An Overview of the Working Meeting
On April 9 and 10, 1999, 64 CSU faculty from 18 campuses met at Fullerton to discuss student learning outcomes for the biological sciences. The participants represented faculty from a broad spectrum of sub-disciplines and specialties within biology who have taught as few as three years and those who have taught in the system for more than 30 years. In sum, they have taught for more than 950 years. The agenda was robust and complex, with lofty goals, most of which were met. While there was some early skepticism regarding the proposed process, the meeting provided a structure and process that quickly engaged participants to produce quality products. The small working group structure lent itself to all participants being actively involved in the creation of any and all products of the meeting; the working meeting products represent work-in-progress in which the participants are invested and are common stakeholders.
As proposed by the host campus the:
Meeting Purpose
To develop student learning outcomes for the Biological Sciences
Desired Outcomes
- Identify the core of specific student learning outcomes for biology majors.
- Create a list of criteria and mechanisms whereby specific student learning outcomes can be assessed.
- Develop campus action plans for teams to share with their colleagues and to introduce student learning outcomes into their curriculum.
- Create an annotated literature review regarding student learning outcomes and assessment in biological science
Additionally
Campus teams will share their student learning outcomes assessment action plans with their campus colleagues and submit a modified action plan to the Project Coordinator for inclusion in the final report.
General Findings beyond Project Goals and Desired Outcomes
Participants are grateful for the opportunity afforded by the Chancellor’s Office to discuss student learning outcomes and their assessment. However, given the timing of the event, including the lack of a contract, participants were concerned about if, how, in what form, and when the outcomes of this meeting would be reported to the Chancellor’s Office. The concern was unanimously resolved as a sidebar. These concerns did not affect participant attendance, 96% of the faculty who were designated to attend were present throughout the long, two-day meeting. Participants unanimously acknowledged the importance and value of such meetings and expressed them in a variety of ways.
Specifically, faculty participants mentioned:
- The value of meeting as colleagues, professional biologists, in the largest system of higher education in the world.
- This was the first known collective CSU conversation among biology colleagues where topics about science education reform and issues of teaching, learning, and curriculum were discussed in the context of student learning outcomes.
- The meeting led to useful common products ; additionally, it provided a process to assist participants in developing more specific campus student learning outcomes with colleagues at their home campus.
- The meeting provided the opportunity to discuss ideas, models, and strategic plans about blending curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment to assure appropriate learning attitudes, skills, competencies, and outcomes of our undergraduates.
- The meeting provided the opportunity to share and examine the curricula of campuses at varying stages in the curricular reform process. Campuses further along in this process are changing their curricula from an "old" model where each professor controlled/designed his or her courses and worked to improve them, resulting in a "patchwork" curriculum, to a "new" model in which departments are dealing with the curriculum holistically with a need/desire to assess/evaluate the "value added" of the curriculum, not just of individual courses. Those currently engaged in the process are paying attention to accountability in the form of learning outcomes and assessment.
- Faculty from campuses in earlier developmental stages of curricular reform benefit from hearing about these varieties of reform models so that they may be shared with colleagues who will not have to begin at ground zero.
- This meeting is seen as the first step toward achieving the goals and objectives outlined; more meetings/brainstorming (or, a multi-step process) are needed to flesh out what was done at this meeting and to go further into area-specific student learning outcomes (see Recommendations and Future Activities below).
What We Found Out
While the creation of a list of core student learning outcomes for the biological sciences was the focus and major task of the working meeting, a variety of important ways of knowing and learning biology emerged. For instance, recognizing that the education of biologists involves a special set of ways of thinking about and doing science. Discipline-specific traits are developed by repeated experiences in experimental design, and are reinforced in laboratory and field experiences. Further, the many sub-areas/sub-disciplines of biology require a special subset of knowledge, skills and attitudes, something that we did not have sufficient time to address. Also, it is equally important to think about the interface of ancillary fields as a way of integrating information into biological applications; these include course work in chemistry, physics, calculus and/or statistics. Ultimately, it is important to recognize the development of students for a wide variety of jobs and professions that are critical to the economy of California. These include:
- K-6, middle school and high school teachers
- community college biology faculty members
- biotechnology industry and R&D
- pharmaceutical industry
- agriculture and aquaculture
- environmental science and conservation biology
- health professions -- allopathic and osteopathic medicine, optometry, pharmacy, dentistry, nursing, gerontology, physical therapy, etc.
- veterinary medicine
- technicians in a number of fields such as medical labs, microbiology, biotechnology, fisheries science, fish and wildlife, genetic counseling, etc.
- preparation for Ph.D. programs
- staff members of zoos, aquariums, etc.
In this regard, a major emphasis must be placed on the importance of laboratory experiences, field work, investigative experiments, and the necessity of sequential acquisition of knowledge and skills in biology — perhaps more so than in any other field. In many ways, these student experiences set the CSU apart from other institutions of higher education in California. Information in one course builds upon and is connected with in others; thus, skills must be developed and reinforced in stages. Also, to the extent possible, all students ought to have the experience in working one-on-one, or at least in a small group/team in conjunction with a faculty member to afford the opportunity of thinking about and doing science.
In addition to training majors, biology departments must be diverse to serve students outside the major, either as a core GE requirement, or in some cases, specific biology courses are required for majors in such fields as physical education, kinesiology, gerontology, biochemistry, child development, psychology, anthropology, etc. In general we have a responsibility to all students for the appreciation and importance of science literacy.
Student Learning Outcomes
Initially eight groups of faculty, comprised of seven or eight faculty from different institutions, created lists of student learning outcomes. Prior to the meeting participants assisted in developing a working definition of student learning outcomes as "what we want students to know and understand, be able to do and appreciate upon the completion of a program of study." Once lists were completed, they were consolidated, first into three lists, then into an inclusive list of student learning outcomes of knowledge, skills and attitudes. There was remarkable consensus among participants within groups and between groups in constructing the list of core learning outcomes for the biological sciences. While concordance is high, this list is recognized as the work of only the participants and should not be construed as a definitive list or one that all participants support in total. Rather, the list should be recognized for what it is, work in progress. Its purpose is to serve as a reference or source list that individual campuses can modify, adapt, and/or add to. In so doing, campuses will develop more specific outcomes and concordant assessments that distinguish the diversity and strengths of their individual departments to emphasize their special interests and needs (see List of Student Learning Outcomes).
Ways to Assess Student Learning Outcomes
The initial proposal called for developing assessments for student learning outcomes. Seven faculty from five campuses were selected to present a variety of non-traditional learning experiences and ways to measure student learning outcomes. Recognizing that some outcomes are easier than others to assess, each group chose a single outcome and developed an assessment for it, in some cases included a rubric for scoring.
Campus Action Plans
Each campus team present prepared an action plan, a way in which they were going to articulate the student learning outcomes developed in this meeting to their colleagues in their departments. These action plans are diverse and are indicative of varying stages of strategic planning at the individual campuses as well as the departmental climate. Additionally, campuses are providing summaries of the status of those action plans.
Recommendations and Future Activities
Create a listserv or reflector list so that we may continue communication among participants and other colleagues.
Request support for additional meetings for continuation of the work started on April 9 and 10, such as:
- create a task force of six participants to plan the next steps of action
- consider a multi-step process and time lines to complete the work started at the first meeting, especially to develop student learning outcomes in sub-areas/sub-disciplines of biology
- have systemwide meeting to assist faculty in becoming proficient in a variety of kinds of assessment (classroom assessment, embedding assessment within courses, course assessment, program assessment, student peer and self-assessment
- provide at least three units of released time for the project coordinator to keep some of the activities going by a variety of means
