Difference between revisions of "2009-2010 Biology Curriculum Wiki"

Revision as of 19:38, 18 May 2009

Group I First pass at fleshing out proposal (may modify original version in response to discussions)

First pass at pros and cons of other 2 versions

Group II First pass at fleshing out proposal (may modify original version in response to discussions)

First pass at pros and cons of other 2 versions

Group III First pass at fleshing out proposal (may modify original version in response to discussions)

Dave, Pat and Malcolm

• We like the idea of 200, 300, 400 courses
• We think that big biologist should include some genetics and we think small biologists should include some diversity/ecology and statistics.
• 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.
• 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.
• As indicated by the outside reviewers, our department has a mindset where each faculty member is an island and we prefer a metaphor of a network of interconnected nodes where we help each other.

Part II

• We want students to be able to start the major after first year and be able to go abroad.
• 100 level courses need to combine some skills, some content, some excitement. Should be funnels and not filters. We want to utilize Mark Barsoum’s M&S center to help students make the transition from HS memorization to college critical thinking and extracting key concepts.
• There is a difference between covering material and students learning material.
• 200 level courses add the breadth.
• Chem 115 should be required before any 300 level courses.
• 300 level courses could be in-depth courses that explore an area
• 400 level courses have synthesis and/or full research experience.
• The outside reviewers commented repeatedly about the departmental culture of not talking about difficult topics is stifling creativity. We think every course should be open to collaborative input.
• We are scared of change, time taken from research, and going into an area where we are less comfortable. We think some time allocation is necessary to facilitate the transition.
• We think the new interdisciplinary initiatives will require that we have time shifted, not added. One way to do that is have a 3+2 or 4+1 distribution, with majority in Biology and 2 or 1 in interdisciplinary area.

First pass at pros and cons of other 2 versions