from VCCA Journal, Volume 9, Number 2, Summer 1995, 12- 17
© Copyright 1995 VCCA Journal
The teaching of math and science in the United States today is in a greater state of change than at any time since the shock of the launch of "Sputnik." At every level--local, state, and national-- we are reminded of how poorly our students are performing as compared with students in other developed nations (Stevenson et al., 1993). The alarm over "scientific illiteracy" is real and deep (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990; Hazen & Trefil, 1991). Many publications have dealt primarily with "how" we should be teaching sciences in order to correct these deficiencies in general (Harper, 1990; State Council, 1993; Smith, 1993) and in particular student sub-populations (Magner, 1992; Koshland, 1994).
On the other hand, concerns over student retention raise other questions about how we teach science, particularly in the high schools, but also periodically within colleges and universities (Tobias, 1992). Whenever the potential student pool decreases, senior institutions take a greater percentage of those students, and whenever the job market is good, fewer students elect to seek higher education. At all times, the withdrawal and failure rates of students in the Virginia community college system (VCCS) is a concern. The Research Section of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) reported the median GPA in the VCCS for in-state, first-time freshmen in fall 1993 was less than 1.0. (SCHEV, 1994). Noteworthy success in retention is more often reported from administrative divisions including humanities and social sciences than those including math and sciences (Geiger & Rush, 1994).
As teachers of biology in the VCCS prepare for the first peer group meeting of the discipline, to be held in Charlottesville March 31 - April 1, 1995, it is appropriate to look at the current teaching of biology as one of several issues of great urgency to be examined at the meeting. Few disciplines have experienced more impact from the "information explosion" than biology. We are deluged with new developments in cellular biology, genetic manipulation, environmental hazards, population problems, and biomedical breakthroughs. More and more information with enormous potential for societal impact is available, and it is necessary for citizens in a democracy to be informed and aware of the impact of decisions in these areas on our health, global biodiversity, and economic well being. On the other hand, a general understanding of basic elements of the science and of the framework and limits of life itself is generally conceded to be necessary for active understanding of the impact of those new developments.
Compounding the problem, the time frame for general biology remains the same--three hours of lecture and three hours of laboratory in a one or two semester sequence. As many of our students will never take another science course, decisions on course content, as well as style and methodology, are important. Senior institutions make their own demands, and changes with severe impact on articulation are often made without consideration of VCCS transfer students and programs. Articulation agreements with programs for majors at senior institutions are frequently unwritten, informal agreements with individual community college teachers and are subject to change without notice. Conversations with colleagues and speakers at professional meetings reveal the general frustration experienced as we wrestle with the resulting conflicts (Mullins, 1994).
Almost all Virginia community colleges offer Biology 101-102 as a part of the general education component of the transfer program articulating with senior institutions. Two semesters of science are also required for graduation with the AA&S degree. There is currently a single two-semester general biology offering in the VCCS Curriculum Guide, and it must serve the very different requirements of both science majors and non-majors. The same class may encompass a student population from age 18-60. Fresh from high school and under prepared for college work, many have little science background. Often, there are older students who are starting over, who have been working for years and have clear goals. It is not uncommon to find students who already have college degrees in the class and who are embarking on a new program of study.
How can we serve an audience of such disparate needs and backgrounds? Add to this the fact that performance in general biology is often used a predictor of success for placement in programs such as nursing, physical therapy, and veterinary technology. It is understandable that many biology instructors feel they are facing an almost impossible task.
As perceptions of essential course content inevitably impact on how the science is taught and on retention rates (and vice versa), the survey presented here offers a brief look at what we are now teaching in biology and a baseline for assessing necessary and probably inevitable changes in the near future.
The Survey
In the spring of 1993, a letter soliciting schedules for Biology 101-102 was sent to the division office of every community college (and major branches) in the VCCS, with a second followup letter in August 1993 to those schools from which no replies had been received. Eighteen responses were finally received, of which seventeen are acknowledged below. (The last had no identification of either professor or school.) After tabulation, detailed below, the information was returned to the professor who submitted it for correction or additional input.
The following community colleges responded to the survey.
Tabulation Method
Hours of instruction in lecture and laboratory are based on the schedules provided, using as the standard lecture time, three hours per week on a fifteen week semester schedule, for a total of ninety hours for the year. Hours of evaluation have been estimated from the schedules (where indicated) and deducted from the total, as the percentage of actual instructional time was considered most indicative of content emphasis. For laboratory instruction, similarly tabulated, a lab is considered to be two and one-half hours in length, with quiz time deducted from that if indicated on the schedule. Except in cases where the schedule indicated the whole lab period was to be used for a practical, a lab quiz is assumed to average 30 minutes for purposes of content tabulation . It is recognized that particular instructors may use either more or less time for evaluation.
Content was divided into eleven areas of instruction in both lecture and laboratory.
Results
The tabulation on the opposite page includes all schools submitting schedules. For each content area, the number of hours of instruction and the percentage of total instructional hours across the VCCS is presented for both laboratory and lecture. The low and high end of the range is given, with the mean in parentheses. Results from individual schools are available, but will be sent via the instructor who submitted the schedule for release permission.
Table 1
Laboratory instruction
Hours of instruction Percet of instruction
time
low mean high low mean high
Tools 2.5 (6.2) 12.5 4.0 (10.2) 22.0
Chemistry 0 (2.9) 5.0 0 (4.5) 8.0
Cell structure
and function 0 (3.7) 6.0 0 (5.7) 8.0
Cell reproduction 2.0 (3.1) 6.0 3 (4.8) 7.5
Cell metabolism 2.5 (5.8) 10.0 2.5 (9.5) 17.0
Biodiversity 1.0 (8.7) 20.0 2.0 (12.9) 29.0
Plants 0 (5.5) 10.0 0 (8.3) 15.0
Ecology 0 (4.7) 11.0 0 (7.2) 17.0
Genetics, classical 0 (3.9) 7.5 0 (6.1) 11.5
Genetics, molecular 0 (1.9) 6.0 0 (2.9) 8.0
Evolution 0 (2.7) 7.5 0 (4.5) 17.0
Behavior 0 (0.9) 2.5 0 (1.4) 2.5
Anatomy and
Physiology 0 (15.1) 25.0 0 (22.8) 35.0
Table 2
Lecture Instruction
Hours of instruction Percent of instruction
time
low mean high low mean high
Tools 0 (3.0) 7.0 0 (3.8) 8.0
Chemistry 3.0 (5.4) 10.0 3.0 (6.0) 11.0
Cell structure
and function 3.0 (5.2) 12.0 3.0 (6.2) 13.0
Cell reproduction 1.5 (3.0) 7.0 2.0 (3.6) 8.0
Cell metabolism 4.5 (6.9) 10.5 4.0 (8.4) 13.0
Biodiversity 0 (6.9) 18.0 0 (8.2) 23.0
Plants 0 (4.8) 7.5 0 (5.9) 9.0
Ecology 3.0 (6.4) 13.0 5.0 (7.7) 16.0
Genetics, classical 1.5 (5.1) 9.0 2.0 (6.1) 10.0
Genetics, molecular 1.5 (6.2) 10.0 2.0 (7.5) 13.0
Evolution 3.0 (7.4) 15.0 4.0 (8.9) 19.0
Behavior 0 (1.7) 6.0 0 (2.1) 7.0
Anatomy and
physiology 6.0 (21.0) 36.0 7.0 (25.7) 37.0
Notes to Tables:
Eighty-five percent of the instructors who responded to the survey use a 10 point grading scale. The others use a curved scale, with 93-95% = A. No instructor issues a passing grade (D) with less than a 60% success rate.
The laboratory grade constitutes 25-30% of total points for the biology grade across the VCCS. The mean for those reporting is 25.4%. The lecture grade constitutes 60-75% of the total biology grade in surveyed VCCS schools. In some schools, a separate project grade constitutes a maximum of 10% of the total biology grade. Points from one or more examinations make up the rest of the grade.
Remarks
It is not surprising that colleges with ties to nursing programs offer a higher percentage of instruction time in anatomy and physiology. More surprising is the relatively minor emphasis on plants and ecology in most of the surveyed schools, and the extremes of the range of hours/percent instruction for other subjects such as genetics and biodiversity. It is hoped that this information will be used by readers, especially those who are biology instructors, as a springboard for debate at the peer group meetings and in future issues of the VCCA Journal.
Works Cited
Geiger, Jim E., & Rush, G. Michael. (1994). Faculty advising as a change agent. VCCA Journal, 9 (1), 9-13.
Harper, A.E. (1990). Critical evaluation-the only reliable road to knowledge. Bioscience, 40 (1), 46-47.
Hazen, R.W., & Trefil, James. (1991, April 10). The key to scientific literacy. Chronicle of Higher Education.
Koshland, Daniel E. (ed.). (1994). Campus innovations. Science, 266, 844-893.
Magner, Denise K. (1992, October 21). A Booming reform movement for introductory science courses. Chronicle of Higher Education.
SCHEV Research Section. (1994). Median GPA reports for in-state, first-time freshmen, 1993-94. Distributed by Faculty Senate.
Mullins, Jeanette. (organizer). (1994). Knoxville: BSA teaching section symposium. AIBS 45th Annual Meeting,.
Rutherford, F. James, & Ahlgren, Andrew. (1990). Project 2061, AAAS report. In Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, William D. (1993, July). New pre-service and in-service models for preparing teachers in the areas of science, mathematics and technology. JMU, Harrisonburg, Virginia: V-Quest Conference.
State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. (1993). Change and improvement in Virginia higher education: A preliminary report to the governor and general assembly. U21, 2(1) 1-8.
Stevenson, Harold W., et al. (1993). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children: Ten years later. Science, 259, 53-58.
Tobias, Sheila. (1992). Revitalizing Undergraduate Science. Tucson:. Research Corporation and NSF Videoconference.
Anne Nielsen is associate professor of biology at Blue Ridge Community College in Weyers Cave, Virginia.