2009-2010 Biology Curriculum Wiki - Revision history

Macampbell at 15:49, 28 April 2010

2010-04-28T15:49:38Z

Macampbell at 15:48, 28 April 2010

2010-04-28T15:48:18Z

Macampbell at 15:46, 28 April 2010

2010-04-28T15:46:59Z

Macampbell at 15:46, 28 April 2010

2010-04-28T15:46:30Z

Chparadise at 18:09, 19 August 2009

2009-08-19T18:09:45Z

Chparadise at 18:09, 19 August 2009

2009-08-19T18:09:25Z

Chparadise at 18:08, 19 August 2009

2009-08-19T18:08:33Z

Chparadise at 13:51, 23 June 2009

2009-06-23T13:51:34Z

Chparadise at 13:50, 23 June 2009

2009-06-23T13:50:59Z

MaCampbell at 21:49, 18 June 2009

2009-06-18T21:49:52Z

@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
 |  || 112 || Botany || Development || Neuro__? XL
 |-
-|  || || Animal Physiology || Mol. Bio. ||
+|  || || Animal Physiology || Mol Bio (or 200s) ||
 |-
 |  || || Vert. Field Bio. || Ecology ||
@@ Line 158: / Line 158: @@
 |  || || Comp. Anat. || Genomics||
 |-
-|  || || Molecular Biology || Cell Bio ||
+|  || || Mol Bio (or 300s) || Cell Bio ||
 |-
 |  || || || Histology ||

@@ Line 158: / Line 158: @@
 |  || || Comp. Anat. || Genomics||
 |-
-|  || || || Cell Bio ||
+|  || || Molecular Biology || Cell Bio ||
 |-
 |  || || || Histology ||

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 ----
 '''Group II'''
@@ Line 82: / Line 84: @@
 ----
 '''Group III'''

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 KB Question: What about having a 'biology tools' course after first bio course for those who would benefit. This would circumvent our inability to pre-screen and place (AP scores are not the best indicator, no placement test.
 '''Group II'''
@@ Line 78: / Line 80: @@
 [Chris P comment: Group III's 200 level course has some overlap with other groups - I think we could come to some consensus, as a department, about an effective 200 level course.]
 '''Group III'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:09, 19 August 2009
Line 70:		Line 70:

	First pass at pros and cons of other 2 versions		First pass at pros and cons of other 2 versions
		+
	[Chris P comment: Group I's 200 level courses are similar to Group II's, except that we propose one course with lecture and lab. That would be flexible by allowing teachers to use the scheduled time either in class or laboratory. This seems to me to facilitate integration of themes and allow for discussion of "experimental and inquiry foundations" outside of the laboratory. The common set of skills could also be emphasized more effectively.]		[Chris P comment: Group I's 200 level courses are similar to Group II's, except that we propose one course with lecture and lab. That would be flexible by allowing teachers to use the scheduled time either in class or laboratory. This seems to me to facilitate integration of themes and allow for discussion of "experimental and inquiry foundations" outside of the laboratory. The common set of skills could also be emphasized more effectively.]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 First pass at pros and cons of other 2 versions
 [Chris P comment: Group I's 200 level courses are similar to Group II's, except that we propose one course with lecture and lab.  That would be flexible by allowing teachers to use the scheduled time either in class or laboratory.  This seems to me to facilitate integration of themes and allow for discussion of "experimental and inquiry foundations" outside of the laboratory.  The common set of skills could also be emphasized more effectively.]
 [Chris P comment: Group III's idea about offering mini-courses - not really sure what those are.  If they're in the context of a "team-taught" course then it sounds more like a "tag-team-taught" course, and not very interdisciplinary.]
 [Chris P comment: Group III's ideas about team-teaching and time-shifting are worthy of more thought/discussion.  But I wonder; if Dave and Sophia will now be teaching Micro and Immuno annually, does that hinder their ability to be involved in interdisciplinary team-teaching?]
 [Chris P comment: Group III's 200 level course has some overlap with other groups - I think we could come to some consensus, as a department, about an effective 200 level course.]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 First pass at pros and cons of other 2 versions
+[Chris P comment: Group I's 200 level courses are similar to Group II's, except that we propose one course with lecture and lab.  That would be flexible by allowing teachers to use the scheduled time either in class or laboratory.  This seems to me to facilitate integration of themes and allow for discussion of "experimental and inquiry foundations" outside of the laboratory.  The common set of skills could also be emphasized more effectively.]
 '''Group III'''
@@ Line 81: / Line 84: @@
 * We think this would allow Karen Hales to be the only genetics instructor. Dave would offer micro once a year and Sofia would offer immunology once a year.
 * We propose that we team-teach more and design interdisciplinary courses. This would require faculty development where each of us offer mini-courses on special topics as needed. We could develop new teach-taught courses that accomplish faculty development as well as offering new courses.
-* Current ABC course division is not working. We propose n 200 level courses that would address the breath issues that could be team taught.
+* Current ABC course division is not working. We propose a 200 level courses that would address the breadth issues that could be team taught.
 * We think the holes that are in our curriculum could be filled as identified especially through team taught courses.
 * There are methods to keep assessment consistent for team-taught courses throughout the semester.

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 '''Group II'''
 First pass at fleshing out proposal (may modify original version  in response to discussions)
 ''Karen H., Linda, Chris P., Sophia, Chris H.''

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:50, 23 June 2009
Line 31:		Line 31:
	'''Group II'''		'''Group II'''
	First pass at fleshing out proposal (may modify original version in response to discussions)		First pass at fleshing out proposal (may modify original version in response to discussions)
		+	''Karen H., Linda, Chris P., Sophia, Chris H.''

		+	The Bio Major would require:
		+	* Bio 111 and 112, Che 115
		+	* Bio 2xx recommended (not required at first, but later, as staffing issues are worked out)
		+	* One Group A lab course, one Group B lab course, and one more from either of those groups
		+	* Five more courses above the 200 level (for now the 200 level is recommended, so would fall in this category – when it is required, then only four more courses would be required)

		+	We propose a renewed emphasis on a common set of skills:
		+	* Critical thinking
		+	* Experimental design
		+	* Quantitative analysis
		+	* Writing
		+	* Literature searching
		+	* Reading scientific literature
		+	* Presentation skills: oral presentations and posters
		+
		+	Keep the Bio 111 and Bio 112 sequence, but with a stronger emphasis on these skills
		+
		+	One new 200 level course
		+	* Integrative/interdisciplinary course
		+	* Team taught by one small and one big biologist – each receives credit for teaching 1 course
		+	* The course would be a skills course, emphasizing the fundamental skills listed above
		+	* At least initially, it would not be required, but recommended. Eventually, this course would be required, but would not be a strict prerequisite to upper level courses, which would allow students to take it concurrently with a 300 level course to allow completion of major in a timely fashion
		+	* Topics would be chosen by teachers of each section, but should be current, exciting, related to concepts covered in 111 and/or 112
		+	* Three contact hours per week – either as one 3 hour meeting per week, or as a T/Th course to allow for sufficient time to perform laboratory work, small group activities, or class discussion
		+	* Capped at 24 students
		+	* Three sections per year, 2 in fall and 1 in spring, to allow for all potential majors to take, plus allow pre-meds the option of taking it
		+	* In order to staff this course fully, we anticipate that we could do it IF all bio faculty participated once every other year and we hired one more faculty to almost cover the six courses we’d lose
		+	* We also anticipate potential decreases in frequency of other course offerings.
		+	* Could anticipate the extra hire coming from the increase in faculty proposed in the strategic plan
		+
		+	Distribution requirements at 300 level would be in the consolidated A/B groupings
		+
		+	400 level would be for research: Independent Study and Group Investigations

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 KB 400level= synthesis &/or research experience is strength. Would suggest going so far as to only allow second sem jr and sr to enroll.
+<center>
 '''Requirements'''<br>
 and 112 required<br>