41x:mgxlcf,xux“.... A ., ..v I. .. I” I
_ _ "9" .52"691““.‘;“.‘;“‘.‘I‘¢‘)"U‘,'I‘.".‘\“.'-‘.'.‘I'.‘I"-'-"‘I'~II|,."‘.-' I“ -,'-' .' .' : I.'.‘. ,,' I' I I,..‘ .. L3: . . . .. ‘
A. » ,. - r>- -' H ‘;,..IIV I._.._~_.~V I.. . 4..” ...U ..II . ,

' . HI In'l-u‘n Hr}. 'u‘

AN EVALUATION STUDY OF
. THE BIOLOGY CURRICULUM AT
INDIANA- PURDUE UNIVERSITY REGIONAL g~ ‘
CAMPUS AT FORT WAYNE ' = ‘

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CHARLES J. McKINLEY
1972

 

Wklffiq

   
 

  

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

    

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

AN EVALUATION STUDY OF THE BIOLOGY CURRICULUM
AT INDIANA-PURDUE UNIVERSITY
REGIONAL CAMPUS AT FORT WAYNE

presented by

CHARLES J. MCKINLEY

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Higher Education

degree in

 

1 1-:
’5' amuse av

 

 
 

IIUAG & SBNS'
800K BINDERY INC.

LIBRARY BIRDSRS

mum-not DIP-“II II

   
 

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION STUDY OF THE BIOLOGY CURRICULUM
AT INDIANA-PURDUE UNIVERSITY REGIONAL
CAMPUS AT FORT WAYNE

BY

Charles J. McKinley

Problem investigated.--The purpose of this study was

 

a multifaceted approach to the investigation of the biology
courses offered at the Purdue University Regional Campus at
Fort Wayne, Indiana. An attempt was made to define the
student pOpulation on this campus and to determine if the
current courses were meeting the needs of this population.
In addition, the biology faculty was interviewed to ascer-
tain if duplicity or gaps were present in the course content.
Also interviewed were supervisory staff of certain
health professions, for ideas relative to the curriculum
needs in those areas. Finally, a proposal was made to the
Curriculum Committee in the Biology Department as to several
approaches for innovation in the biology curriculum at this

campus.

Descriptive features and treatment of data.-—The

 

study involved 360 students enrolled in biology courses at

the Fort Wayne campus during the spring term 1971. During

Charles J. McKinley

the last week of classes, a student questionnaire was
administered to each biology class.

The major concern of the questionnaire was to deter-
mine the demographic background of each student, and to
evaluate the course content, skills, and relevance of each
course in terms of application. Also questioned was the
value of the laboratory associated with each course.

In addition, a set of predetermined questions was
asked in interview of the biology faculty and selected
science professionals from the local community.

Analysis of the data involved cross tabulation,
percentage, and frequency analysis from both the dependent
and independent variables of the questionnaire. Chi-square
was used to determine significance of data resulting from
the questionnaire. The criterion of the minimal level of
significance was set at .05 for the statistical tests. Data
from the interviews was gathered by taped interview and

summary statements made from these findings.

Findings.--An analysis of the questionnaire and
interviews seems to support the following major findings:
1. both the biology majors and non-majors found content
and application more relevant than they did skills;
2. there was no relationship between science background
of the student and his perceived relevance of a

college biology course;

Charles J. McKinley

3. students with a higher grade point average found
content and application of their courses more
relevant to their educational needs;

4. the majority of the non-majors indicated that their
courses had little or no relevance to their profes-
sional needs;

5. faculty response indicated an awareness of the need
for relevance of content, skills, and application in
their courses; and

6. selected professionals indicated they preferred
certain skills included and content of courses

revised.

The findings of this study provide sufficient
evidence to support the need for continued research and
revision in the area investigated. This investigation could
also include a follow-up of the performance of the graduates

from this biology department.

AN EVALUATION STUDY OF THE BIOLOGY CURRICULUM
AT INDIANA-PURDUE UNIVERSITY REGIONAL

CAMPUS AT FORT WAYNE

By

Mr
Charles J?'McKinley

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1972

@ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to acknowledge the help and
continued encouragement from Dr. Vandel Johnson, chairman
of the doctoral committee, during the weeks of completion
of this dissertation.

Also, an expressed appreciation goes to the biology
chairman and faculty of Purdue Regional Campus at Fort Wayne,
for allowing time for use of the instrument and interviews.

Gratitude is eXpressed to Dr. Mary Sugrue for her
help in constructing the instrument used in this research,
and to Dr. Richard Lee for his guidance and advice in the
analysis of the data.

Finally, sincere appreciation is extended to my
friends and family for their encouragement throughout the

duration of the doctoral program.

*****

ii

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Background and design of the study . . . .
Need for the study . . . .
Purpose of the study . . .
Theory . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses of the study . . . . . . .
Delimitations and assumptions of the study
Organization of the dissertation . . . . .

LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . .
The core concept . . . . . . .
Biology for the non-major . . .
Individual course revisions . . . . . .
A multifaceted approach to biology
curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DESCRIPTIVE FEATURES OF THE STUDY . . . . . .

General objectives and design of student
questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Selection and description of students . . .
Description of biology courses sampled . .
Student numbers from each sampled course .
Interviews of selected faculty and
professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operational measures . . . . . .
Design of the study . .
Testable hypotheses . .
Analysis of data . . .
Summary . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Results of first independent variable . .
Results of independent variable number 2
Results of independent variable number 3
Results of independent variable number 4

iii

Page

16

16
17
21
23

28

32

32
33
34
38

39
41
42
42
44
44

47
48
49
50

CHAPTER

V.

of
of
of
of

Results
Results
Results
Results

independent
independent
independent
independent
Results of independent
Results of independent
Dependent variables of
Testing the hypotheses . . .
Faculty interviews . . . . .
Interviews with professionals
Professional advisors . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . .

Review of the literature . .
Design of the study . . . . .
Hypotheses tested . . . . . .
Summary of findings . . . . .
Discussion and recommendation
Conclusions . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

APPENDIX

iv

variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
variable
the hypotheses

number
number
number
number
number
number

l-‘komflmU'l

0

of the area

Page

51
52
53
54
56
58
59
64
88
97
103
104

111

111
111
113
113
116
119

122

126

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

2.1. Comparison of attributes of traditional
vs. experimental approach in biology

course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1. Source of student residence . . . . . . . . 33
3.2. Percent of students in four age groups . . . 34

3.3. Sampled courses with number of students
from each course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.1. Summary of students' reasons for taking
a particular biology course . . . . . . . . 47

4.2. Summary of students' high school science
background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.3. Summary of college grade average in
represented courses . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.4. Summary of students according to science
or non-science related fields . . . . . . . 50

4.5. Summary of results regarding presentation
of range of ideas in each biology course . . 51

4.6. Summary of range of skills presented in
present biology course . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.7. Summary of application of material in
each biology course . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.8. Summary of student response to difficulty
of concepts presented in present biology
Course 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O I O O 0 O O 54

4.9. Summary of difficulty of skills presented
in each course in biology . . . . . . . . . 55

TABLE

4.10.

Summary of difficulty in application
of material presented in each biology
course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of student pOpulation profes-
sional aspirations, when divided into
three groups . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Response to value of sequence of
biology courses . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of relevance of course concepts
Summary of relevance of course skills .

Summary of relevance of course
application . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of student response to value of
laboratory associated with lecture
course 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Relevance of content to academic major

Relevance of skills to academic major .

Relevance of application to academic
major O O O O I I O O I O Q 0 C O O O 0

Relevance of content and science
background . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relevance of skills and science
background . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relevance of application and science
background . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student grade average and relevance of
course content . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student grade average and relevance of
course skills . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Student grade average and relevance of
course application . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

56

57

58
6O

61

62

63

65

65

66

67

68

68

69

7O

71

TABLE

4.26.

4.41.

4.42.

Student professional aspiration and
relevance of course content . . . . . . .

Student professional aSpiration and
relevance of course skills . . . . . . .

Student professional aspiration and
relevance of course application . . . . .

Course range of concepts and relevance
of content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Course range of concepts and relevance
Of Skills 0 O O I I O O O O I O O O O O 0

Course range of concepts and relevance
of application . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relevance of content and range of skills
Relevance of skills and range of skills .

Relevance of application and range
Of Skills 0 O O C O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Range of application and relevance of
content 0 I O I I O O O O I O O O O O o 0

Range of application and relevance of
Skills 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O I I O 0

Range of application and relevance of
application 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Difficulty of course and relevance of
content 0 O 0 O O O O O O I O I O O O O 0

Difficulty of course and relevance of
Skills I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0

Difficulty of course and relevance of
application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Value of laboratory experience to the
professional aspiration of the student .

Value of previous course to relevance
of present course content . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

72

72

73

74

75

76
77

77

78

79

8O

81

82

83

83

85

86

Page
Value of previous course to relevance of
present course skills . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Value of previous course to relevance of
present course application . . . . . . . . 87

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

"In the conditions of modern life the rule
is absolute, the race which does not value
trained intelligence is doomed. Not all
your heroism, not all your social charm,
not all your wit, not all your victories

on land or at sea, can move back the finger
of fate. Today we maintain ourselves.
Tomorrow science will have moved yet one
more step, and there will be no appeal from
the judgment which will then be pronounced
on the uneducated."

--Alfred North Whitehead

This quotation of Whitehead's was made in 1929.
Since World War II, an even greater need for improvement of
higher education has been evidenced.1 Indeed, with more
than eight million students presently attending colleges and
universities, it is not surprising to find more and more
interest paid to every aSpect of curriculum.2 In fact,
at the college level, some of this increased interest seems

to have been generated by the student himself.3

 

1John I. Goodlad, The Changing School Curriculum
New York: N.Y. Fund for the Advancement of Education, The
Georgian Press Inc., 1966).

2G. Robert Koopman, Curriculum Development (New York:
Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966),
pp. 25-46.

31bid., pp. 76—77.

It is this student input which has generally been
lacking in earlier curricular research.“ Furthermore,
few curriculum innovators have paid much attention to the
historical dimensions of curriculum planning. Goodland has
deplored this fact.5 He suggests that most of the "new crop"
reformers have approached the per51stent, recurring problems
of curriculum in the naive belief that no one had looked at
them before.

Kliebard also has stated that in the curriculum
field, issues seem to arise de nova, and that each gen-
eration of reformers are left to discover anew the same
problems that persist in the field.6

In any event, the main function of such historical
works should be to make the educator aware of the possibil-
ity of change, the complexity of change, and particularly
the carryover of the past into the present and future plans.
Caswell, who has also presented a historical account of
earlier curriculum movements, has identified three con—
tinuing, central concerns of curriculum specialists:

1. Assurance of sound sequence and continuity
in the curriculum.

 

l'A.S.C.D., Strategy for Curriculum Change
(Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum DeveIOpment, 1965), pp. 4-9.

5Goodlad, op cit., pp. 11-19.
6Herbert Kliebard, The Curriculum Field in

Retrospect (New York: New York Teachers College Press,
1968).

2. Formation of consistent relationships
between general goals of education and

specific objectives that guide teaching,
and

3. Curriculum design that provides a reasonable
balance of emphasis among various areas of

study.7

Certainly, Caswell has hit upon three themes that
definitely require attention in the planning of a biology
curriculum. Yet currently, biology curriculum and curricula
in general seem to suffer from not relating to sound plan-
ning procedures.8

Shaw also has brought to our attention influences
he believes have helped to determine the direction of
innovations which have occurred in curriculum. He has
cited such stimulants to change as:

1. Advances in technology,

2. Concerns for education of culturally
disadvantaged,

3. Governmental programs, and

4. Special interest groups.9

 

7H. L. Caswell, Emergence of the Curriculum as a
Field of Professional Work and Study (New York: New York
Teachers College Press, 1966).

8George A. Beauchamp, Curriculum Theory (Wilmette,
111.: The Kagg Press, 1968), pp. 55-76.

9Frederick Shaw, "The Changing Curriculum," Review
of Educational Research, 36 (1966), 343-352.

Authors such as Galbraith, Gagne, and Black have
cited even newer instances of such influences on the
curriculum.10 But the study of curriculum is more than
describing particular courses and studies. It should
provide knowledge of better ways to answer perennial ques-
tions of what and how to teach.* Under this heading is the
question of how to formulate instructional objectives.
Factors which have come under consideration include: (a)
subject matter; (b) society; and (c) nature of the learner.
Several authors have added their expertise for classifying
these objectives.12

Regardless of the wealth of background material
available, each institution, each department, and in great
part, each instructor is still ultimately responsible for
seeing to the task of making his curriculum a useful

opportunity. Brenowitz and The Commission of Undergraduate

 

10J. K. Galbraith, The New Industrial State (Boston,
Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1967); Robert Gagne, The Condi-
tions of Learning (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1967); and Hillel Black, The American Schoolbook (New York:
Morrow, 1968).

11Robert Hoopes, "Science in the College Curriculum,"
Conference Report on Oakland University, Oakland University,
1963, N.S.F., Washington, D.C.

‘uBen Bloom, ed., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives,
Handbook I, Cognitive Domain (New York: Longmans Green,
1956); Robert Mager, Preparing Objectives for Programmed
Instruction (San Francisco: Fearon Press, 1964); and
H. H. McAshan, Writing Behavioral Objectives (New York:
Harper & Row, 1970).

Education in the Biological Sciences each have spoken to
the importance of this task.13

With the information explosion demanding better
selection of important concepts and topics, the main effort
in curriculum should be in presenting appropriate blocks of
information which best meet the needs of the student.
Indeed, these needs become very real to students with
individual backgrounds who come into a particular college
course in biology. In fact, the Specific demography of a
population of students might well influence the slant or
content of a course. Certain regional or professional

demands are further examples of this need.

Background and design of the study.--The Fort Wayne
Regional Campus of Indiana-Purdue University developed
historically as separate campuses within the town. Each
began its function as an extension center of the main campus.
In this early function, only selected courses of study were
offered. In many cases, these were taught by part-time
staff. Characteristically, the main campus usually main-
tained control of the courses to the extent of determining
the text used and the exams which were given at the regional

campuses.

 

13A. H. Brenowitz, "Reorganization of the Adelphi
College Biology Curriculum" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Columbia University, 1958); and Hope Ritter, Jr., "The
Changing Role of Biology In The 70's," C.U.E.B.S. News,
7 (June, 1971).

Only since 1964, have the two colleges been under
the same roof. Still, each has maintained strong ties to
the mother campus. Both abide by the requirements set forth
within the catalogs from the main campuses. Also, in 1964,
each college was given certain "mission determinations,"
with the philoSOphy that each would be responsible for
specific educational areas. The plan, according to the
Regional Campus Administration, was to reduce duplication
or overlap of courses taught by each college.

At the present time, this mission determination plan
has only been partially successful, as indicated by catalog
listings. An example from the catalogs would be that of the
Medical Technologist program and the program in pre-nursing
that each lists.

Since each institution has somewhat different
requirements to complete degree programs, there has arisen
the problem of "course equivalents." In essence, this means
that if one university requires a course, the other must
offer that course in the appropriate department. In some
cases this has meant generating an additional course to meet
the requirements within the companion university.

Implicit in the course offering problems is the fact
that through the present, the two colleges have maintained
separate administrations. Each school has separate deans,
registrars, and individual catalogs of course offerings.
Under this system, neither college is responsible to the

other. The overburden of administrators tends to dilute

effectual governing of the campus. A student may find he
has taken a course in a particular department that will not
count toward his degree; he ultimately can be the loser
under such conditions.

As mentioned earlier, there is also the problem of
duplicate programs developing at the Fort Wayne Campus. A
good example of this exists in the pre-nursing programs.
Both Purdue and Indiana University have separate programs
in nursing. In addition, a local hospital also contracts
with the Purdue campus for certain courses needed in a
nursing degree from that hospital. A second example exists
in the presence of duplicate programs in Medical Technology.
Certainly, under such an approach there is evidence that a
problem exists in coordination of efforts.

Further frustrations have developed as a result of
resistance from dual fronts. Development of new programs,
goals, and curriculum materials must attempt to meet the
needs of each university. In some cases they meet neither.

This study was designed to gather both qualitative
and quantitative data concerning the biology curriculum at
this campus. An attempt was made to determine whether the
courses and programs meet the needs of the student pOpula-

tion at this campus.

Need for the study.--A review of the literature

 

revealed that relatively little published evidence exists
concerning attempts to revise curriculum, in terms of stu-
dent population and their particular needs. The wealth of
curricular material has complicated the picture as to how
and what information and instruction is needed for the
college student.

Recent years have turned up a variety of approaches,
more or less successful, in meeting these new demands for a
science curriculum-1“ In general, those science programs
which have been developed, were through the cooperative
efforts of educators, scientists and psychologists working
together.

Presently, due to the planned upcoming autonomy,
increased space facilities and enlarging biology staff, this
campus is in a prime position for a broader look at the
curriculum. In fact, current social and economic pressures
really demand such a continual re—examination of all curric-

ulum, if higher education is to remain effective.15

 

ll‘Sam Postlethwait, "Planning for Better Learning,"
Current Issues In Higher Education (Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Higher Education, 1967), pp. 17-21;
Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological
Sciences, "Biology for the Non—Major," Publication No. 19,
Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 5-10; and C.U.E.B.S. "Content of
Core Curricula in Biology," Publication No. 18, Washington,
D.C., 1967), pp. 1-31.

15Luther Evans, Modern Viewpoints in the Curriculum
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), pp. 1-7.

The achievement of a coherent undergraduate
program in biology would be a likely place to begin at
this campus.16 With faculty concern directed toward a
well conducted biology program, rather than to only their
own personal course, it would be possible to overcome such
problems as duplicity and omission of certain content.

Student reception of any programs must also be
considered, since their perception of needs will dictate
the acceptance of a course. Surely, the current lack of
needed feedback concerning courses has hampered faculty
self-education about course value. In this way, the
development of an abstract curriculum without faculty

involvement or consensus would be avoided.

Purpose of the study.-—The major purposes of

 

this study were: (1) to investigate the current biology
courses offered on the Fort Wayne Campus of Purdue Univer-
sity, (a) to determine if current courses meet the needs of
the student population on this campus, (b) to examine, and
have the biology faculty determine if duplicity or gaps are
present in the content; (2) to define as far as possible,
the student population as it occurs on this campus; and (3)
to make a proposal with the Curriculum Committee as to
several approaches for innovation in the biology curriculum

at this campus.

 

16Curriculum Committee Minutes, Biology Department,
Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana, November, 1969.

10

Theory.--Curriculum theorists, who believe in the
importance of behavioral objectives in building effective
instruction, have found that such general principles have
often not been used in selecting learning opportunities.
Margaret Ammons shows evidence that (a) some departments
do not have objectives to guide their programs, (b) some
systems do not follow recommended curriculum process to
develop their instructional objectives, and (c) some
instructors base their programs on what they have cus-
tomarily done, rather than on the stated educational
objectives.17

Robert Gagne also discusses the problems of stating
objectives and the importance of the problem in the design

8 He feels that particular

of effective instruction.1
opportunity must be available to practice the objective,
or the pre-requisite to the objective. In addition,
according to Gagne, there should be ample opportunity for
reinforcement to the learner. Finally, and this should

be obvious, the learner should begin at the level of his

ability to respond.

 

l7Margaret Ammons, "An Empirical Study of Process and
Product in Curriculum Development," Journal of Educational
Research, 57 (1964), 451-457.

18Robert Gagne, The Analysis of Instructional Objec-
tives for the Design of Instruction (Washington, D.C.:
N.E.A., 1965).

ll

Speaking more directly to such general principles
of curriculum theory are Dressel and Mayhew, who cite that
objectives are most likely to be achieved when learning
experiences are devoted to them.19 Expressly, this means
that if the objectives are to promote skills in solving
problems, the learner must have opportunity to solve
problems. Or, if the learner is to be able to solve
problems in mathematics, he must have opportunity to solve
problems in mathematics, not just practice solving problems
in other areas. Dressel says that a whole realm of "learn-
ing opportunities" should be made available, which means
situations, activities, objects or presentations which will
elicit desired responses from the learner.

In addition, any educational program, but particu-
larly one dealing in science, should capitalize on the
Special insights and skills of the local faculty.20 It
should be appropriate to the background knowledge, skills,
abilities, and needs or goals of the local students. In
short, every college or university must develop its own
program of education in the sciences.

In an age of increasing technical advancement, and

in an era of unbelievable information explosion, decisions

 

l“'Paul Dressel and L. Mayhew, "General Education:
Exploration in Evaluation," American Council on Education,
Washington, D.C., 1954.

20HZOOpes, op. cit.

12

about what to teach cannot be made on the basis of what has
traditionally been taught.21 Neither should they simply be
an attempt to satisfy pressures from the public, from
budgets or peripheral interest groups.22

If judgments are to be made, information is needed
about the current conditions, demands, opportunities in the
local, state, national and international areas of the bio-
logical field. Also, as already stated, information is
needed about the student's abilities, needs, and readiness
to engage in Specific learning tasks. These points have
been re-stated by Tyler, who emphasizes that if a student
is to realize his potential, the curriculum must consider
the talents and abilities of the student.23 Then, as
experience in teaching the curriculum provides more data
regarding the apprOpriateness of content and objectives,
changes must be forthcoming so the new objectives can be

met.

Hypotheses of the study.--In order to investigate

 

the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the biology
curriculum now being offered at the Purdue Campus in Fort

Wayne, the following hypotheses will be tested.

 

”Ibid.

22Paul Dressel, Undergraduate Curriculum Trends
(Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969),
p. 2.

23Ralph Tyler, in Modern Viewpoints in the Curriculum
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), pp. 13-15.

13

1. The biology major's needs will differ significantly

from those of the non-biology major.

2. Demographic characteristics of the students results

in different needs in some biology courses.

3. The range of course concepts will be positively
related to the student's perceived relevance of

that course.

4. The range of course skills will be positively
related to the student's perceived relevance

of that course.

5. The range of course application will be positively
related to the student's perceived relevance of

that course.

6. The evaluation of the difficulty of a course will
be positively related to the student's perceived

relevance of that course.

7. Student populations will differ in their perception
of the value of the laboratory experience in a

given course.

8. There is a positive relationship between the
perceived value of a previous biology course

and the relevance of the present biology course.

Delimitations and assumptions of the study.--Severa1

 

phases of the study were carried out by enlisting the help
of all full-time faculty in the biology section. In addi-
tion, interviews and suggestions were obtained from selected
personnel in the Fort Wayne area, who are considered profes-

sional medical and para-medical supervisors and administrators.

14

Finally, students currently enrolled at the campus were
used in formulating parts of this investigation. However,
the study did not attempt to:

a. Assess the specific knowledge gained in a given
course.

b. Make correlation between the instructor's percep-
tion of courses or programs and the student's
perception of those courses or programs.

c. Analyze data from the questionnaire other than those
variables which directly bore on the testable
hypotheses.

d. Make a judgment as to projected needs for programs
in a given biological area.

e. Differentiate between full-time and part-time

student's responses.

The instrument used in connection with this study
was constructed with the direction of a sociologist from the
University of Michigan.2“ Prior to its use in the classroom,
the questionnaire was pre-tested on a pilot group of ten
students. In the interview portion of the study, it was
assumed that the instructors, professionals and students

were intellectually honest in their responses.

 

2"Mary Sugrue, "Structure and Process of Inquiry into
Social Issues in Secondary Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Michigan, 1970.

15

Organization of the dissertation.--The general

 

organizational plan of the thesis is as follows: in this
chapter is presented a statement of the problem area, which
includes the purpose of the study, along with the rationale
for the investigation of such a study. In addition, the
objectives, assumptions and definition of terms are
presented.

A review of the pertinent literature related to the
study is reported in Chapter II. Chapter III contains a
description of the study, sources of data, selection and
description of the population, specific instruments used,
statistical treatment used, and method of analysis. The
results of data collected, tests of hypotheses, and analysis
of data are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents a
general summary of the study and the conclusions drawn from
the findings of the study. Also included in Chapter V are
the implications of the study and some suggestions with

respect to needed areas of related research.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction.--The literature search has provided

 

few examples of anything but general studies of the curricu-
lum. The sciences have been exposed to a few panel studies,
which have made recommendations at the National level.
Probably the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study at the
high school level is the most recognized. Unfortunately,
there has been no equal at the college or university level,
and several inquiries made to university and National Test-
ing Services revealed no quantitative studies currently
underway.1

Cited in this chapter are several curriculum and
course studies which bear on the current problem under
investigation at the Purdue Regional Campus at Fort Wayne.
These are divided into four categories. In the first cate-
gory are the studies involving revision of general content

of biology for the B.S. degree in biology. The "core"

 

1Center for Curriculum Studies, University of
Minnesota, personal communication, February, 1972; and
William Kastrinos, Educational Testing Service, Princeton,
New Jersey, personal communication, April, 1972.

16

17

approach is an example, where "essential contents" of a
biology program are pursued. The secondary category deals
with a survey study and recommendations of biology for the
non-major. Those studies concerned with review and recom-
mendation for individual courses make up the third category.
The last is a study of biology curriculum, where a multi-
faceted approach was used to develop a biology program for

the biology student.

The core concept.-—Certainly, core curriculum is

 

not a new word in the literature. In fact, serious recom-
mendations concerning such an approach were made at a
National Conference in 1958.2 However, no real revisions
seemed forthcoming from this recommendation.

Finally, 1964 brought a series of two conferences,
sponsored by the Commission on Undergraduate Education in
the Biological Sciences (C.U.E.B.S.). Here was an attempt
to look at the possible need for a hard core of "basic
biological training" for the future biologist.3 The first
of these conferences was held at Berkeley, California,

February, 1964. In attendance then, were eight universities,

 

2National Academy of Science Report, "Recommenda-
tions on Undergraduate Curricula in the Biological Sciences,"
Publication No. 578, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1958.

3Thomas S. Hall, (Chairman), C.U.E.B.S., "Core
Studies for the Undergraduate Majors," BioScience, 14,
No. 8 (1964), 25-29.

18

whose biology enrollment was mostly pre-medical students.
The second conference was held at St. Louis, Missouri,
May, 1964. This time, there were about fifty colleges
and universities represented.

These later conferees generally agreed with the
earlier Berkeley meeting, in that biology was indeed ame-'
nable to encapsulation by the device of a core curriculum.
According to the conference, a core approach should be part
of the training of all future biologists, irrespective of
intended specialty, for its desired content transcended the
possible limits of a typical one-year course or course
sequence.

Concerning the "essential" content to be presented
in such a core, the following areas were recommended for
inclusion: (a) molecular topics, (b) cellular biology,

(c) genetics, (d) developmental biology, (e) organismic
biology, (f) population and community, and (9) evolution.

In addition, various participants at the St. Louis
conference proposed "theme" or "problem" approaches with
such topics as evolution, regulation, or steady state, to
serve as organizing approaches for the core. In fact, the
concensus was mostly to have the biological curriculum
assume some sort of meaningful structure. There should be
an attempt to develop offerings that had a common focus or
pattern of complementarity. Certainly, the core should be

something more than another ensemble of unrelated courses.1+

 

“Ibid., p. 28.

19

By 1967, a number of college and university campuses
across the country had Spent considerable time and effort
on the problem of producing a viable core sequence in
biology.5 C.U.E.B.S. took a sample of four colleges:
Dartmouth, North Carolina State, Purdue, and Stanford
University were chosen. From these, a detailed review of
the core content was made, to determine the shape of the
core. This small sample studied by the C.U.E.B.S. panel
in 1967, showed that the curriculum revision at the four
institutions was characterized by:

1. A set of courses offered in fixed sequence
and extending over approximately two years
is needed to communicate information commonly
required in all biological specialities.

2. The titles and content of these courses vary
widely and depart from traditional biology
courses.

3. While no preferred course pattern is apparent,
it is clear that a primary factor in restruc-
turing curricula has been the de-emphasis of
phylogenetic considerations.

4. There is surprising agreement concerning
major concepts and categories of information
and the relative amount of time needed for
each.

5. Relative greater emphasis on molecular,
cellular, and population biology necessitates
increased collateral preparation in mathematics,
physics and chemistry.

Garnered from this panel report was the idea that a

multiplicity of judgment exists among the many biologists

 

5C.U.E.B.S., "Content of Core Curricula in Biology,‘
Publication No. 18, 1967.

20

contributing to the structure of the four core programs.6
In turn, then, several questions were raised: did the
variability in judgment reflect the feeling of the
instructors that many different examples could be used
to illustrate the same basic ideas? Also, did the multi-
plicity of judgments reflect uncertainty and difference of
opinion concerning the central concepts and factual founda-
tion of biology? As yet, these and other questions have not
entirely been answered. However, since the 1967 survey, the
core approach has not only grown, it has undergone evolution.
Recently, Donald Cox summarized some of the current short-
comings of the core attempt.7 In addition, the 1972 Annual
Report from a leading university indicated further changes
were needed, and listed several of the problems currently
present in their core program.8

Generally, the Cox survey and the Annual Report
included the following concerns about the core in biology:

1. Little success has been seen in Simply bringing
together a block of pre-existing courses with-
out attempt to co-ordinate them.
2. There is considerable difficulty and much
time consumed in maintaining course inte—

gration and co-ordination in the core
curriculum.

 

6Ibid., p. 26.

7Donald Cox, "Another Look at the Core Curriculum,"
C.U.E.B.S. News, 7, No. 5 (1971).

8L. D. Smith, (Chairman), Annual Report of the Core
Committee, Purdue University, Biology Department, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1972.

21
3. A great danger exists in any core program
to a potential regidity in concept.
4. There exists an assumption in some core
programs that a certain body of facts must
be mastered before the student can begin to

experience the unsolved problems in biology.

5. There is a great tendency for the core to
become the entire undergraduate program.

6. There is a greater need to shift the emphasis

on coverage of subject to one of concern for

the growth of the individual.

Biology for the non-major.--While the core curric-
ulum focuses its problems on the science major, there is a
far larger group of college students who find themselves in
a biology course as a requirement for another major field
of study. Curriculum investigation in the area of science
education for the non-major has presented much of the same
problems as those in the previous science oriented group.

In a survey of 25 state teachers colleges in all
parts of the United States, Raksaboldej found generally
that there was "no agreement on objectives and practices

’ The need for such

in general education science courses."
objectives and goals is further emphasized by F. Reif, who
states that in the task of teaching science to non-
specialists,

it is very important to specify clearly the

goals to be attained. These students, who
likely will never use science professionally,

 

9Bitak Raksaboldej, "A Survey of Science Programs in
Selected State Teachers Colleges" (unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, New York University, 1961). (Dissertation Abstracts,
No. 62-1404.)

22

should have imparted to them a coherent

perspective about some fundamental ideas of

contemporary science. They should understand

what scientists do, and about the ways in

which science interacts with the rest of

society.1

The 1967 C.U.E.B.S. report on "Biology for the
Non-Major," brings into clear focus the wide range of
current practices in teaching the general education courses
in science.11 However, the report concludes that likely
there is no one course or content appropriate for biology
courses directed toward a non-major. This appears to be an
important point, and has been reinforced by several other
authors.12 Cox, for example, is of the opinion that content
for such an area is dependent on the facility of the indi-
vidual biology department. Since no two biology departments
are alike, each must set its own educational objectives, in
keeping with the needs of its students and the mission of
the institution.
What ultimately is needed, according to Cox, is a

student who will continue to update his biological education,

realizing that science is both open-ended and cumulative.

 

loF. Reif, "Science Education for Non-Science
Students," Science, 164 (May, 1969), 1032.

11J. J. Baker, ed., "Biology for the Non-Major,"
C.U.E.B.S., Publication No. 19, 1967.

12Donald Cox, "Goals of Biological Education,"
BioScience, 21, No. 23 (1971), 1172; and Gairdner B. Moment,
"Challenge and Response in Freshman Biology," C.U.E.B.S.
News, 7, No. 2 (1970), 6-8.

23

If the student has not developed a high degree of
self-reliance in learning, he will find it impossible
to keep up with the rapidly changing status of the

discipline.

Individual course revisions.—-Ideas which result

 

in new approaches to certain subject matter find their way
only rarely into the curriculum for the major.13 However,
the courses offered for the non—major are occasionally the
focus for imaginative thinking.1“ Most of the journal
reports of such course modifications only indicate general
changes in approach or philosophy. In fact, hard data
are rarely included in these articles. Nevertheless, the
changes that were reported seemed always to indicate an
improvement of the particular course in question.15

One recent example is an experimental course
developed at Oklahoma State University.16 Entitled "Man
in the Environment," this three credit hour course was
described as being a student-involved course in environment.
The objectives of the course were to deve10p in the student

an awareness and understanding of the environmental crises,

 

13Hope Ritter, op. cit., pp. 1-3.

ll’J. J. Baker, "The State of Biology in Liberal
Education," C.U.E.B.S. News, 5, No. 2 (1968), 4.

15Ibid.

15Jerry Wilhm, "Man In The Environment," American
Institute of Biological Sciences News, 1, No. 1 (1972), 6-9.

24

to become acquainted with individuals or groups concerned
with population or pollution problems, and to have first-
hand experiences with environmental problems.

Seventy students were enrolled in the above course,
and given Opportunity to become involved in a variety of
projects. While no tests were given, the student earned
points through project work, class attendance, class
discussion, and field trip participation.

At the end of their course, the students received
an opinionnaire, asking their feeling on certain apsects
of the course, such as:

1. Should tests be given in this course?
2. Should point system be used?

3. How many semester hours is this course
worth?

4. Rank the various course objectives
according to their usefulness.

5. Was sufficient time given to the various
topic areas?

6. Knowing what you now know about this course,

would you Sign up for this course again?

The author of this article stated that the course
objectives were generally met with a course of this nature.
The fact that the lecture-only approach was replaced by
discussion format, allowed the student to become an active
participant. The student also became involved in the
project which allowed him to meet and hear from community

citizens working with the environmental problems.

25

Creager also has recently reported on an
experimental, and somewhat unplanned revision of a general
biology course designed for a diverse student population.17
The course, which began as a traditional three hour lecture,
and three hour laboratory approach, was challenged by
several of the students in the class. The result was that
the professor went to a rather unstructured approach,
allowing more initiative in the class. The new objectives,
which were set up for the experimental approach were: pick
a topic of interest, explore the topic, and be able to
present to the class the important ideas found. The student
would also prepare a two page summary of this project. In
conjunction with the summary, the student included five
short answer questions covering important points in the
report.

The final exam in this course consisted of fifty
questions selected from the different summary reports.
One-half of the final grade in the course was derived from
the report, the other half from the final exam.

In Table 2.1, the summary of findings compared the
experimental approach to the traditional. To each objective,
the sixteen students responded by choosing either the exper-

imental or traditional approach to the class format.

 

17Joan Creager, "Why Do We Have To Learn All This
Crap?" C.U.E.B.S. News, 6, No. 3 (1970), 12.

26

Table 2.1. Comparison of attributes of traditional vs. experimental
approach in biology course

 

 

Preference of Students

 

 

Objectives of Course Traditional Experimental
Learning factual material 11 5
Relating facts from different sources 2 14
Learning to work in lab 10 6
Seeing relationships of science to problems

of society 4 12
Preparing for further college courses 7 9
Learning to tackle problems 2 14
Learning to think for yourself 2 14

(n = 16)

 

Certainly, the Creager and Oklahoma State University
surveys are only limited examples of what can be done in
individual course revisions. In addition, Postlethwait and
others have reported on the success of courses in which the
lecture approach has been replaced by an independent study
method.18 The audio-tutorial (A-T) method has been applied
to courses for both the biology major and non-major.

Kieffer, in his article, described the success of

such an approach on a beginning level biology course. The

 

laSam Postlethwait, The Audio-Tutorial Approach To
Learning (Minneapolis, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Co., 1969),
pp. 16-17; and George Kieffer, "Toward a Biological Aware-
ness," C.U.E.B.S. News, 6, No. 4 (1970), 1-7.

27

primary objective of this course was the development of

an awareness in the student, and to inculcate responsible
action as a future citizen. According to this author, the
independent study (A-T) approach contributed to this goal,
since the method insists that the student assume respon-
sibility for his own education. Further, this approach
encourages maximum student independence and expression.

The scheme of this biology course is well outlined
by Kieffer in his report.19 In general, it focuses on man
and his relationship to the biological world. The theory
operating here, according to Kieffer, is by keeping man in
the forefront, the student interest is maintained.

In addition to the previous approaches, several re-
structured courses have taken on an interdisciplinary tack.
This has been applied to the benefit of both beginning and
upper level courses. The basic idea for such an approach
has been outlined by Reif, at Berkeley32° He reports that
there is a need to select a few themes, basic ideas of great
significance, to serve as the structural Skeleton of the
course. In the biology course at Berkeley, these structural
themes, illustrated and elaborated with pertinent facts and
examples, are always kept in the forefront. They give
coherence to discussion and facilitate learning by the

students. They also help emphasize that science is more

 

19Ibid., p. 2.

20F. Reif, op. cit., p. 1033.

28

than a collection of observations and gadgets, and that
it aims to organize knowledge and to formulate concepts
to great generality.

A second recent example of interdisciplinary
approach was undertaken at Hope College. Here, the course
was designed as an upper-level one in biochemistry.21 The
purpose was to restructure and design a course in which the
concepts of contemporary biochemistry and molecular biology
could be presented in an integrated form to a group of
junior-senior level students with diverse interests and
backgrounds. Among the 32 students enrolled for the first
semester of the course, 5 were biology majors, 13 were pre-
medicine or pre-dentistry, and 14 were chemistry majors.
The article outlined the content of the interdisciplinary
course on a week-to-week basis. These authors concluded
that the course had been a worthwhile addition to the
curriculum, and that interdisciplinary c00peration could
result in the presentation of an effective biochemistry-

molecular biology course.

A multifaceted approach to biology curriculum.--In
1958, a survey was completed on the Adelphi College biology

curriculum.22 In this study, the current biology course

 

21Jerry Mohrig and Nancy Tooney, "Biochemistry in the
Undergraduate Curriculum," Journal of Chemical Education, 46
(1969), 33-35.

aBrenowitz, op. cit.

29

offerings were examined and projections made about the
apprOpriateness of the curriculum for the students.
Several of the data sources included in this study were:
1. A student questionnaire
2. Interviews with select graduates from the college
3. Interviews with medical school representatives
4. Examination of graduate school requirements
5. Examination and study of the Biology Department's
offering, compared with other liberal arts colleges,
and
6. A selected survey of local industrial and public

health job Opportunities in the biological sciences.

Following the data interpretation, recommendations
were made to the Adelphi College Biology Staff, and to a
Committee on Instruction. The Adelphi study represents
an example of the need and usefulness of a multifaceted
approach to gaining insight into curriculum problems. The
questionnaire to the students served as a needed feedback
on each and every course offering. Furthermore, the inter-
views with the various individuals allowed a variety of
vieWpoints on the value of the curriculum. Particularly
important, were the responses from the various employers.

Graduate students who had gained a perspective on
their college courses now were also able to give some
recommendations. Those graduates entering the health

professions are good examples of needed feedback. More

30

surveys are required which examine the health sciences
curriculum and determine the need in such areas as kinds
and quality of courses best suited for entering advanced
science training, such as medicine and the paraLmedical
fields.23
In addition to the interviews of persons outside

the institution, the Adelphi study questioned the Biology
Faculty of the College. It was observed that for the most
part, course content was determined by three factors:

1. the instructors experience

2. the departmental tradition

3. limitations imposed by the course title.

A particularly important observation concerning
course objectives was brought out through the study at
Adelphi. While a large population of the students were
aware of the individual course objectives, almost 30 percent
of the students reported they did not believe that the
objectives had been met.

As a result of the study at Adelphi, a number of
new biology courses were developed. Likewise, a few of the
courses were dropped from the curriculum, and some were
changed in their content and method of presentation.

Much of the critical look which was done on the

Adelphi curriculum still has supreme value today. The

 

23Thomas B. Roos, "Preparation in Biology for Educa-
tion in the Health Sciences," BioScience, 20, No. 3 (1970),
164-168.

31

cross-section of opinion and analysis allowed for valuable
suggestions to be made to the faculty. Ultimately, these
data were valuable because the faculty acted to make the

necessary changes where they seemed indicated.

CHAPTER III

DESCRIPTIVE FEATURES OF THE STUDY

Presented in this chapter are: (1) the general
objectives and design of the student questionnaire, (2) a
description of the courses sampled, (3) a summary table of
numbers of students sampled in each course, (4) the method
of interviewing the biology faculty, (5) the method of
selected sampling of professional personnel from the local
area, (6) the manner in which the data were treated, and

(7) a summary.

General objectives and design of student question-
g§i£2.--This portion of the study was designed to investi-
gate the various_demographic aspects of the student and his
particular reaction to the biology curriculum at this campus.
Special interest was focused on: content, skills and appli-
cation of material as found in the particular courses taken
by the student. For those students who had taken previous
courses, the questionnaire also asked the same questions
with regard to their previous courses and the sequence of
such courses. In addition, questions were asked which

attempted to evaluate the value of the laboratory associated

32

33

with each biology course. The questionnaire was

administered to all biology courses near the term end.

Selection and description of students.--The students

 

involved in this study were 360 students in attendance at
the Fort Wayne campus during the Spring term, 1971. During
the last week of classes, the student questionnaire was
administered to each class of biology. The purpose and use
of the questionnaire was briefly explained to the students
at the time of distribution.

Partial description of the demographic background
of each student included the fact that the local campus
draws a large portion of its 7,000 students from the
immediate area. Table 3.1 shows how the percentage was

distributed.

Table 3.1. Source of student residence

 

 

Student Residence

 

 

25 Mile More Than Out of
Ft. Wayne Radius 25 Miles State
Percent occurrence 55% 20% 16% 9%

 

The fact that this campus serves the local student
population is evident in the fact that 75 percent of the
students lived within 25 miles of the campus. Since the

campus does not have housing facilities, students from

34

outlying areas must find apartments for the duration of
their attendance at this campus.

Further information regarding the nature of the
student was obtained from the breakdown on age groups.
Table 3.2 shows that of the students in the biology courses,
73 percent were between the ages of 17-21. In addition,
about the same percentage were also unmarried, and 85 per-

cent of this sample were registered as full-time students.

Table 3.2. Percent of students in four age groups

 

 

Student Age

 

17-19 20-21 22-24 Over 24

 

Percent occurrence 51% 22% 10% 17%

 

Description of biology courses sampled.--Following
are listed the courses in which student samples were taken
for the questionnaire. In addition to the course descrip-
tion from the University Catalog, each biology faculty
member contributed a synopsis of his course. A brief
statement of each follows the catalog description.

MICROBIOLOGY 220. A course designed to introduce
the student to the isolation, growth, structure,
functioning, heredity, identification, classifi-

cation, and ecology of microorganisms; their role
.in nature and significance to man. Pre-requisite:

35

One year of general chemistry and one semester
of life science. Class 2, Lab. 2, Rec. 1,
Credit 3 hours.1 '

In the foregoing microbiology course, the one
semester offering is made up of several sections. Usually
these would be taught by different instructors. As a
service course, it has the bulk of students from the various
pre-nursing programs. But in addition, other allied health
students such as Dental Hygienists make up a portion of the
class.

ZOOLOGY 109. Introduction to structure,
functioning, heredity, development, classi-
fication, and evolution of animals, and their
interactions with the environment. No pre-
requisites. Class 2, Lab. 4, Credit 4 hours.2

This Zoology offering serves both Indiana University
students and Purdue University students. Indiana University
offers the course as a pre-medical requirement, while Purdue
directs its pre-vet and agricultural majors into this course.

MAN AND THE BIOLOGICAL WORLD (L-lOO) . This
course includes the principles of biological
organization from molecules through cells and
organisms to populations. Emphasis is on
processes common to all organisms. Not designed
for the professional biology student. No pre-
requisite. Class 3, Lab. 3, Credit 5 hours.3

While listed in both college's catalogs, the above

course has different numbers and names in each. It is a

 

1Purdue University Bulletin, Fort Wayne Campus,
"Announcements, 1971-1972," p. 79.

21bid.

3Ibid.

36

service course, in that it helps fill the needs of
non-science majors who must have a minimum number of
hours in some science. However, a number of the students
take this course in order to meet the State of Indiana's
requirements for elementary school teachers.

BIOLOGY OF MAN 204. Second semester of a

two semester course. Introduction to human

biology with emphasis on anatomy and phys-

iology. No prerequisite. Class 2, Lab. 2,

Credit 3 hours.“

This is a basic course in integrated physiology and
anatomy. Both Purdue pre-nursing technology and a local
hospital with a nursing program use this course as part of
the required college credits. In great part, it is a ser-
vice course. Several other groups of students are part of
its population: Mental Health Technology is one such group.
Since the course does not have a prerequisite, non-majors
of biology seem to be directed into the course by certain
counselors. However, since the course will not apply in
the pre-medical program of either university, this type of
student is generally not in the course.

PHYSIOLOGY (P-215). Introduction to physiology
of blood, circulation, respiration, digestion,
metabolism, excretion, endocrines, muscle, nerve,

special senses and central nervous system. No
prerequisite. Class 3, Lab. 2, Credit 5 hours.5

 

“Ibid.

SIbid.

37

This Physiology 215 is primarily for the I.U.
students. The course requires no prerequisites, but it
is often taken following a semester of general anatomy.
Students consist primarily of I.U. pre-nursing and Medical

Technologists, pursuing a B.S. program.

NATURE STUDY (B-214). An introduction to natural
science, with emphasis on biological aspects of
living things; interrelationships between plants
and animals. Field and museum studies; identifi-
cation and classification of plants and animals;
life history, characteristics of living world in
water, field and woodland. No prerequisite.
Class 1, Lab. 2, Credit 2 hours.6

Also intended for the I.U. student, this is a second

course elected by elementary education majors as filling

their science needs.

DEVELOPMENTAL ANATOMY (Z-215) . A comparative
study of structure and develOpment of verte-
brates, including man. Prerequisite: An

introductory biology course. Class 2, Lab. 6,
Credit 5 hours.7

Here again, the Developmental Anatomy serves
predominately the I.U. student. The pre-medical major

and allied health sciences student make up the bulk of

the class.

ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY 285. Concerns adaptation
and competition, and the relationship of orga-
nisms to their physical environment. Natural
selection and other aspects of evolution; origin

 

6Ibid.

7Ibid.

38

and integration of species and communities,

ecosystems. Prerequisites: A year of a life

science and a year of general chemistry.

Class 2, Lab. 3, Credit 3 hours.°

This Biology 285 is part of the Purdue "core" for

its biology major. However, some of the biology majors
from the I.U. program tend to take this course as an
elective. It appears in both catalogs, but with different
numbers and name.

AGRICULTURAL GENETICS 430. Includes the

transmission of heritable traits, probability,

genotype-environmental interactions; chromosomal

abberations; polyploidy; gene interactions; genes

in populations; the structure and function of

nucleic acids; biochemical genetics; molecular

genetics. Prerequisites: Biology 108 or 109.

Class 3, Credit 3 hours. Lab may be taken for

one additional credit.9

This genetics course has typically appealed to the

Purdue agricultural major at this campus. I.U. has the

course listed in its catalog, and currently enrolls a larger

percentage of the students in the course.

Student numbers from each sampled course.--Sampling
of the student questionnaire was done in 10 biology courses
offered during the Spring term. The following Table 3.3

represents the breakdown of students.

 

°Ibid.

9Ibid.

39

Table 3.3. Sampled courses with number of students from each course

 

 

 

Catalog

Biology Course Number Sample Total
Microbiology 220 60 132
Zoology 109 42 67
Botany 108 33 56
Man in Biol. World L-lOO 39 65
Biology of Man 204 96 162
Physiology P-215 21 35
Nature Study 8-214 34 34
Developmental Anatomy Z-215 18 32
Environmental Biology 285 8 13
Agricultural Genetics 430 __2_ __33_

Total 360 618

 

Interviews of selected faculty and professionals.--

 

In addition to the student questionnaire, which forms the

quantitative portion of this study, faculty and professional

personnel from the area were interviewed.

Each faculty member of the Biology Department was

interviewed for approximately 45 minutes.

A pre-determined

set of questions was asked regarding the particular instruc-

tor's view on his course.

Specific attention was given to

the following considerations:

1. level of material presented

2. appropriate sequence of the course, when taken as

part of a required series

4O

3. appropriateness of laboratory eXperience

4. importance of course to various student groups
in the course

5. potential changes for the course

6. rationale for present course format.

Finally, a series of informal taped interviews was
held with local professionals. These were people who were
identified as working in various areas of science, who might
function as resource personnel. Included in this sample
were: (a) the Section Chairman of the Purdue nursing pro-
gram on the Fort Wayne campus, (b) the directors from two
nursing schools in the vicinity, (c) pathologists and lab-
oratory supervisors in two local hospitals, (d) the super-
visor from Fort Wayne's City Health Department, (e) the
coordinator of the State Medical Education Program, and
(f) several employed graduates from the Purdue B.S. program
of the Regional Campus.

Except for the graduate group, the general ques-
tioning and discussion with the professionals included the
following:

1. Do you, or have you used our students in your
organization?

2. If so, is he meeting the requirements of the job?

3. Do you feel he has the proper training and education

to fill your job needs?

41

4. Do you see further need for more formal training
as the job description changes?

5. Are you planning any expansion of your program?

6. Will you be requiring a greater number of trained
individuals?

7. Do you see any new programs for which you would

need differently trained individuals?

Operational measureS.--The student questionnaire

 

served as the prime instrument in gathering data on the
individual student, his background, and his perception of
the biology course(s) in which he was enrolled. Of the
questionnaires distributed, approximately 60 percent were
returned completely answered. It was assumed that the
returned questionnaires were a representative sample from
each course polled. Cross-tabulation was done with the
various questions from the instrument. Frequency distri—
bution and chi-square were run on these, and the level of
significance determined at the .05 level.

The faculty sample consisted of all the biology
faculty currently teaching, which was ten members. Those
professional members from the local community were those
people who conceivably would be utilizing the graduates
from the various programs in the biology department. It
was assumed that the judgment of these professionals and
the faculty was an honest response to the questions posed

to them.

42

Design of the study.--Both predictive and

 

descriptive data were included in the experimental design.
The closed-ended, or multiple choice nature of the student
questionnaire lent itself well to cross-tabulation of the
various dependent and independent variables. Several of
the questions were designed to simply gather information
for frequency analysis.

Perceptions of both faculty and selected profes-
sionals were obtained through the individual interviews.
Reports of type and function of the courses, amount and kind

of education needed, was reported on at that time.

Testable hypotheses.--On the basis of the

 

questionnaire and interviews, research hypotheses were
formulated for the curriculum now being offered by the
Biology Department on this campus. The general hypothesis
from which the following were derived stated that the nature
of the student and the nature of the classes would signif-
icantly relate to the needs of the student being met by the

curriculum.

H01: There will be no difference in the perceived
relevance of the biology course between the

biology major and the non-major.

H02: There will be no difference in the perceived
relevance of the present course, regardless
of the high school background of the student.

10:
o

43

There will be no difference in the perceived
relevance of the course, regardless of the

grade point average of the student.

There will be no difference in the perceived
relevance of the course between the profession-

ally oriented student and the non-science major.

There will be no relationship between the range
of course concepts and the perceived relevance

of course concepts.

There will be no relationship between the
range of course skills and the perceived

relevance of that course.

There will be no relationship between the
range of course application and the perceived

relevance of that course.

There will be no relationship between the
perceived relevance of the course and the
student's evaluation of the difficulty of

that course.

There will be no difference in the perception
of the value of the laboratory experience
between the science major and the non-science

major.

There will be no relationship between the per-
ceived value of a previous biology course and

the relevance of the present biology course.

44

Analysis of data.--A11 data from the questionnaire

 

were coded and placed on data coding forms by the writer.
The coding transformed all responses to numerical form.
Then, trained personnel at Purdue University Computer Center
were employed to transfer the coded data to key punch cards
and verify the results. Computer personnel were also used
to adapt existing programs to the needs of the researcher,
and submit data to the Control Data Corporation 3600 and
6500 computers for analysis.

Analysis of the data involved tabulation, cross-
tabulation of selected questions from the instrument, and
frequency distribution and percentage. Chi-square and Phi
coefficient were applied to each hypothesis. The program
used for this study was modified from the Bio-Med 8,
developed by the Health Sciences Unit of the University of
California at Los Angeles, in 1966.

Personal interviews were done to determine the
faculty and professional's general attitudes toward the
usefulness of present courses and need for improvements.
The results of the selected questioning and taped conver-

sations are itemized in general form in Chapter IV.

Summary.--Data relevant to the student, his view on
the particular biology course currently taken, and any which
he had already taken, was collected via the student ques-

tionnaire. In this instrument, each course was viewed for

45

its contribution in the areas of conceptual ideas and
content, skills, and application of course material.

These data were coded and transferred to key
punch cards for tabulation by CDC 3600 and 6500 computers.
Hypotheses concerning the student's perception of the value
of the courses were analyzed. In addition to percentage
and frequency analysis, various dependent variables were
cross-tabulated with the independent variables from the
questionnaire. The chi-square test of independence and a
Phi coefficient were run to determine the level of correla-
tion. A minimum of .05 level of significance was employed
in all cases.

The data and responses of the faculty and profes-
sional group were summarized and ranked as part of the

descriptive data of this study.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The purpose of this chapter is to present the
results from the questionnaire used to collect the student
data, as well as the display of the summary of the responses
by the faculty and local professional group.

The first of the tables which follow (Table 4.1)
represent the percentage and frequency analysis from both
the dependent and independent variables. Next are presented
the selected cross-tabulation of the ten independent vari-
ables with the several dependent variables.

Finally presented are the feedback data from the
interviews with the faculty from the Biology Department and
selected professional people from the area. These data were
gathered by taped interview, and summary statements made
from these.

A summary of the findings from this chapter is
included at the end.

The first independent variable illustrates variety
of reasons why students were currently enrolled in a given

biology course.

46

47

Table 4.1. Summary of students' reasons for taking a particular
biology course

 

 

 

Course Major- Only Course Required by Elective
Number Minor Needed Other Major Course
430 1 -- 5 3
220 -— 11 49 -—
109 10 6 24 2
108 5 2 22 4
100 -- 13 16 10
203 4 12 80 --

P-215 2 3 14 2
B-214 -- 4 15 15
Z-215 6 —- 12 --
285 _7 .2 .2; _1_
Total 35 (9.5%) 51 (14%) 237 (66%) 37 (10.5%)

r1=360 (100%)

 

Table 4.1 illustrates four categories under which
a student might be enrolled in a particular course. Within
the four columns, the category of major-minor in biology
has only approximately 10 percent of the total students.
.Approximately another 10 percent are found under the heading
of elective courses. The 14 percent represented under the
column of "only course needed," are students such as dental
hygienists, mental health technologists and elementary
education students. The largest group are those under
"other major," and constitute students who are in pre-

Inedical studies under the Indiana University enrollment,

48

the pre-nursing students, certain education majors, and

a variety of others. Table 4.1 further indicates that the
bulk of students who find themselves in a particular biology
course usually are there to satisfy requirements other than

those of a biology major.

Table 4.2. Summary of students' high school science background

 

 

 

Course No. Had No Courses 1-2 Courses 3 or More Courses

430 -- 3 6

220 4 32 24

109 1 16 25

108 -- 16 17

100 2 26 11

203 3 47 46
P-215 —- 12 9
B-214 —- 31 3
Z-215 1 5 12

285 _"_ __1 _7
Total 11 (3%) 189 (52%) 160 (45%)

n = 360 (100%)

 

Table 4.2 represents the distribution of students
with various amounts of high school science courses. This
was the second independent variable from the questionnaire.
Of the 360 student sample, 52 percent had 1-2 science
courses in high school. Forty-five percent indicated

they had three or more such courses in high school. Only

49

3 percent of the total student sample indicate they had no
high school science.

Independent variable number 3 from the questionnaire
asked the student his scholastic average. Table 4.3 repre-

sents the student groups according to grade average.

Table 4.3. Summary of college grade average in represented courses

 

 

 

B Average 1 Average
Course No. or Better C Average Below C Not Known
430 1 7 1 --
220 12 39 4 5
109 8 26 3 5
108 2 24 2 5
100 4 29 4 2
203 18 65 1 12
P-215 1 18 2 --
8-214 9 20 5 --
Z-215 1 15 2 --
285 _3 _§_ _: _'_'
Total 59 248 24 29

n = 360 (100%)

 

In Table 4.3 grade point averages were translated
into letter grades. Of the sample, 69 percent showed a "C"
average, while approximately 16 percent indicated a "B" or
better average. Eight percent of the sampled group did not

know their present average.

 

Ch

“Us

I u
I).

50

Table 4.4 represents the sampled student pOpulation
grouped into either science or non-science fields. Inde-
pendent variable number 4 asked about the professional

interests of the students.

Table 4.4. Summary of students according to science or non-science
related fields

 

 

 

Science or Other Teaching or

Course No. Science Teaching Non-Science Profession
430 5 4
220 53 7
109 14 28
108 6 27
100 2 37
203 74 22
P-215 14 7
8-214 1 33
Z—215 13 5
285 ._;4 __4_

Total 186 (52%) 174 (48%)
n==360

 

Table 4.4 indicates that if all categories of
science-oriented curricula are grouped together, the sampled
population under this heading was 52 percent, while teaching
and other professions accounted for 48 percent of the

students.

51

Independent variable 5 was listed in the following
question form: "How great a range of ideas (concepts) was
covered in the present course?"

In Table 4.5, a summary of the range of course
concepts is presented. Seventy-seven percent of the sampled
students indicated their course as having a great range of
such concepts. Twenty-one and five-tenths percent reported
that their course had moderate concepts or ideas presented,
leaving only 1.5 percent who indicated the course had little

or no concepts presented.

Table 4.5. Summary of results regarding presentation of range of ideas
in each biology course

 

 

Range of Concepts in Course

 

 

Course No. Great Moderate Little or None

430 8 l -—
220 53 7 —-
109 28 12 2
108 26 7 --
100 33 6 --
203 67 28 1

P-215 18 2 1

B-214 24 9 ' 1

Z-215 14 4 ——
285 _7_ _1 .2

Total 278 (77%) 77 (21.5%) 5 (1.5%)

n==360

 

52

Independent variable 6 concerned the number of

skills presented in the biology course. Table 4.6 lists

the data.

Table 4.6.

Summary of range of skills presented in present biology
course

 

 

Range Of Skills in Course

 

 

Course NO. Great Moderate Little or None

430 1 6 2

220 22 37 1

109 7 30 5

108 4 22 7

100 6 18 15

203 ll 46 39
P-215 1 10 10
B-214 l 21 12
Z-215 1 15 2

285 _4 _i _-;
Total 58 (16%) 209 (58%) 93 (26%)

n = 360 (100%)

 

Table 4.6 presents a summary Of the range of course

skills as interpreted by the students. Sixteen percent of

the sampled students felt that their course had a great

range of skills presented. Of the students sampled, 58

percent were of the Opinion that the course contained a

:moderate number of skills, while 26 percent felt that little

or no skills were Offered.

53

Data on independent variable 7 is shown in Table 4.7

below.

Table 4.7.

Summary of application Of material in each biology course

 

 

Range Of Application

 

 

Course NO. Great Moderate Little or None

430 6 3 --
220 35 24 1
109 16 22 4
108 14 18 1
100 12 27 --
203 48 38 10

P-215 13 7 l

B-214 ll 22 1

Z-215 7 11 --
285 __5_ __2_ __1_

Total 167 (46.2) 174 (48.5%) 19 (5.3%)

n==360

 

A summary of the range of course application is

presented in Table 4.7, where 46 percent of the students

felt that the range of course application was great.

However, better than 48 percent felt that there was only

moderate range of course application. Five percent were

of the Opinion that there was little or no application.

54

Independent variable number 8 asked about the
difficulty of the courses measured in terms of the concepts,
skills, and application. The following three tables

(Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10) summarized the student reSponses.

Table 4.8. Summary of student response to difficulty Of concepts
presented in present biology course

 

 

Difficulty of Concepts

 

 

Course No. Great Moderate Little or None

430 1 8 --

220 10 46 4

109 1 25 16

108 3 27 3

100 10 25 4

203 35 59 2
P-215 2 19 --
B-214 -- 15 19
Z—215 3 13 2

285 __-; __5_ .2.
Total 65 (18%) 242 (67%) 53 (15%)

n = 360

 

Table 4.8 represents the student's Opinion of the
difficulty of concepts in their course. Eighteen percent
felt that there was great difficulty to the concepts, while
67 percent expressed the opinion that there was only moder-
ate difficulty tO the concepts. Fifteen percent felt that

little or no difficulty was present.

55

Table 4.9. Summary of difficulty of Skills presented in each course in

 

 

 

 

biology
Difficulty of Skills
Course NO. Great Moderate Little or None

430 -- 7 2

220 5 44 11

109 1 23 18

108 3 20 10

100 4 23 12

203 14 49 33
P-215 1 10 10
B-214 -- 13 21
Z-215 1 11 6

285 .2 _6_ __a
Total 29 (8%) 206 (57%) 125 (35%)

n==360

 

Table 4.9 represents the distribution of student
Opinion concerning difficulty of course skills. Eight per-
cent felt that the skills presented were Of great difficulty.
Fifty-seven percent responded to the question by saying only
moderate difficulty was seen. Thirty-five percent felt
little or no difficulty to the skills presented in their

course .

56

Table 4.10. Summary of difficulty in application of material presented
in each biology course

 

 

Difficulty in Application

 

 

Course NO. Great Moderate Little or None
430 -- 7 2
220 8 43 9
109 2 24 16
108 4 21 8
100 6 25 8
203 23 50 23
P-215 2 12 7
B-214 -- 11 23
Z-215 -- 11 6
285 _1 __§ __2

Total 46 (12%) 210 (58.5%) 104 (29.5%)

n==360

 

The question concerning difficulty in application of
course material is illustrated in Table 4.10. Twelve per-
cent Of sampled students had great difficulty in application
of material presented in their course. While 58 percent of
the students sampled had only moderate difficulty only 29
percent had little or no difficulty in the application of
the course material.

Independent variable number 9 is the same as inde-
pendent variable 4, concerning professional aspirations.

In variable 9, the population of students had been divided

57

divided into three groups: medical-paramedical, science
teaching, and non-science. These groups were identified
in order that later cross-tabulation could be made with
certain Of the dependent variables. These results are

presented in Table 4.11

Table 4.11. Summary of student population professional aspirations,
when divided into three groups

 

 

 

Course NO. Medical-Paramedical Science Teaching Non-Science
430 5 -- 4
220 56 -- 4
109 10 3 29
108 3 3 27
100 1 l 37
203 74 -- 22
P-215 11 3 7
8-214 -- 1 33
Z-215 12 l 5
285 _e __2_ _1

Total 174 (48.5%) 14 (4%) 172 (47.5%)

n==360

 

In Table 4.11 is represented a summary of the three
categories of professional aSpirations presented on the
student questionnaire. Forty-eight percent Of the sampled
students placed themselves under the heading of medical and
paramedical. Only 4 percent were under the category of
science teaching, and approximately 48 percent were listed

as non-science majors.

58

The last independent variable related to the
sequence of biology courses the student may have had, and
their value to the present course in which the student was
enrolled. In this variable only a fraction of the students
could reply, since a number of them had no previous courses

on which to draw.

Table 4.12. Response to value of sequence of biology courses

 

 

Help to Present Course

 

 

Course NO. Great Slight No Help No Previous Biology

430 5 3 l --

220 19 3O 8 3

109 12 12 -- 18

108 12 10 3 8

100 -- 1 -- 38

203 46 41 7 2
P-215 11 3 -- 7
B-214 9 8 2 15
Z-215 10 6 -- 2

285 __1.3_ __-1 _1_ _1
Total 127 (35%) 117 (33%) 22 (6%) 94 (26%)

n==360

 

The student response concerning the value of the
sequence Of biology course(s) to present course is presented
in the above table. Thirty-five percent were of the Opinion
that the sequence Of courses helped in their present biology

courses. Thirty-three percent felt that the sequence was

59

only Of slight help to the present course. Of the sampled
students 26 percent did not have previous courses from

which to make a decision.

Dependent variables of the hypotheses.--Presented

 

below are the tables of the dependent variables. Three

of these variables were used in nine of the independent
variables, and dealt in terms of the student's perception
of the relevance of the various biology courses. These
were measured as: relevance of content, relevance of
skills, and relevance of application. The fourth dependent
variable surveyed the value of the laboratory experience in

each of the courses.

60

Dependent variable number 1 asked: "In your current
course, how relevant were course concepts (content) to your

area of educational need?"

Table 4.13. Summary of relevance Of course concepts

 

 

 

Course NO. Course Very Relevant Course Only Moderate or Little

430 4 5

220 24 36

109 26 16

108 10 23

100 14 25

203 48 48
P-215 12 9
B-214 19 15
Z-215 9 9

285 __2| __6_
Total 168 (47%) 192 (53%)

n==360

 

Table 4.13 is a summary of student Opinion concern-
ing relevance Of course concepts to student's need. Forty-
seven percent Of the students responded by saying that the
course was very relevant. However, 53 percent were Of the
Opinion that the course had only moderate to little rele-

‘vance to their area of need.

61

Dependent variable number 2 asked: "How relevant to

you were the skills learned in your present biology course?"

Table 4.14. Summary of relevance of course skills

 

 

Skills Learned

 

 

Course No. Very Relevant Moderate or Little

430 1 8

220 15 45

109 16 26

108 9 24

100 4 35

203 22 74
P-215 8 13
B-214 6 28
Z-215 8 10

285 . __1_ __1_
Total 90 (25%) 270 (75%)

n==360

 

Table 4.14 is a summary of opinion concerning rele-
vance of course skills to student's area Of need. Twenty-
five percent responded by saying that the course skills had
great relevance, while 75 percent were of the Opinion that
course Skills had only moderate to little relevance in the

area of need of the student.

62

Dependent variable number 3 asked: "In your present
biology course, was there relevance in the application of

material?"

Table 4.15. Summary of relevance of course application

 

 

Material Presented

 

 

Course NO. Very Relevant Moderate or Little
430 5 4
220 26 34
109 22 20
108 14 19
100 14 25
203 51 45

P-215 13 8

B-214 19 15

Z—215 12 6

285 ._;4 __£_

Total 180 180
n==360

 

In Table 4.15, the Opinion of the students shows
that 50 percent of the respondents felt the applications
were relevant. Fifty percent were just as convinced that
the application had little relevance to their educational

needs.

63

For dependent variable number 4, the student was
asked about the value of the laboratory experience: "In
terms Of clarifying topic material, how do you classify

the laboratory associated with the present lecture course?"

Table 4.16. Summary of student response to value of laboratory
associated with lecture course

 

 

Amount Of Help of Lab

 

 

Waste Not In
Course NO. Great Moderate Little Of Time Lab

430 2 5 1 -- 1

220 23 25 9 2 l

109 28 11 3 -- --

108 8 12 8 5 --

100 3 8 4 24 --

203 13 38 21 19 5
P-215 3 7 6 5 --
B-214 5 14 10 5 --
Z-215 17 1 -- -- --

285 .1 __5_ _1 __1_ .2.
Total 103 (28.5%) 126 (35%) 63 (175%) 61 (17%) 7 (2%)

11=36O

 

Table 4.16 displays the summary Of response to the
value Of the laboratory in making topic material clear.
Twenty-eight percent of the students felt that the laboratory
was of great help in this regard. Thirty-five percent felt

that the lab was only of moderate aid. Seventeen percent

64

were of the Opinion that it had only little value, and
17 percent felt the laboratory was a waste Of their time.
Two percent were not able to respond due to the fact that

they were not taking laboratory during this time.

Testing the hypotheses.--The hypotheses tested were

 

related to the students' perceived relevance of the biology
course in which he was enrolled. Questions taken from the
student opinionnaire were designated as 'independent' or
'dependent' according to whether they treated demographic
data or student perceptual data respectively.

Originally developed by U.C.L.A. Health Sciences
Computing Facility in 1966, the Bio-Med 8 program used here,
accomplished cross-tabulation of the independent and depen-
dent variables as previously described.

The research hypotheses which follow are stated as
relationships, not in the null form. Further, it should be
noted that each of the hypotheses measures the criteria of
relevance in terms of content, Skills, and application.

Hypothesis 1

 

The biology major will perceive his current
biology course as being more relevant in terms

of content, skills, and application, than will

the non-major in the same course.

Tabulated with this were the three dependent vari-

ables: relevance Of content, relevance of skills, and

relevance of application.

65

Table 4.17. Relevance of content to academic major

 

 

Student Major

 

 

 

Content Biology Other
Relevant 23 (66%) 145 (45%)
Little or none 12 (34%) 180 (55%)

Total 35 (100%) 325 (100%)
Chi-Square = 5.62 Significance @ .02

Degrees of freedom = 1

 

In the above table of cross—tabulation, students
were grouped as to whether they intended to major in biology,
versus majors other than biology. The results associated
with the table Show a significantly larger percentage of the
biology majors interpreting their course content as having
more relevance than did the major from fields other than

biology.

Table 4.18. Relevance of Skills to academic major

Student Major

 

 

 

Skills Biology Other
Relevant 16 (46%) 74 (23%)
Little or none 19 (54%) 251 (77%)

Total 35 (100%) 325 (100%)
Chi-Square = 8.88 Significance @ .01

Degrees Of freedom = 1

 

66

In Table 4.18 above the biology majors versus other
majors were cross-tabulated with relevance of any skills
presented in their course. The results associated with the
table show a significant percentage of the biology majors
interpreting their course as having more relevant Skills

than did the non-biology major in the same course.

Table 4.19. Relevance of application to academic major

 

 

Student Major

 

 

 

Application Biology Other
Relevant 26 (74%) 154 (47%)
Little or none 9 (26%) 171 (53%)

Total 35 (100%) 325 (100%)
Chi-Square = 9.14 Significance @ .01

Degrees Of freedom = 1

 

In the above table the biology majors versus other
majors were cross-tabulated with relevance of application of
material presented in their course. The results associated
with the table show a significantly larger percentage of the
biology majors interpreting their course as having more
relevant application than did the non—biology major in the

same course .

67

Hypothesis 2

The previous high school science background
of the biology student results in a different

perception of the course relevance.

In this second hypothesis, the independent variable
of high school science background was cross-tabulated with
the dependent variables on: relevance of content, skills,

and application.

Table 4.20. Relevance of content and science background

 

 

High School Science Courses

 

 

 

Content None 1-2 3 or More
Relevant 7 (64%) 87 (46%) 74 (56%)
Little or none 4 (36%) 102 (54%) 86 (54%)

Total 11 (100%) 189 (100%) 160 (100%)
Chi-Square = 1.31 Significance @ .70

Degrees Of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.20, the high school science background
was cross-tabulated with student's perceived relevance of
content in their college biology course. Data from the
table show no association between high school science
background and perceived relevance of content in the biology

course.

68

Table 4.21. Relevance of skills and science background

 

 

High School Science Courses

 

 

 

Skills None 1—2 3 or More
Relevant 3 (27%) 42 (22%) 45 (28%)
Little or none 8 (73%) 147 (78%) 115 (72%)

Total 11 (100%) 189 (100%) 160 (100%)
Chi-Square = 1.64 Significance @ .50

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.21, the high school science background
was cross-tabulated with the student's perceived relevance
of skills presented in the college biology course. Data
from the table show no association between high school
science background and the student's perceived relevance

Of skills in the biology course.

Table 4.22. Relevance of application and science background

 

 

High School Science Courses

 

 

 

Application None 1-2 3 or More
Relevant 6 (55%) 91 (48%) 83 (52%)
Little or none 5 (45%) 98 (52%) 77 (48%)

Total 11 (100%) 189 (100%) 160 (100%)
Chi-Square = .57 Significance @ .80

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

69

In Table 4.22, the high school science background
was cross-tabulated with the student's perceived relevance
of application of material presented in the course. Data
from the table show no association between science back-
ground and the student's perceived relevance of application

of material in the biology course.

Hypothesis 3

 

The grade point average of the biology student
results in a different perception of course

relevance by the biology student.

The third hypothesis crossed the independent vari-
able Of grade point average with the dependent variables of:
relevance of content, skills, and application. Total number
of responses in this table were less than the 360 (n==33l)

since some of the students did not know their grade average.

Table 4.23. Student grade average and relevance Of course content

 

 

Grade Point Average

 

 

 

Content B or Above C Below C Average
Relevant 40 (68%) 105 (42%) 11 (46%)
Little or none 19 (32%) 143 (58%) 13 (54%)

Total 59 (100%) 248 (100%) 24 (100%)
Chi-Square = 12.4 Significance @ .01

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

70

Table 4.23 shows the results of cross-tabulation of
grade average of student with his perceived relevance of
content in the biology course. Data from the table show
a significant percentage of students with B or above average
grades interpreting their course as having more relevant
content than did the students with the lower G.P.A. in the

same course .

Table 4.24. Student grade average and relevance of course skills

 

 

Grade Point Average

 

 

 

Skills B or Above C D or Below
Relevant 20 (34%) 57 (23%) 4 (17%)
Little or none 39 (66%) 191 (77%) 20 (83%)

Total 59 (100%) 248 (100%) 24 (100%)
Chi-Square = 3.92 Significance @ .20

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.24, the grade average of the biology
student was cross-tabulated with the student's perceived
relevance of skills presented in the biology course. Data
from the table show no significant association between grade
average of the student and his perceived relevance of skills

presented in the biology course.

71

Table 4.25. Student grade average and relevance of course application

 

 

Grade Point Average

 

 

 

Application B or Above C D or Below
Relevant 39 (66%) 120 (48%) 11 (46%)
Little or none 20 (34%) 128 (52%) 13 (54%)

Total 59 (100%) 248 (100%) 24 (100%)
Chi-Square = 6.30 Significance @ .05

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

Table 4.25 shows results of cross-tabulation of
grade average of student with his perceived relevance of
application of material presented in the biology course.
Data from the table Show a significant percentage of stu-
dents with higher grade point averages who interpret their
course as having more relevant application than did those

students with a lower G.P.A. in the same course.

Hypothesis 4

 

Professional science students and the non-science
oriented students will differ in their perception

of the relevance of their current biology course.

In this hypothesis, the independent variable of
professional aspiration of the student was cross-tabulated
with dependent variables of: relevance of content, skills,

and application.

Table 4.26.
course content

72

Student professional aspiration and relevance of

 

 

Aspiration of Student

 

 

Content Science Non-Science
Relevant 109 (59%) 59 (34%)
Little or none 77 (41%) 115 (66%)

Total 186 (100%) 174 (100%)

 

Chi-Square = 22.0

Degrees Of freedom = 1

Significance @ .001

 

In Table 4.26, the professional aspiration Of the

biology student was cross-tabulated with relevance of

content in material presented in their biology course.

Data from the table show a significant association between

professional aspiration of student and the perceived rele-

vance of course content.

Science oriented students inter-

preted their course as having more relevant content than

did non-science oriented students in the same course.

Table 4.27.
skills

Student professional aspiration and relevance Of course

 

 

Aspiration Of Student

 

 

Skills Science Non-Science
Relevant 63 (34%) 27 ‘(l6%)
Little or none 123 (66%) 147 (84%)

Total 186 (100%) 174 (100%)

 

Chi-Square = 16.1

Degrees of freedom = l

_f

Significance @ .001

 

73

In Table 4.27, the professional aspiration of the
biology student was cross-tabulated with his perceived
relevance Of the skills presented in the biology course.
Data from the table show a significant association between
professional aspiration of student and perceived relevance
of skills learned in the course. The science oriented
students interpreted the skills learned in the course as
being more relevant than did non-science oriented students

in the same course.

Table 4.28. Student professional aspiration and relevance Of course

 

 

 

 

 

application
Aspiration Of Student
Application Science Non-Science
Relevant 103 (55%) 77 (44%)
Little or none 83 (45%) 97 (56%)
Total 186 (100%) 174 (100%)
Chi-Square = 4.45 Significance @ .05

Degrees of freedom = 1

 

In Table 4.28, the professional aspiration of the
student in the biology course was cross-tabulated with his
perceived relevance of the application Of material learned
in the course. Data from the table show a significant
association between professional aspiration of the student

and perceived relevance of application of material in the

course. The science

74

oriented students interpreted the

material learned in the course as being more relevant than

did non-science oriented students in the same course.

Hypothesis 5

 

The student's evaluation of the range of course

concepts will be related to their perceived

relevance of

Hypothesis 5
variable about range
ables Of: perceived

application.

Table 4.29. Course

that course.

cross-tabulated the independent

of concepts with the dependent vari-

relevance of content, skills, and

range Of concepts and relevance of content

 

 

Range Of Concepts

 

 

Content Great Moderate Little
Relevant 144 (52%) 23 (30%) 1 (20%)
Little or none 134 (48%) 54 (70%) _4_ (80%)

Total 278 (100%) 77 (100%) 5 (100%)

 

Chi-Square = 13.1

Degrees Of freedom = 2

Significance @ .01

 

In Table 4.29, the range of concepts presented in

the biology course was cross-tabulated with the student's

perceived relevance of course content. Data from the table

show a significant association between a student's estimate

75

of the range of concepts, and his perception Of relevance
of content. Those students who felt that a large number
of concepts were covered also perceived them as having more
relevance than did students who evaluated course as having

fewer concepts.

Table 4.30. Course range of concepts and relevance of skills

 

 

Range of Concepts

 

 

 

Skills Great Moderate Little
Relevant 70 (25%) 19 (25%) 1 (20%)
Little or none 208 (75%) 58 (75%) _2_ (80%)

Total 278 (100%) 77 (100%) 5 (100%)
Chi-Square = .075 Significance @ .80

Degrees Of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.30, the range of concepts presented in
biology course was cross-tabulated with the student's per-
ceived relevance Of skills learned in the course. Data from
the table show no significant association between range of
concepts and the student's perceived relevance of skills

learned in the course.

76

Table 4.31. Course range Of concepts and relevance of application

 

 

Range Of Concepts

 

 

 

Application Great Moderate Little
Relevant 153 (55%) 26 (34%) l (20%)
Little or none 125 (45%) 51 (66%) _4_ (80%)

Total 278 (100%) 77 (100%) 5 (100%)
Chi-Square = 12.7 Significance @ .01

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.31, the range of course concepts was
cross-tabulated with the student's perceived relevance of
application of material learned in the course. Data from
the table show a significant association between a student's
estimate Of the range of concepts, and his perception of
relevance of application. Those students who felt that a
large number of concepts were covered also perceived them
as having more relevance than did students who evaluated the

course as having fewer concepts.

Hypothesis 6

 

The student's evaluation of the range of course
skills will be related to their perceived relevance

of that course.

This hypothesis cross—tabulated the independent
variable about range of skills with the dependent variables

of: perceived relevance of content, skills, and application.

77

Table 4.32. Relevance of content and range Of skills

 

 

Range of Skills

 

 

 

Content Great Moderate Little
Relevant 30 (52%) 97 (46%) 41 (44%)
Little or none 28 (48%) 112 (54%) 52 (56%)

Total 58 (100%) 209 (100%) 93 (100%)
Chi-Square = .85 Significance @ .70

Degrees Of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.32, the range of skills presented in the
biology course was cross-tabulated with the student's per-
ceived relevance of content of the course. Data from the
table Show no significant association between range of
skills and the student's perceived relevance of course

content.

Table 4.33. Relevance of skills and range of skills

 

Range Of Skills

 

 

 

Skills Great Moderate Little
Relevant 28 (48%) 58 (28%) 4 (4%)
Little or none 30 (52%) 151 (72%) 89 (96%)

Total 58 (100%) 209 (100%) 93 (100%)
Chi-Square = 38.8 Significance @ .001

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

78

In Table 4.33, the range of Skills presented in the
biology course was cross-tabulated with the student's per-
ceived relevance of those skills. Data from the table Show
a significant association between the student's estimate of
range Of skills and his perception of relevance of those
skills. Students who felt that a large number of skills
were presented also perceived them as having more relevance
than did students who evaluated the course as having fewer

Skills.

Table 4.34. Relevance of application and range of skills

 

 

Range of Skills

 

 

 

Application Great Moderate Little
Relevant 33 (57%) 96 (46%) 51 (55%)
Little or none 25 (43%) 113 (54%) 42 (45%)

Total 58 (100%) 209 (100%) 93 (100%)
Chi-Square = 3.35 Significance @ .20

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.34, the range Of skills presented in the
biology course was cross-tabulated with the student's per-
ceived relevance of application of the course. Data from
the table show no significant association between the range
Of skills and the student's perceived relevance of course

application.

79

Hypothesis 7

 

The student's evaluation of the range of course

application will be related to their perceived

relevance of that course.

This hypothesis cross-tabulated the independent
variable about range of course application with the depen-
dent variables of: perceived relevance of content, skills,

and application.

Table 4.35. Range of application and relevance Of content

 

 

Range of Application

 

 

 

Content Great Moderate Little
Relevant 104 (62%) 61 (35%) 3 (16%)
Little or none 63 (38%) 113 (65%) 16 (84%)

Total 167 (100%) 174 (100%) 19 (100%)
Chi-Square = 33.0 Significance @ .001

Degrees Of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.35, the range of application of material
presented in the biology course was cross-tabulated with the
student's perception Of the relevance Of the course content.
Data from the table show a Significant association between
the student's estimate of range Of application, and his
perception of the relevance of course content. Students
who felt that a large number of applications were presented

also perceived the content as having more relevance than did

80

students who evaluated the course as having fewer

applications.

Table 4.36. Range of application and relevance of skills

 

 

Range of Application

 

 

 

Skills Great Moderate Little
Relevant 57 (34%) 32 (18%) 1 (5%)
Little or none 110 (66%) 142 (82%) 18 (95%)

Total 167 (100%) 174 (100%) 19 (100%)
Chi-Square = 15.4 Significance @ .001

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.36, the range of application of material
presented in the biology course was cross-tabulated with the
student's perceived relevance of the skills learned. Data
from the table show a significant association between the
student's estimate of range of application of material and
his perception of relevance of course skills. Those stu-
dents who felt that a large number of applications were
presented also perceived the skills as having more relevance,
than did students who evaluated the course as having fewer

applications.

81

Table 4.37. Range of application and relevance Of application

 

 

Range of Application

 

 

 

Application Great Moderate Little
Relevant 119 (71%) 58 (33%) 3 (16%)
Little or none 48 (29%) 116 (65%) 16 (84%)

Total 167 (100%) 174 (100%) 19 (100%)
Chi-Square = 58.4 Significance @ .001

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.37, the range of application of material
presented in the biology course was cross-tabulated with the
student's perception of the relevance Of the application of
the course. Data from the table show a significant associ-
ation between the student's estimate of range of application
and his perception of the relevance of the application.

Those students who felt that a large number of applications
were presented, also perceived them as having more relevance,
than did students who evaluated the course as having fewer

applications.

Hypothesis 8

 

The student's evaluation of the difficulty of the
course will be related to their perceived relevance
of that course.

Hypothesis number 8 cross-tabulated the independent

Variable about difficulty of course concepts with the

82

dependent variables of: perceived relevance of content,

skills, and application.

Table 4.38. Difficulty of course and relevance Of content

 

 

Difficulty Of Biology Course

 

 

 

Content Great Moderate Little
Relevant 22 (34%) 114 (47%) 32 (60%)
Little or none 43 (66%) 128 (53%) 21 (40%)

Total 65 (100%) 242 (100%) 53 (100%)
Chi-Square = 8.31 Significance @ .02

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.38, the evaluation Of difficulty Of
present biology courses was cross-tabulated with the stu-
dent's perception Of the relevance Of course content. Data
from the table show a significant association between the
student's estimate of course difficulty and his perception
Of the relevance of course content. Those students who felt
that the course was least difficult also perceived the course
content as having more relevance than did students who eval-

uated the course as being more difficult.

83

Table 4.39. Difficulty of course and relevance of skills

 

 

Difficulty Of Biology Course

 

 

 

Skills Great Moderate Little
Relevant 11 (17%) 69 (29%) 10 (19%)
Little or none 54 (83%) 173 (71%) 43 (81%)

Total 65 (100%) 242 (100%) 53 (100%)
Chi-Square = 4.91 Significance @ .10

Degrees Of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.39, the evaluation Of difficulty of
the present biology course was cross-tabulated with the
student's perception of the relevance of course skills.
Data from the table Show no significant association between
difficulty of the course and the student's perception of a

relevance of course skills.

Table 4.40. Difficulty Of course and relevance Of application

 

 

Difficulty of Biology Course

 

 

 

Application Great Moderate Little
Relevant 24 (37%) 125 (52%) 31 (58%)
Little or none 41 (63%) 117 (48%) 22 (42%)

Total 65 (100%) 242 (100%) 53 (100%)
Chi-Square = 6.23 Significance @ .05

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

84

In Table 4.40, the evaluation of difficulty of

the present biology course was cross-tabulated with the
student's perceived relevance of course application. Data
from the table Show a Significant association between the
student's estimate of course difficulty and his perception
Of the relevance of the course application. Those students
who felt that the course had moderate to little difficulty
also perceived the course as having more relevant applica-
tion than did students who evaluated the course as very

difficult.

Hypothesis 9

 

The para-medical, science teaching and non-science

students will differ in their perception of the

value of the laboratory experience in clarifying

lecture material.

In this hypothesis, the independent variable on the
professional aspiration of the student was cross-tabulated

with the dependent variable on student's perception concern-

ing value of laboratory experience.

85

Table 4.41. Value Of laboratory experience to the professional
aspiration of the student

 

 

Professional Aspiration

 

 

 

Value of Lab Science Non-Science
Great help 59 (32%) 44 (26%)
Moderate help 70 (37%) 56 (33%)
Little help 31 (18%) 32 (19%)
waste of time 23 (13%) 38 (22%)

183 (100%) 170 (100%)
Chi-Square = 6.97 Significance @ .10

Degrees Of freedom = 3

 

In Table 4.41, the professional aspiration of the
student was cross-tabulated with his perceived value of the
laboratory experience which accompanied the lecture. Data
from the table show no significant association between
aspiration of student and his perception of value of the

laboratory experience.

Hypothesis 10

The student's evaluation of the value of content
in a previous biology course in the understanding
of the present biology course will be positively
related to the perceived relevance of the present

COllI’SQ.

In this hypothesis, the independent variable con-

cerning value of previous course is cross-tabulated with the

86

dependent variable Of perceived relevance of the current
biology course, in terms of: content, skills, and

application.

Table 4.42. Value of previous course to relevance of present course

 

 

 

 

 

content
Previous Course Value
Present Biology Content Great Slight NO Use
Relevant 79 (62%) 43 (37%) 6 (27%)
Little or none 48 (38%) 74 (63%) 16 (73%)
Total 127 (100%) 117 (100%) 22 (100%)
Chi-Square = 19.0 Significance @ .001

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.42, the evaluation of the previous
biology course was cross-tabulated with the student's per-
ceived relevance of present course content. Data from the
table show a significant association between the student's
estimate of value of his previous biology course and his
perception of the relevance of present course content.

Those students who felt that the previous course was of
great help to the understanding of present course, also
perceived the present course as having more relevant content
than did students who evaluated the previous course as being

Of little use.

87

Table 4.43. Value of previous course to relevance Of present course

 

 

 

 

 

skills
Previous Course Value
Present Biology Skills Great Slight NO Use
Relevant 38 (30%) 26 (22%) 5 (23%)
Little or none 89 (70%) 91 (78%) 17 (77%)
Total 127 (100%) 117 (100%) 22 (100%)
Chi-Square = 2.00 Significance @ .50

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

In Table 4.43, the evaluation of the previous
biology course in terms of understanding the present biology
course was cross-tabulated with the student's perceived
relevance of the present course skills. Data from the table
show no significant association between value of previous
course to present course, and the student's perception of

the relevance of the present course skills.

Table 4.44. Value of previous course to relevance of present course
application

 

 

Previous Course Value

 

Present Biology

 

 

Application Great Slight NO Use
Relevant 80 (63%) 53 (45%) 9 (41%)
Little or none 47 (37%) 64 (55%) 13 (59%)

Total 127 (100%) 117 (100%) 22 (100%)
Chi-Square = 9.16 ' Significance @ .02

Degrees of freedom = 2

 

88

In Table 4.44, the evaluation of the previous
biology course, in terms of understanding present biology
course, was cross-tabulated with the student's perceived
relevance Of present course application. Data from the
table show a significant association between the student's
estimate of the value of his previous biology course and
his perception of the relevance of present course appli-
cation. Those students who felt that the previous course
was of great help to understanding the present course also
perceived the present course as having more relevant appli-
cation than did students who evaluated the previous course

as being of little use.

Faculty interviews.-—In this section, portions Of

 

faculty comments and summary statements are included from
the taped interviews. The questions asked for feelings and
opinions on the following:
1. level Of material presented in course.
2. sequence of particular course, when part Of a
required series such as core.
3. appropriateness of laboratory associated with the
course.
4. how course appeals to various student groups in
the course.
5. any plans for course changes.

6. rationale for present course format.

89

Each faculty member was identified by alphabetical
notation, and taught one or more of the courses surveyed
earlier in this chapter. Therefore, his comments usually
serve to identify his course.

Faculty member "A" was responsible for the last of
the "core" courses in the biology program--a genetics course.
Since this represents the cap-stone of the core at Purdue,
it has minimal number of students, andthey are usually the
biology major. In the interview, faculty member "A" was of
the Opinion that the course was currently being taught at
the apprOpriate level to meet the needs of that population
Of students. His statement was that he personally felt
happy about the content of the course, but had some concern
about the laboratory associated with it. Particularly,
this faculty member saw the need for an assistant in the
laboratory, so that an increase could be made in the number
Of assigned genetics problems. This member felt that the
laboratory experience could also serve to increase the
number of skills a student might learn. Currently, he
felt that the laboratory did not do this, since the students
were involved in only four experiments during the term.

Faculty member "B" was responsible for several
different courses in the biology department. As the
instructor in the Botany 108, he responded by saying the
material in that course was generally not relevant in his

Opinion. While there were several sub-groups in a typical

90

class, the course was described as being more appropriate
for the forestry major. Yet, this type of student was said
to be a minority in the class. The sequence of this course
was described as not important, since Botany 108 did not
build from any previous course. In several ways it served
as a terminal course, therefore few biology majors tended
to enroll in it. This faculty member was of the opinion
that since the non-major tended to predominate the enroll-
ment, the laboratory experience was not useful. Rather, a
better plan might include small discussion and recitation
sessions. No such changes were planned for Botany 108 in
the near future. Generally, the reasons for offering this
course were: needed by certain Indiana University students,
and used as an elective for certain non-science majors.

Faculty member "B" was also responsible for teaching
Man in the Biological World, B-lOO. In this course the
material was a particular challenge to the student. Par-
ticularly important was the fact that the present text was
very heavy in chemistry. The professor felt that more
emphasis was needed on man, and less on the many aspects
of biological chemistry. Indeed, fewer and better selected
examples of processes could be undertaken in the course
changes.

The laboratory was described by faculty "B" as being

open for possible innovation or enhancement as he chose.

91

Since this course was basically a terminal course,
there was no sequence, and care had to be used not to "over-
kill" the student with all the information available. The
basic change for this course would be to replace the present
text with a simpler one. Since the text was said to dictate
much of the course content, no changes in the course could
be made until this had taken place.

Faculty member "C" was responsible for Zoology 109.
This member felt the level of material was right for the
student population, which was certain non-majors and the
Indiana University pre-medical student. Furthermore, since
Zoology 109 was not a part of the biology core, sequence was
not stressed. In fact, the Opinion was expressed by the
faculty member that Zoology could easily be taken before
the Botany 108.

The laboratory associated with this course was
described as one in which the student did work-up drawings
of different animals, and when possible, viewed live Spec-
imens. Taxonomic relationships were stressed and scientific
names learned.

Faculty member "C" felt some possible course changes
might be made, including the insertion of field work and
addition of ecological principles. The amount of time Spent
at the tissue level also might be reduced, but currently,
the laboratory format is governed by a space problem.
Specifically, back-to-back laboratories leave little time

for proper lab preparation and practical exams.

92

Faculty member "C" also had the responsibility for
teaching Environmental Biology 285. The faculty member was
convinced that the level of material for this course was
entirely appropriate, since this course comprised the fourth
term of the sequence of core courses for the biology major
at Purdue.

The laboratory associated with this course was felt
to have a wide range of learning experiences, and appro-
priate for this level of student. Further discussion
brought out the possible problem concerning limit of time
needed to cover what was felt to be a wide range of topic
material. Faculty member "C" was uncertain, but felt that
the course needed more credit hours. He also felt that
certain skills were needed by the student in this course.
Since the course was an attempt to expose the student to
the environment, the content ranged from astronomy to pol-
lution biology. Included also were the experimental method
and statistical sampling.

Faculty member "D" was coordinator for the Biology
of Man 203-204 sequence. This member's response was pri-
marily directed to the preparation of the student. He felt
many of the students in this course lacked the cognate
courses to fully appreciate the Biology of Man. During
the interview, the impression was made that this course
might well be delayed until the student had taken more

chemistry and physics courses.

93

This is a year-long course, with no other sequence
required. Two of the three pre-nursing programs at Purdue
have students enrolled in this course, but need no back-
ground or prerequisite for this course.

Another opinion expressed by this faculty member
was the need of coordinated laboratory experience with the
material presented in the lecture. This would give the
student an opportunity for direct experience in the labo-
ratory with the material referred to in the lecture.

Plans for change in the Biology of Man course were
incomplete, but suggestions were for extra laboratory time,
or perhaps an additional lecture hour added to the course
format. Any changes, according to faculty member "D", would
create problems involving re-scheduling by the nursing pro-
grams' directors. Little change was expected, since the
present format is at the request of the nursing supervisory
personnel, and they felt they were already meeting their
nursing requirements.

Faculty member "D" also had responsibility for
teaching Physiology P-215 course. It was explained that
the students in this course were similar to those in the
Biology of Man 203—204 sequence, but the level of material
in the P-215 was not as general as that in the previous
course. This detail is possible since the majority of
students in the Physiology had taken the previous term of

General Anatomy. However, even though this sequence is

94

recommended, it is not mandatory to have taken the anatomy
course before taking Physiology P-ZlS.

Indiana University pre-nursing students were part
of the p0pulation in these two courses, but other students
also were commonly found in each. In particular, the
medical technology students are included. No plans were
underway for change in the Physiology P-215. Both increased
time and Space would be needed to upgrade this course,
according to the faculty member.

Microbiology 220 was the responsibility of faculty
member "E". This course was described as a one semester
course with general appeal to the nursing programs and other
allied health students. This professor felt the course was
very appropriate for the freshman level student.

The content was described as being clinical ori-
ented. But since the course was not a part of a sequence,
no attempt had been made to fit this course into the context
of other courses taught in the nursing and allied health
programs.

The laboratory associated with the microbiology
course was used to back up portions of the lecture. In
addition, enrichment, such as films and discussion, were
included in the lab format. Certain skills were learned
in the laboratory, which were said to apply to the allied
health student's background. Part of these skills included

culture technique, plating, sterilization methods and

95

general immunology. Since the student population in this
course was fairly homogenous, the laboratory was considered
to be very appropriate.

This professor did not see any upcoming changes in
this course, but was interested in possibly increasing the
laboratory time. Some incliniation was expressed for making
this course into a two-semester one. The audiotutorial
approach was mentioned as a possible addition on a limited
basis.

Faculty member "F" reported on his Nature Study
B—214. This member considered the course to be functioning
at the appropriate level for the students in it. This
Nature Study B-214 is mainly an appreciation course for the
non-science major, and would not build from any sequence.
It was said to be a typical elective for the elementary
education major.

The format of this course was such that the lecture
and laboratory were combined. Usually, meetings were in
the laboratory. This professor felt that such an approach
allowed him to improve the develOpment of content in the
course. In addition, he made attempts to have "field"
experience as part of the laboratory work. The function
of the laboratory experience was to identify animal and
plant specimens.

The opinion of the professor was that this course

was important to the elementary education student. It was

96

important to the elementary education student. It was a
practical form of education in the sciences, which the
professor felt the student could use later in the classroom.

Plans for course change were considered but incom-
plete. The faculty member had met with the Science Super-
visor of the Fort Wayne Schools in preparation for possible
changes.

Faculty member "G", responsible for Developmental
Anatomy Z-ZlS, considered this course adequate for the
second semester sophomore, for whom it was intended. Most
of the students were Indiana University enrolled as pre-
medicine, pre-veterinary, pre-dentistry and others. This
course usually had Zoology as its prerequisite.

The laboratory procedure in this course dealt with
the study of prepared micro-slides and the dissection of
the pig and shark. In this manner, the student became
familiar with certain anatomical structures. This material
usually preceded the lecture content. The faculty member
felt that this allowed better understanding of lecture. No
plans were anticipated for changes in this course.

A summary of some of the apparent needs of the Fort
Wayne Biology Department was given by the Section Chairman.
As a member of the department since 1965, he was aware of
some of the problems which had arisen during these inter-
vening years. The following were some of the considerations

expressed by him:

97

The Biology Department had an excellent
program designed for student needs of five
years ago.

There was a great need for more insightful
direction in planning for the department's
future.

The faculty seemed indecisive about the
direction of the Biology Department. They
seemed to be waiting for direction to be
handed down.

Some students' needs appeared to be in the
para-medical and ecology fields.

Indiana University had responsibility for

these para-medical areas, but better coor-
dination was needed.

Interviews with professionals of the area.--The

following represents the summary results from interviews of

selected local professional people. Choice of people inter-

viewed was, in part, on an "available" basis. All were part

of the local population, in that they were employed by local

firms, hospitals, and departments. The following points of

discussion were included in the interviews:

1.

2.

Do you, or have you used the Purdue student
in your organization?

If so, is he meeting the requirements of the
job?

Do you feel he has the proper training and
education to fill your job needs?

Do you see further need for more formal
training as the job description changes?

Are you planning any expansion of your
program?

Will you be requiring a greater number of
such trained individuals?

98

7. Do you see any new programs for which you

would need differently trained individuals?

Professional "S" was a nursing director at a local
hospital. Purdue University provides several service
courses for the students who are in training in this hos-
pital. In this situation, the pre-nursing students are used
on the hospital wards during the three-year training program.
After graduation and registration, the hospital often hires
a portion of these graduates.

This director felt that they were selective in their
admission policy, and that graduates from their program were
very able to meet the requirements for the R.N. degree.
However, further training was recommended for the nurse who
desired specialty nursing. This post-graduate training was
provided by the hospital through special in-service programs.

No expansion of the program was planned at this hos-
pital in the near future. Indeed, the concern was toward a
possible saturation in the local area. Nursing graduates
were said to find it difficult getting jobs in the immediate
area.

Except for the special in-service training program,
no different training was predicted for this professional
group.

Professional "T", also a nursing director at another
hospital in the area, did not use the Purdue campus in their

program, but was associated with other teaching institutions

99

in the city. Most of this discussion consisted of a repeat
of the eXperience that professional "S" gave.

Professional "V", a chairman in another nursing
program, was part of the Purdue University's two year
nursing technology. Students from this program are employed
regularly as a product from the Purdue program.

Training in this program was felt to be adequate,
but the chairman was in the process of planning additional
course work which could be applied to a proposed B.S. degree
in nursing. At present, no anticipated growth of the pres-
ent program or new training was seen.

Professional "W" represents a compilation of
Opinions of several professional laboratory people. A
summary of these indicated that they were using graduates
from the Purdue campus. With minor exceptions, the grad-
uates were meeting the job requirements. Some feeling was
expressed that an increase of laboratory skills might help.
Also, changed content of some of the chemistry courses
taught as part of the laboratory technology program might
be considered.

Further training was usually expected when hiring
most of these graduates. In addition, while there seemed
to be a general need for more laboratory technologists, the
local hOSpitals were not in a position to handle an increase
in number through the intern training phase of the program.

It was expressed that currently there was a demand for

100

various levels of training for laboratory personnel.
Special training was said to be necessary for those tech-
nologists who were involved in the Operation of complex
analysis instruments.

Professional "X", who was in the position Of
personnel director at the local Veterans Hospital, was
currently trying to hire part-time help from the students
in attendance at Purdue. This professional felt the need
for several laboratory aids, who could be given "on-the-job
training" for limited laboratory duties. This hospital
facility did not have a formal training program for the
laboratory technologist.

In addition, while nursing personnel were used in
various types Of nursing care, this hOSpital was limited
to male patients.

Professional "Y", from the City Health Department,
expected only limited use of graduates from the Purdue
Biology programs. This department's specialty is micro-
biology, and it employed persons with degrees in this
specialty. Even then, it was said that additional training
might be necessary of those hired into this laboratory.
This facility is presently expanding its facility and func-
tion, but would not presently be increasing the number of
personnel; only four professionals were currently being

employed.

101

Professional "Z", an M.D., was currently in the
position of coordinator of the Regional Medical Program in
the Fort Wayne area. As a newly organized group, this body
planned a program to distribute a portion of the State
Medical School students to regional teaching and hospital
centers for part of their medical training. The attempt
would be to reduce the congestion at the main branch of
the Indiana Medical School at Indianapolis.

Plans were indefinite, and no tentative data could
be projected as to when such a program would be effective
in the Fort Wayne area. Neither was it known if the Purdue
campus would be involved in a portion of this program.

In addition to the proposed regional medical program
plan, this professional was asked about the possible use of
the Physician's Assistant program in the State of Indiana.
Certification of such trained individuals would be necessary,
but according to the professional, Indiana was going slow in
this regard. It was felt that at the present time such a
program would operate only on a limited basis. Purdue was
expected to help in such a training program. Fall, 1972
was expected as a starting date for this program.

Several graduates were interviewed, with the inten-
tion of outlining some general points concerning their
biology training at the Purdue Regional Campus.

Of the three nursing programs in which the campus

is involved, the graduates from two felt that the programs

102

were generally very useful in their jobs. Purdue Nursing
Technology, with its loose structure and less formal
approach, received less complimentary reviews from the
graduates than did the other two programs. The technology
approach was said not to enable the student a maximal use
Of the college portion of the education. Indication from
these students was that some improvement should be under-
taken in this program.

The medical technologists who were interviewed,
felt the following about their training and education:

1. The Purdue biology courses were fairly
rigorous compared with other aspects of
the medical technology program.

2. Some specific effort should be made to
improve the appropriateness of certain
biology courses needed in this program.

3. More skills should be included in the

laboratory portion of certain courses.

Interviews with the biology majors in the Purdue
program indicated a general planning to continue into
graduate school or professional school such as medicine.
These graduates were of the opinion that the biology program
at Purdue was satisfactory. However, for those who intended
to use their B.S. as a basis for job qualifications, there
was some concern in not having sufficient job skills. Most

Of the group felt that on-the-job training would have to be

part of their education after they were employed.

 

103

Professional advisors.--Several times during this

 

study, the Biology Department at Fort Wayne was involved in
curriculum meetings which brought in "experts". Dr. Dana
Abel, who at the time was on the Commission on Undergraduate
Education in the Biological Sciences, was one such person.
Ideas evolving from this visit are summarized below:

1. An identity was needed for any biology
department, since a unifying theme or
program would allow the department to
become known for its ability in certain
education or training.

2. A department must have freedom in order to
carry out any variation in-a biology program.
Autonomy was necessary to accomplish this.

3. NO department could be creative if it must
stick to the same course hours and numbers
as found on the parent campus.

4. In fact, there should not be an attempt to
duplicate Offerings as found on the parent
campus.

5. Most teaching in many departments consisted
of a tyranny to the students.

6. Faculty should learn to make "learning
situations" from different experiences.

7. Faculty should not attempt to "lock-step"
lecture and laboratory function.

8. Departments should use laboratory facilities
in varying ways to better express material
content of the course.

9. Departments did not need an expert or
specialist to teach each course at the
undergraduate level.

10. The popularity contest syndrome should be
avoided in any team teaching. Each instruc-
tor must be available and involved in the
entire course. Coordination must be of high
quality.

104

Summa y.--The results of the cross-tabulation
of questions from the student questionnaire are presented
in this chapter in tabular form. Explanation of the
significance of these tables follow. Next are the
summarizations of personal interviews with the biology
faculty, local professional personnel and graduate students
from the local campus. Finally, a short summary is included
from a professional advisor, who was considered to be an
"expert" on certain aspects of curriculum problems.

The results from the questionnaire indicated the
following facts:

1. A large majority of students enrolled
in the biology courses were found to be
non-biology majors, taking the course as
required by another major. This was even
true of several courses which were thought
to be directed toward the "core" biology
major.

2. While the biology major was a small per-
centage of the total student enrollment,
when the medical, para-medical and science
teaching students were grouped, the students
were about evenly divided into science and
those non-science oriented.

3. A great majority of the students questioned,
were of the Opinion that the courses as a
whole had a moderate to great range Of
ideas (content), skills, and application.

4. A great majority of the students questioned,
were of the Opinion that the difficulty of
ideas, skills, and application was only
moderate.

5. Of the students questioned, there was approx-
imately an even division of those who thought
their course sequence Of great help, compared
to those who felt their sequence was only
moderate to slight help in their present
course.

105

6. The surveyed students were approximately evenly
divided in their opinion as to how relevant
the course content was to their educational
needs.

7. A great majority of those students questioned,
revealed they felt the relevance of skills
was only little to moderate help to their
educational needs.

8. The questioned group was evenly divided on
Opinion as to relevance Of application Of
the course to their educational needs.

9. Concerning the value of their lab experience,
the students ranged in their response, with
28 percent feeling it was Of great help,
35 percent feeling it was of moderate help,
17 percent feeling it was of little help,
and 17 percent felt it was a waste of their
time.

The results of the hypotheses tested with the cross-
tabulated questions are summarized as follows:

Hypothesis 1 tested the agreement that biology

 

majors perceived their current biology course as being more
relevant than did the non-majors in the same course. The
null hypothesis was rejected, indicating that more biology
majors felt the current course met their needs than did the
non-majors.

Hypothesis 2 tested the agreement that the previous

 

high school science of the student resulted in a different
perception Of his college biology course. This null
hypothesis was not rejected. No difference could be shown
between those students with previous high school science

and those without. This may indicate that the high school

106

science background is not related to the perceived relevance
of the college biology course.

Hypothesis 3 tested the agreement that grade point

 

average of the biology student resulted in a different
perception of course relevance. This null hypothesis was
rejected, indicating that the student with the better aver-
age saw more relevance to the course content and application.
NO significant association could be shown regarding rele-
vance of skills.

Hypothesis 4 investigated the relationships between

 

the perception of the professionally oriented student to his
biology course, compared to the non-science major. This
null hypothesis was also rejected, indicating that the pro-
fessionally oriented student saw more relevance to the
course's content, skills, and application.

Hypothesis 5 tested the strength Of the relationship

 

between the range of course concepts and the perceived rele-
vance of that course. The null hypothesis was rejected,
indicating that there was agreement among students that the
range of course concepts increased the course's relevance of
content and application. No significant association could
be shown regarding skills.

Hypothesis 6 tested the agreement that the evalua-

 

tion of the range of course skills would show a positive
relationship to the perceived relevance of that course.

This null hypothesis was not rejected. However, as seen

 

107

in Table 4.33, there was one significant correlation when
range Of skills was cross-tabulated with the relevance of
skills.

Hypothesis 7 tested the agreement that the evalua-

 

tion of range of course application would show a positive
relationship to the perceived relevance of that course.
This null hypothesis was rejected, indicating that there
was agreement among students that the range of course
application increased their perceived relevance of that
course.

Hypothesis 8 tested the agreement that the evalua-

 

tion of difficulty of a course would be positively related
to the student's perception of the relevance of that course.
The null hypothesis was rejected. This indicated that there
was agreement among students that difficulty of the course
increased the perceived relevance of the course's content
and application. Again, no correlation was present between
skills and course difficulty.

Hypothesis 9 tested the agreement that the para-

 

medical and science teaching majors differed from non-
science majors in their perception Of the value the lab-
oratory had in clarifying the lecture material. This null
hypothesis was not rejected, indicating that no correlation
could be shown between professional aspiration of the stu-
dent and how he felt the laboratory functioned in explaining

lecture material.

108

The last hypothesis tested the agreement that the
evaluation of content in previous biology courses related
positively to the understanding and perceived relevance Of
the present course. The null hypothesis was rejected, indi-
cating there was agreement that if the previous course was
helpful, the present course seemed more relevant in its
content and application. Skills were not found to be
correlated with the previous course value.

The results of the interviews indicated that with
little exception, most faculty members were planning a
"status quo" approach to their courses for the near future.
Several members who saw shortcomings in either their lecture
or laboratory format, were not able to determine just how
changes could be made.

The results from the Curriculum Committee indicated
that generally, members became more aware of what their
colleagues' courses were about, when discussion Of these
courses came up. It was recognized that more feedback was
necessary from each member, if overlap or omission of cer-
tain material was to be avoided.

Several courses not included in this study were the
focus Of numerous comments by the faculty. A prime example
was the beginning course for biology majors, and its func-
tion. The Principles of Biology 103-104, intended for such
majors, was said to have many non-science majors in it. It

was felt that such students would be better off in the Man

109

in the Biological World, B-lOO. Several members expressed
what they felt necessary as course content, and the
credentials for any student enrollment.

Faculty members also prepared a list of skills they
considered important to the biology major, but no clear way
was indicated for their implementation into any courses.

One suggested a separate course on instrumentation to fill
this need for learned skills.

Response to suggestions made about possible course
experimentation was met with the feeling that teaching loads
and current research would not allow for such implementation.
NO attempts were made for freeing any faculty for such
needed time.

Most local professional personnel seemed pleased to
be approached on the topic of curriculum needs. The para-
medical representatives expressed some concern about main-
taining those courses intended to service their students.
Local, state, and national requirements seemed to dictate
a block Of material useful for these students.

Credit hours also became a point of discussion.

This seemed important to the nursing programs, where changes
in contact hours could present a potential problem in
scheduling.

The medical technology supervisors were concerned
with the overall quality Of the college portion Of the

training program. Several expressed the Opinion that part

110

of the core courses, normally taken by such students, was
not useful. Some expression of concern was made about
chemistry courses for these students. And finally, at
least one supervisor was concerned about the need for more
skills in the educational program.

Graduates from the local Purdue campus indicated I
that for the B.S. major, who planned advanced training, the ¢J
core was satisfactory for their needs. Others, who intended

to approach the job market with their B.S. degree, were

 

insecure about what they could do with their particular
training and education.

Lastly, the curriculum "expert" who was interviewed
advised more variation in the program for the majors in
biology. The "lock-step" approach was considered unsatis-

factory, and more custom-made curriculum was suggested.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose Of this study was to gather quantitative
and qualitative data concerning the biology curriculum cur-
rently being taught at the Purdue Regional Campus at Fort
Wayne, Indiana. Also under investigation were the select
needs of various para-medical programs such as nursing,

medical technology, dental hygiene and mental health.

Review of the literature.--A selected review of the

 

literature revealed a lack of specific research in the area
under investigation, and established the need for such
research. Reported on were general studies of the category
including: (a) core biology programs, (b) biology for the
non-major, (c) individual biology course revisions, (d)
multifaceted approach to revision of the biology courses

at Adelphi College.

Design of the study.--The study involved 360 stu-
dents currently enrolled in one or more biology courses at
the Fort Wayne campus. In addition, all full-time faculty
in the Biology Department were interviewed, along with

select professional groups in the local area. These were

111

112

individuals associated in some way with the science oriented
facilities, such as hospitals, laboratory units and Health
Departments.

The instrument used on the student groups was
designed to gather data on: (a) background and training
of the student, (b) vocational interest of the student,

(c) function Of a given biology course, and (d) function
of all the courses taken in sequence.

The biology faculty were particularly questioned
on their own course, with respect to its content, place in
the biology curriculum, ideas for improvement, and general
concern for the biology programs.

With the professional group, the interviewing was
done in connection with: (a) the professional's view Of
biology courses offered by Purdue, (b) further curriculum
needs or changes anticipated, and (c) any further programs
planned which might involve the Purdue Biology Department.

These personal interviews of the faculty and pro-
fessionals were conducted by means of selected questioning
and taping Of the conversations. The data taken from the
student questionnaire was coded by the writer and trans-
formed to key punch cards. Analysis of the data involved
tabulation, cross-tabulation and chi-square, using the
BioMed-8 program from U.C.L.A. Frequency distribution and
percentage were also done. All computation was formulated

on the CDC-3600 and 6500 computers.

113

Hypotheses tested.-—A series of hypotheses was

 

tested which related to the general hypothesis that the
nature of the student would relate significantly to his
course needs and his perception of these needs being met
by the curriculum. Furthermore, several hypotheses were
tested which related to the general hypothesis that the
difference in the nature of the biology courses would
relate significantly to the student's perception of his
needs being met by the curriculum.

Data for each hypothesis tested were required to
show significance at the .05 level for rejection Of the
hypothesis. In addition to the .05 as the minimum criterion,

the .01 and .001 level were reported on several occasions.

Summary of findings.--In an attempt to deal with

 

the curriculum from the student's vieWpOint, relevance of
the different courses was determined in terms of what the
various groups of students felt were their educational
needs. In each individual course the focus was on content,
skills, and application of the course material.

In the first hypothesis tested, both the biology
majors and non-majors found content and application more
relevant than they did the skills. However, less than 75
percent of the majors found their courses relevant in any
of the three areas.

In the second hypothesis, there was no relationship

established between science background of the student and

114

his perceived relevance of a college biology course. There
is some indication in Table 4.20, that those students who
had several high school science courses were merely bored
with their course, while those who had no background may
have found the courses more interesting.

Students with a higher grade point average found
content and application of their courses relevant to their +~a
educational needs. However, it may be that these students

were able to develop relevance in their courses due to their ' *«g

 

own native intellect, in spite of their instructor. Skills
were not found to be relevant in hypothesis three.

The majority of science-oriented students felt their
course was relevant in all three areas of content, skills,
and application. The tables associated with hypothesis four
indicated the majority of the non-science students felt
their courses to be of little relevance. In fact, 55 per-
cent of the non-majors indicated that their courses had
little or no relevance to their professional need. This is
direct evidence that most of the courses were geared for the
science major. A further comparison Of these tables asso-
ciated with hypothesis four and hypothesis one, indicated
a greater percentage of biology majors felt their course
was relevant than did the science oriented student. This
may be evidence that the courses are not oriented to science,
but rather to the biology major. Yet Tables 4.1, 4.4, and

4.11, which indicate why a student might be in a particular

115

course, illustrate the fact that few students are either
majoring or minoring in the biological sciences. The
question which then arises is: Why are we trying to make
biologists of everyone?

When the range of concepts was cross-tabulated with
relevance, a positive relationship was found with both con- 1
tent and application. Again, skills did not show a signif- “1

icant correlation. ;

 

An indicator of the success of a course might be
the number of concepts the average student is able to grasp.
Indeed, while nearly 80 percent of the total sample felt
there were many concepts presented, only about 50 percent
Of this smaller sample felt they were relevant.

In testing hypothesis six, no positive relationship
was found between range of skills and relevance of content
and application. There was a correlation between range of
skills and relevance. However, the number of students who
felt a great range of skills were present was quite small
when compared with the total.

A positive relationship was established between
range Of application and all three dependent variables
indicating relevance.

About 65 percent Of the students felt the biology
courses were moderately difficult. Those students having
little difficulty with the courses perceived them as having

more relevance than those who found the courses difficult.

116

Certainly, with the wide variety of students found
in the biology curriculum, the need to determine the success
Of an accompanying laboratory becomes important. Hypothesis
nine tested the relationship of the laboratory experience to
those science and non-science oriented students. NO corre-
lation was found in this tabulation. However, the percent-
age of both science and non-science oriented students who I“?
thought the lab was of little or no help was quite high.

Of the science group, 31 percent were of this opinion. )~

 

Forty-one percent of the non-science group felt the lab
was of little or no benefit.

In the last hypothesis, there was an agreement among
the students that if the previous course was generally help-
ful in understanding the present course, the current course

seemed more relevant in content and application.

Discussion and recommendations.--One Of the initial

 

purposes Of this study was to determine the effectiveness of
the Purdue Biology Department in meeting the educational
needs of its students. The survey indicated, in most cases,
that we are not meeting many Of these needs. A number Of
immediate revisions are called for. Until such time as
autonomy and increased space become a reality, the following
steps are recommended:

1. Since some students are not being directed into
proper courses, advisors should be thoroughly informed con-

cerning course prerequisites and content. For example,

117

Biology 108-109 shows a greater percentage of students
designated as non-science. Yet these courses are listed

in the Indiana Catalog as intended for their biology major.
Since neither course has a prerequisite, many students other
than science or allied health tend to enroll in them tO fill
part of their science requirement.

2. Reorganize those courses which were under "fire"
by the Curriculum Committee. The B-lOO Man in the Biolog-
ical World is a high priority for this recommendation, along
with one or more of the core courses. Both the students and
the faculty member of B-lOO felt the text and the course in
general had very difficult content. While not covered by
the student questionnaire, the faculty believed the 103-104
Principles course, which initiates the core program, should
be abbreviated since it covered much more material than
needed.

3. Reorganize the laboratory in such courses as
B-lOO, Biology of Man 203, and Physiology P-215. The asso-
ciated laboratories ranked particularly low in usefulness
to the students as indicated in the questionnaire.

4. Professionally oriented groups, such as the
biology majors and the pre-medical students, need to be
directed into courses specially designed for their needs,
in terms of content skills and application. Others should
not have the option of enrolling in these courses. In any

course, attempts should be made to get students with more

 

118

common academic interests together, thereby maximizing the
benefits of a given course.

5. The study also indicates that the needs of the
non-science group are not being met. More emphasis and
objective planning needs to be developed in several of the
courses Offered to the non-major.

6. Increase the feedback to each faculty member ..J
teaching core courses. Interaction with other biology

faculty must be increased if undue overlap and omission ' ..

 

are to be reduced.

7. Achievement of necessary feedback should also
be derived by conducting another student survey similar to
the one just completed. Emphasis should be on the student's
evaluation of relevance of the course, its range and diffi-
culty of content.

8. Consider making more functional use of the
student's high school background through means of a 'testing
out' program. Students could become exempt from certain
college biology courses in which they had an appropriate and

sufficient backlog of experience.

While the previous suggestions should be implemented
immediately, long range planning and coordination should be
focused on developing and initiating the following:

1. Improvement in actualizing the recommendations

made by the Curriculum Committee, with plans to involve

119

other science oriented departments, such as chemistry and
physics. This would allow for more far-sighted planning
and coordination of content and skills through interdepart-
mental cooperation.

2. Increase participation with certain science
oriented concerns, such as hospitals, laboratories, phar- '
maceutical concerns and the like. Student participation '1
of on-the-jOb-training and 'real-life' laboratories would E

increase the relevance of numerous courses now Offered.

 

3. Increase the coordination Of existing science
programs such as medical technology and nursing.

4. Increase the use Of television programs from
each Of the main campuses. Television and live demonstra-
tions, for example, from the Medical Center in Indianapolis

would enrich courses at Fort Wayne.

Conclusions.-—The 360 students questioned repre-

 

sented a statistically valid sample of the total enrollment
in the Biology Department at this campus. Therefore, the
responses and reactions from the students represent a
reflection of both the positive and negative aspects of
the present curriculum.

Considering the trends and general approaches to
learning across the Nation, these students have become an

important factor in the future success of any program.

120

In reviewing the responses and reactions from
faculty and local professionals, it was concluded that each
Of these groups were in agreement with the responses of the
students on such matters as relevance of content, skills,
and application. However, the students seem to focus on
problems in a given course much sooner than did the teaching
staff.

Back in 1959, Ruml and Morrison raised the question
as to the ability of college personnel to plan respectable
curriculum changes at the college level.1 These writers
maintained that generally, college departments were unable
to rise above departmental self-interests, to unbiased con-
siderations of what constituted first-rate general education.
They stressed further consideration be given to increased
study of curriculum questions and the establishment of
faculty-trustee curriculum committees, who would have powers
to transcend departmental authority.

At this campus, the faculty's lack Of awareness of
student needs, lack of sufficient space and funds, and low
motivation for restructuring existing programs rank high as
prime reasons for curriculum deficits.

In the interim since the study was begun, some
recommendations from the Curriculum Committee have resulted

in minor reorganization of the B-lOO and the 103-104 courses.

 

1Ruml and Morrison, Memo to a College Trustee
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959).

121

However, no attempt has been made in the area of increasing
the skills. Neither has there been any improvement in the
course counseling for students.

One of the main responsibilities Of the faculty lies
in the recognition of the need for continual up-grading and
reorganization of curriculum. We must be on the alert for
ways Of producing educational programs which the students

and society find pertinent and useful.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

h~.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

A.S.C.D. Strategy For Curriculum Change. Washington, D.C.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1965, pp. 4-9.

Beauchamp, George A. Curriculum Theory. Wilmette, 111.:
The Kagg Press, 1968, pp. 55-76.

Black, Hillel. The American Schoolbook. New York: Morrow,
1968.

Bloom, Ben, ed. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Hand-
book I; Cognitive Domain. New York: Longmans Green,
1956.

Caswell, H. L. Emergence of the Curriculum As A Field of
Professional Work and Study. New York: New York
Teachers College Press, 1966.

Dressel, Paul. Undergraduate Curriculum Trends. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969.

, and L. Mayhew. General Education: Exploration in
Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 1954.

Evans, Luther. Modern Viewpoints In The Curriculum.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964, pp. l-7.

Gagne, Robert. The Analysis of Instructional Objectives for
the Design of Instruction. Washington, D.C.: N.E.A.,
1965.

. The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1967.

Galbraith, J. K. The New Industrial State. Boston, Mass.:
Houghton Mifflin, 1967.

122

123

Goodlad, John I. The Changing School Curriculum. N. Y.
Fund for the Advancement of Education. New York:
The Georgian Press Inc., 1966, pp. 41-43.

Hoopes, Robert. Science in the College Curriculum.
Conference Report on Oakland University, Oakland
University, N.S.F. Grant, Washington, D.C., 1963.

Koopman, Robert G. Curriculum Development. New York:
Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966,
pp. 25-46.

Kliebard, Herbert. The Curriculum Field in Retrospect.
New York: New York Teachers College Press, 1968.

Mager, Robert. Preparing Objectives for Programmed
Instruction. San Francisco: Fearon Press, 1964.

McAshan, H. H. Writing Behavioral Objectives. New York:
Harper and Row, 1970.

Postlethwait, Sam. The Audio-Tutorial Approach to Learning.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Co., 1969.

Tyler, Ralph. In Modern Viewpoints in the Curriculum.
New York: McGraw—Hill, 1964, pp. 13-15.

Ruml, Beardsley, and Morrison. Memo To A College Trustee.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

Periodicals and Bulletins

 

Ammons, Margaret. "An Empirical Study of Process and
Product in Curriculum Development." Journal of
Educational Research, 57 (1964), 451-457.

Baker, J. "The State of Biology in Liberal Education."
C.U.E.B.S. News, 5, NO. 2 (1968), 4.

Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological
Sciences. "Biology For The Non-Major." Publication
NO. 19' 1967' pp. 5-10.

. "Content Of Core Curricula In Biology."
Publication NO. 18, Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 1-31.

Cox, Donald. "Another Look At The Core Curriculum."
C.U.E.B.S. News, 7’ NO. 5 (1971).

124

Cox, Donald. "Goals Of Biological Education." BioScience,
21, No. 23 (1971), 1172.

Creager, Joan. "Why Do We Have To Study All This Crap?"
C.U.E.B.S. News, 6, NO. 3 (1970), 12.

Hall, Thomas S. (Chairman, C.U.E.B.S.). "Core Studies For
The Undergraduate Major." BioScience, 14, No. 8 (1964),
25-290

Kieffer, George. "Toward a Biological Awareness."
C.U.E.B.S. News, 6, NO. 4 (1970), 1-7.

Mohrig, Jerry, and Nancy Tooney. "Biochemistry in the
Undergraduate Curriculum." Journal of Chemical
Education, 46 (1969), 33-35.

Moment, Gairdner B. "Challenge and Response in Freshman
Biology." C.U.E.B.S. News, 7, NO. 2 (1970), 6-8.

National Academy of Science Report. "Recommendations on
Undergraduate Curricula in the Biological Science."
Publication No. 578, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1958.

Postlethwait, Sam. "Planning For Better Learning."
Current Issues In Higher Education, American Association
for Higher Education, Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 17-21.

Reif, F. "Science Education for Non-Science Students."
Science, 164 (May, 1969), 1032.

Ritter, Hope, Jr. "The Changing Role of Biology in the
70's." C.U.E.B.S. News, 7 (June, 1971).

Roos, Thomas B. "Preparation in Biology for Education in
the Health Sciences." BioScience, 20, No. 3 (1970),
164-168.

Shaw, Frederick. "The Changing Curriculum." Review of

Educational Research, 36 (1966), 343-352.

Wilhm, Jerry. "Man In The Environment." American Institute
of Biological Sciences (A.I.B.S.), 1, No. l (1972), 6-9.

125

Other Resources

 

Brenowitz, A. H. "Reorganization of the Adelphi College
Biology Curriculum." Doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University, 1958.

Center for Curriculum Studies. University of Minnesota,
personal communication, February, 1972.

Curriculum Committee Minutes. Biology Department, Purdue
University, Fort Wayne Campus, Ind., November, 1969.

Educational Testing Service. Princeton, New Jersey,
personal communication, April, 1972.

Raksaboldej, Bitak. "A Survey Of Science Programs In
Selected State Teachers Colleges." Doctoral
dissertation, New York University, 1961.

Smith, L. D. (Chairman). Annual Report Of the Core
Committee, Purdue University, Biology Department,
LaFayette, Ind., 1972.

Sugrue, Mary. "Structure and Process of Inquiry Into Social
Issues in Secondary Schools." Doctoral dissertation,
University Of Michigan, H.E.W. Grant NO. OEC 3-7-061678-
2942, 1970.

APPENDIX

STUDENT OPINIONNAIRE

REGIONAL CAMPUS AT FORT WAYNE
BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT

The Biology Department at this campus, in its
continuing attempt to meet the needs Of its students, is
undertaking a critical study of biology course offerings.

We consider student reactions to these Offerings as
a necessary part of this study. Therefore, information you
give on this opinionnaire should be your honest and thought-
ful response to the questions. Results of the study will be
used to determine the effectiveness of the Biology Depart-
ment's Offerings in meeting your needs. Please make no
marks which will identify you.

1. In which course did you receive this questionnaire?

 

2. Your age at nearest birthday?
17-19
20-21
22-24

over 24

 

 

(»
U)
(D
X

. male female

4. Marital status:
single
married

divorced

126

10.

127

Your legal residentce:
Fort Wayne

 

25 mile radius Of Ft. Wayne

Indiana resident greater than 25 miles

not residing in Indiana

What is your level in college?
freshman sophomore

junior senior

What is your course load?
full-time student

part-time student

What is your grade average?
A average B average

C average below C average

 

Biology Chemistry
Zoology Physics
Botany Other science
Geology

I plan a major in biology.

I plan a minor in biology.

This is the only biology course in my program.
This is a required course in another major.

This is an elective in my major.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

128

What professional aspirations do you have?
Medicine

Dentistry

Vet. Medicine

Nursing

College biology teaching

Other college teaching

High school science teaching

Primary science teaching

Other profession (cite)

Evaluate your present course in terms of how
great a range of ideas were covered:

Great number of concepts covered

 

Moderate number covered

Little or no concepts covered

Evaluate your present course in terms of how
difficult were concepts which were presented:

Very difficult
Moderate difficulty
Little or no difficulty

Evaluate your present course in terms of how rele-
vant were such concepts to your educational needs:

Very relevant
Moderate relevance

Little or no relevance

Evaluate your present course in terms of how
great a range of skills were covered:

Great number of skills
Moderate number of skills

Little or no skills present

 

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

129

Evaluate your present course in terms of how
difficult the skills were which were presented:

Very difficult to learn
Moderate difficulty

Little or no difficulty in learning

Evaluate your present course in terms Of how rele-
vant such skills were to your educational needs:

Very relevant
Moderate relevance

Little or no relevance

Evaluate your present course in terms of how
great a range Of application was present:

Great range of application

 

Moderate range of application
Little or no application

Evaluate your present course in terms of how great a
difficulty there was in application of material:

Great difficulty in application
Moderate difficulty in application
Little or no difficulty in application

Evaluate your present course in terms of how
relevant the application of material:

Very relevant
Moderate relevance

Little or no relevance

21.

22.

23.

24.

130

What method of material presentation did you
like best?

Lecturing

 

Audio-visual aids

Discussion periods

More than one Of above

Evaluate the instructor's ability to communicate
knowledge, ideas and application of information:

Excellent

 

Above average
Average
Below average

Poor

The laboratory to the present course was:
Great help in understanding topic material

 

Moderate help to understanding
Interesting, but Of little help

Generally a waste Of my time

Have the sequence of biology courses been helpful
in understanding this course?

Great help in present course

 

Only moderate help in present course

Of no use in present course

No other course in biology

mlllflllfllllellllllH

1

NWllllHl

II
I
5W
1|"!
“u
M
m

930

3 1