descriptors for the biology core sequence, rewritten
to be consistent with the proposed core curriculum, should
be recommended for approval in conjunction with approval of
the core sequence.
4. Chemistry should be recommended as a prerequisite for all
core courses that focus on cell biology, molecular biology,
or genetics.
Recommendations for Support Courses
These were not discussed at this year's meetings but should
be addressed next year.
Topics for Further Discussion
While the generation of a proposed transfer core curriculum
at this year's meetings is perceived as very positive by participating
faculty, a number of associated issues remain to be addressed.
1. The length of the core curriculum should
be evaluated. Should the transfer curriculum be a single year
or longer? If longer, how long?
2. What portion of core curriculum units should be assigned
to laboratory time?
3. Is it necessary to state which components of the core should
be assigned to laboratory work or should this decision be
left to each institution?
4. Is it necessary to define a set of laboratory skills expected
of transfer students? And if so, what skills should be included?
5. Do biology faculty agree with the concept of a GE alternative
to IGETC? If so, what should be the minimum math, chemistry
and physics requirements?
Recommendations Forwarded/to be forwarded
to CAN
The proposed core curriculum, as well as new CAN descriptors,
should be forwarded to CAN for consideration following review
of these proposals by CC, CSU and UC faculty groups.
Outreach presentations made by members of
this group:
The lead discipline faculty will present the findings and
recommendations to the faculty of Irvine Valley College at
the beginning of the fall semester. Additional plans for presentation
to other colleges and universities are pending.
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
|
