Department of Biological Sciences
Self Study, Fall 2011
Submitted on behalf of the department by:
Jennifer Lundmark, Ph.D.,
Department Chair
and
Kelly McDonald, Ph.D.,
Chair, Assessment Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. General Information about the Department3
A. Programs and Degree Options 3
B. Changes to Curriculum 3
C. Students and Faculty 6
D. Faculty Workload 7
E. Faculty Accomplishments 8
F. Advising 10
G. Staff and Facilities 10
H. Pertinent Recommendations from previous 11
review – departmental response
II. Learning Outcomes and Assessment 13
III. Focused Inquiry 17
IV. Appendices
I. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM
A. Programs and Degree Options.
The Department of Biological Sciences unveiled its new undergraduate curriculum in Fall, 2011. Available options includeBA and BS degrees in General Biology, as well as six different BS degree concentrations: Biomedical Sciences, Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Ecology Evolution and Conservation (EEC), Forensic Biology, Microbiology, and Molecular Biology. A minor in Biological Sciences is also available. The implementation of these degree tracks represents six years of curricular research, planning, and the intensive crafting of learning outcomes such that students are able to progress through a set of modern foundational courses with the option to specialize in a sub-area of the biological sciences. This allows our students to meet the demands of a rapidly changing scientific workforce that is continually seeking skilled graduates.
The Department of Biological Sciences also offers two MS degrees (Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, and Cell/Molecular Biology) as well as a new MA degree that provides a non-thesis option (and whose first graduate -Fall 2011- just submitted a patent based on his work here in virus therapy). Since the time of the last program review, the department introduced the new MA degree program and redesigned its existing MS degree curriculum to better serve its students’ interests and more accurately support the time and effort students dedicate to their thesis research. The department has also designed and implemented a highly regarded MA degree program in Stem Cell research (a joint project with the UC Davis Institute for Regenerative Cures, funded by the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine), which graduated its first cohort in Spring 2012. All members of this cohort obtained positions as professional scientists immediately upon graduation.
B. Changes to Curriculum
Since the time of the last program review, the department has undergone a major restructuring of its programs (the first in 30 years), adding several new courses and modernizing its curricular offerings. The biological sciences encompass a set of dynamic and rapidly changing disciplines that include the health sciences, organismal biology, ecology, evolution, and molecular/cellular biology. Recently, major advances in the field of molecular biology have infused the other fields in the discipline to such an extent that a substantive response was critical for our program to remain current and relevant. At the heart of the revision was the idea that student learning outcomes should drive all curricular changes. To revise and update these, we engaged in a “Backward Design”[1] process that identified the current trends in the various disciplines, the major themes that span them, and the needs of employers who hire our students and graduate programs and professional schools that provide them post-baccalaureate training. Throughout this process, the faculty in the Department engaged in thoughtful discussions and generated what they felt was a solid set of student learning outcomes that was current, focused, and flexible enough to accommodate changes in the field for at least several years. This thoughtful process began at a department retreat in 2004, where critical “area” outcomes were identified by every faculty member in the department.
Using this information, large subcommittees for each course (BIO 1 and BIO 2) were convened. These groups met over the next year, and again using the pedagogically lauded process of Backward Design, critically examined the content objectives and curriculum progression of the introductory series, effectively changing both content (to reflect advances in the field) and approach (introducing a one-unit activity section to encourage more active, hands-on learning). In 2006, the new lower-division introductory biology sequence – BIO 1 (Biodiversity, Evolution and Ecology) and BIO 2 (Cells, Molecules and Genes) - was introduced.
The successful implementation of BIO 1 and BIO 2 was followed by a reexamination of the rest of the curriculum, with the ultimate goal of creating a structure that allows students to specialize within the biological sciences to meet the demands of a rapidly changing and sophisticated STEM workforce. To that end, in 2006 the department created a Meta-Curriculum Task Force, comprised of six elected members representing each area of the department. This group crafted a document (Appendix A) outlining their charge and ideology. Briefly summarized, this group was to use the process of Backward Design and scaffolded learning outcomes (introductory, mid-level, and advanced) to redesign the major. The old four-course “core” was thrown out; in its place, a two-course “mid-level” core was inserted. This new core consists of Genetics – BIO 184 (expanded to four units, to include more problem-solving and application of ideas) and a new course, Introduction to Scientific Analysis - BIO 100, which focuses on intermediate skills such as graphic analysis, reading and writing scientific papers, and interpretation of tables and figures. BIO 100 is also envisioned as the “equalizer” course that will combine our native students and transfer students, ensuring that all who pass to the upper division are competent in these vital skills.
Removing courses from the core also allowed students to have more specialization in their area of interest. As courses were removed and/or revamped, other courses were also developed. Changes since the last review include:
Biomedical Sciences concentration: Neurophysiology (BIO 132), Histology (BIO 130), Advanced Problem Solving in Physiology (BIO 131A),and Cardiovascular/Respiratory/Renal Physiology (BIO 133).
EEC concentration: Evolution and Speciation in Flowering Plants (BIO 113), Plant Anatomy and Physiology (BIO 128), Comparative Vertebrate Morphology (BIO 126), and Molecular Ecology (BIO 178), Evolution (BIO 188)
Microbiology concentration: Medical Microbiology and Emerging Infectious Diseases (BIO 140), Advanced Problems in Immunology (Bio 149C)
Molecular concentration: Cell and Molecular Biology (BIO 121) was reintroduced as a mid-level course; Advanced Cell and Molecular Biology (BIO 187)
Forensic concentration: newly introduced in 2007, this concentration has two new courses: BIO 150 (Forensic Biology) and BIO 151 (Advanced Laboratory Techniques in Forensic Biology).
In all instances, advances in scientific discovery, needs of the state and local workforce, and student interest were carefully considered when crafting the course sequences. The number of students in each concentration is listed below [Note: although the new program was unveiled just this semester, only Biomedical Sciences is actually new to the department]
Degree Option / Number of students (Fall, 2011)BA – General Biology / 235
BS – General Biology / 782
BS – Biomedical Sciences* / 52*
BS – Clinical Laboratory Science / 94
BS – Ecology, Evolution and Conservation / 51
BS – Forensic Biology / 94
BS – Microbiology / 89
BS – Molecular Biology / 93
* new concentration as of Fall, 2011
In these challenging economic times, creating a curriculum in the biological sciences that prepares students with the most up-to-date concepts AND skills has required tremendous creativity from the Department’s faculty. For our students to leave Sacramento State ready to work in high-technology fields or to pursue advanced training in clinical or laboratory sciences, we must provide them with experiences using state-of-the-art laboratories and technologies. In a similar vein, if we are to develop a viable faculty research enterprise in the cell and molecular sciences at Sacramento State, we must create a technological and financial infrastructure that allows extended investigation in these costly fields. In both of these regards, at the time of our last review Sacramento State remained well behind the national norm for teaching and research infrastructure in these disciplines.
To address these fundamental challenges, faculty from the Department of Biological Sciences have had to develop a variety of novel means to create the necessary physical and intellectual infrastructure in the face of decreasing financial support from the University. A key part of this has been finding nonconventional or unique partnerships and opportunities to enhance our teaching and research capacity. Department faculty established relationships with scientists from Bayer Pharmaceuticals through speaking engagements and personal contacts that led to a Bayer donation of used equipment and consumables in excess of $1 million. These donations have dramatically improved the Department’s access to technology for the classroom and laboratory. Department faculty have also been instrumental in achieving a Congressionally Directed Grant of $350,000 to build a new Advanced Cell Analysis laboratory, and a National Science Foundation grant to remodel the Center for Interdisciplinary Molecular Biology. Our faculty are also working to create innovative ways to integrate biological high technology into the classroom by developing the technological interface between smart-room technology and the biology-specific technologies so that the latter can be used for direct instruction. These efforts are at the foundation of the Department’s creation of advanced courses in the cell and molecular sciences that will prepare our students for careers in this technologically demanding arena.
In the future, departmental faculty hope to continue the development of meaningful curricular and research infrastructure, but this is difficult in the face of declining University resources. We plan to include close matching of staff support, equipment and consumables with the courses in our new curriculum. We have created and are maintaining donated and OE inventories, updateable “wish-lists” of research equipment and consumables and a matched grant list to fund them. We continue to develop off-campus relationships that allow our faculty and students access to equipment that we don’t have here, including memberships on the Sacramento Area Regional Technology Alliance Stem Cell Subcommittee and the UC Davis-Sacramento State Cancer Consortium Board of Directors. We also continue to search for external and internal money sources that will allow us to integrate an undergraduate senior-level research experience for all students into the Department’s curriculum.
C. Students and Faculty
As of the beginning of Fall, 2011, there are over 1600 declared Biological Sciences students. This represents a 201% increase since the time of our last Program Review (2002), and an increase of 153% over the past four years. This tremendous increase in student numbers has created an unmanageable situation within the department, particularly because faculty numbers have decreased over the same period. At the time of our last Program Review, external reviewers noted the need for more faculty members to handle the complicated curricular needs of our students; it should be obvious that the situation has worsened considerably. Student to faculty ratios have more than doubled.
Year / number of declared students / number of FT (non-FERP) faculty / Student/faculty ratio2002 / 696 / 21 / 33.14
2007 / 910 / 26 / 35
2011 / 1600 / 19 / 84.2
Class sizes have also continually increased. Our average section sizein lower division courses is 38, well above the college and university means of 31. We note here, in comparison to the university numbers in particular, that our average includes laboratories, where seats are limited by equipment (between 16-24 students per section). The reality is that almost all of our lecture classes have 75 students or more (even at the upper division level), with some well over 100.
Increasingly large class sizes and agreater number of majors has created a situation in the department where each individual faculty member is responsible for well over200 students every semester(this numberincludes both students who are in courses and advisees - there’s not much overlap; in other words, this is how many people are actually coming to see them/depending on them for vital information in a given semester). We find it noteworthy that the number of advisees per faculty member has more than doubled in just the last four years. In all, it should be clearly evident that the baseline workload on individual faculty is immense.
This situation is exacerbated by the large number of service classes offered by the department (which enroll many more students from other majors).
Service Course / Enrollment/semester** / GE course / Enrollment/semester**BIO 22 (Anatomy)* / 190 / BIO 9 / 60
BIO 25 (Anatomy/Physiology I) / 210 / BIO 7 / 75
BIO 26 (Anatomy/Physiology II) / 185 / BIO 10 / 330
BIO 131 (Systemic Physiology)* / 155 / BIO 15L / 100
BIO 122 (Advanced Anatomy)* / 40 / BIO 20 / 280
* also taken by Biological Sciences majors**averages calculated over last 4 semesters, rounded to nearest 5
In the present semester, the department has requested the implementation of a pre-major in an attempt to control the number of declared majors. We estimate that 15% of students will have difficulty gaining entry to the major when this is in place; however, it is estimated that the soonest this will be in place is Spring 2013. In the meantime, we feel it is abundantly clear that we need more full-time faculty.
As a mechanism to assist in staffing our classes, and also to provide opportunities for our graduate students interested in teaching, we have developed a Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) training program that produces six highly trained GTAs per year. The seminar portion of the program uses current journal articles in the field of science education and a text that provides innovative and alternative teaching modalities, producing GTAs that are well-equipped to enter the classroom.
D. Faculty workload
Despite the obvious challenges described above, the faculty in the department remain remarkably dedicated to quality teaching and attentive to the needs of students, and most work incredibly long hours doing work that they highly enjoy.
Full-time faculty were queried as to their time spent on various weekly activities, and those teaching full loads (12 units) spent an average of 15 hours in the classroom, and an average of 16 hours per week grading and preparing for class; all faculty (regardless of assignment) worked an average of 67 hours per week during the semester.
E. Faculty Accomplishments
The faculty members in the Department of Biological Sciences have achieved widespread recognition in their fields. We note that of the twenty-one faculty currently teaching (including two FERP faculty) four have won the Outstanding Teaching Award for the College, and another three have won awards for Outstanding Service to the university or community. One-third of our full-time faculty have been recognized by professional organizations for teaching and professional service contributions within their discipline.
Several faculty have been involved in significant system-wide and campus leadership projects (e.g. LS-AMP, Sigma Xi, Biotech academies at various institutions, 4-H Leadership), as well as statewide boards for medical technology and stem cell research.
While research in biology tends to be very expensive (equipment, reagents, enzymes, etc.), our faculty members have found creative ways to remain active in this area, and to encourage their students (both undergraduate and graduate) to engage in laboratory, field, and project-based research. Since the time of the last Program Review, members of this department have secured $24.8 million in state and federal grant money, and engaged more than 1300 students in individual research projects. In addition, faculty within the department secured over $1 million in donated equipment and supplies (e.g cell culture hoods, incubators, analysis kits, a mass spectrometer, etc.). Examples of some of the more expansive projects that have developed or expanded since the time of the last program review:
1)The CIMERA (Center for Interdisciplinary Molecular Biology: Education, Research and Advancement) facility brings together an interdisciplinary group of faculty from the Departments of Biological Sciences and Chemistry dedicated to improving research and teaching in the cell and molecular sciences at CSUS. The CIMERA Center enables CSUS students and faculty to engage in competitive, fundable, meaningful research that contributes to the knowledge and training of the greater scientific community.
2)CREST (Center for Regional Environmental Science and Technology) recently organized and held three regional interdisciplinary conferences focusing on the Lower American River.These attracted hundreds of participants from the Sacramento-Davis and surrounding regions to share information and developments on the biological, hydrological, regional planning and management issues vital to the region. CREST has also been involved in several contracts through Biological Sciences and Geology, and has had leadership from the Department of Biological Sciences (Ron Coleman)
3)The SEE Program is a University-supported program center at Sacramento State that has its roots in the Department of Biological Sciences and is nationally recognized. The overall mission of the program is “to improve the quality of health care in underserved communities and to foster inclusion of diverse perspectives in science research, science education, development of health care policy, and the delivery of health care.” Since the inception of the program, several faculty from the Department of Biological Sciences have been involved in leadership and creation of program activities (Juanita Barrena and Enid T. González in leadership positions; several other faculty in advising/activity roles). New programs since the time of the last review include: Science Transfer Project – with its Introduction to Science Research Project (serving local community college students) and the Health Professions Pipeline Project (serving local K-12 students), both of which received generous external funding.
4)As part of the new Forensic Biology concentration, Dr. Ruth Ballard has developed CSI: TRU or Crime Scene Investigation: Training and Research for Undergraduates. Grants provided $24,000 to refurbish two labs into a new facility that allows students to work on real projects. The two local government crime labs in Sacramento have almost no internships for students, and this new facility is designed to provide students with investigation opportunities using the same tests utilized in modern crime labs. Students take part in research projects that address real-world, unsolved problems in forensic biology, and projects are directed to them by the Sacramento County Laboratory of Forensic Services.