University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Biology In California Public Junior Colleges

(USC Thesis Other)

Biology In California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 70-16,887 SCHECHTER, Arthur Jerome, 1920- BIOLOGY IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES. University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1970 Education, scientific University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan © COPYRIGHT BY ARTHUR JEROME SCHECHTER 1970 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BIOLOGY IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Arthur Jerome Schechter January 1970 This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date.. A J.9.J..Q.. ... I Dean Guidance Committee O ' ' Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND PROCEDURE USED.............. 1 Introduction The Problem Description of Terms Procedures Used Organization of the Study Summary II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE....................... 39 Introduction Background Curriculum Trends in Biological Sciences in Junior Colleges Articulation and Sequential Planning General Education Practices Related to Students Characteristics of the Faculty Chapter Summary III. THE FINDINGS OF PRACTICES RELATED TO BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM ............... 117 Findings with Respect to Curriculum Chapter Summary IV. THE FINDINGS OF PRACTICES RELATED TO ARTICULATION AND SEQUENTIAL PLANNING ........ 147 Findings with Respect to Articulation and Sequential Planning Chapter Summary V. THE FINDINGS OF PRACTICES RELATED-TO STUDENTS....................................... 166 Findings Related to Students Taking Biological Sciences Chapter Summary ii Chapter VI. THE FINDINGS RELATED TO REACTIONS TOWARD THE MAJOR ISSUES ....................... 191 Introduction Nature of Curriculum Modern Biology Articulation Faculty and Facilities Chapter Summary VII. FINDINGS RELATED TO DESIRABLE CURRICULAR PRACTICES IN BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES .......... Introduction Chapter Summary VIII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Summary Summary of the Findings Conclusions General Recommendations Specific Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 214 . 222 256 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Percentage Distribution of the Fall Term, Full-Time Lower Division Enrollment Among the University of California, California State Colleges and Junior Colleges, 1960-1963, Compared with the Distribution Resulting from the Master Plan Modified Projections for 1963 and 1975 ........ 11 2. Undergraduate Curriculum Trends, 1957 to 1967 . 13 3. Biological Science Courses Offered in Forty-Five Four Year Colleges in Nineteenth Century................................. 44 4. Number of Public Junior Colleges Offering Instruction in Stated Biological Sciences and Extent of Offering in a Sample of Thirty Public Junior Colleges (1960) .... 59 5. Number of Public Junior Colleges Offering Instruction in Stated Biological Sciences and Extent of Offering in a Sample of Thirty Public Junior Colleges (1966) 61 6. Number of California Public Junior Colleges Offering Instruction in Stated Biological Sciences and Extent of Offering in a Sample of Eighty California Public Junior Colleges 1968-69 ...................................... 63 7. Highest Earned Degree of Junior College Faculty: Selected Years (and Studies), 1918-19 to 1964 ............................. 104 8. Biological Science program Administered Through A Department or Division .......... 119 9. Biological Sciences and Physical Sciences Grouped Together in One Department ........ 121 10. Specific Objectives for the Department or Division...................................... 122 iv Table Page 11. Subdivision of the Biological Science Department or Division into Separate Units Each with Its Own Administrator .... 123 12. Botany and Zoology Courses Offered to Non-Science (Liberal Arts) Transfer Students...................................... 125 13. Phasing Out of Botany Courses for Non-Science (Liberal Arts) Transfer Students .......... 127 14. Phasing Out of Zoology Courses for Non-Science Transfer Students ........................... 128 15. Separate Courses for Majors and Non-Majors . . 129 16. Multiple Track Biological Science Courses . . . 131 17. The Laboratory..................................133 18. Biological Sciences for Non-Transfer Students . 134 19. Nature of Biology Courses Offered to Non-Majors.................................... 136 20. Integrated Biology Courses .................. 138 21. Prerequisites for Biological Science Courses for Non-Science Students .......... 139 22. Introductory Biology Course as a prerequisite . 141 23. De-Emphasis of Phylogenetic Considerations . . 143 24. Duplication of Transfer Courses .............. 149 25. Articulation with Local State Colleges and Universities ............................... 150 26. Articulation with Appropriate High Schools . . 153 27. Transfer Credit for Biology .................. 154 28. Methods and Materials Used in Instruction . . . 156 29. Faculty Involvement with Research Scientists . 158 30. Sequential Pattern of Biology Courses for Majors........................................ 160 v Table Page 31. In-Service Opportunities ....................... 162 32. Waiver of Courses by Challenge Examination . . . 168 33. Choice of Courses for Non-Majors Transfer Students....................................... 169 34. Declaration of Major as Freshmen................171 35. Biology as a Requirement for an Associate in Arts Degree................................. 173 36. Associate in Science Degree .................. 175 37. Biological iScience Placement T e s t ..............177 38. Placement by College Entrance Board Examination. 178 39. Feedback from Students.......................... 180 40. Special Counselor for Biology Students ........ 182 41. Special Counselor Assigned to Work with Four Year Colleges.............................184 42. Common Set of Courses for Biology Majors .... 186 43. Botany or Zoology for Non-Science Major Transfer Students ........................... 188 44. Nature of the Curriculum........................ 195 45. Modern Biology...................................198 46. Articulation.....................................200 47. Academic Level Considered Adequate for Junior College Instructor of Biology ............... 204 48. Faculty and Facilities.......................... 205 49. prerequisites for Biology Majors .............. 210 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND PROCEDURE USED Introduction The impact of modern science and technology demands from those living today some basic understanding and fundamental knowledge of the scientific enterprise. To meet this challenge, Nobel Laureate Muller (19:25) reminds biologists, "ours is the grave obligation as well as the high privilege of at least opening men's eyes to the nature of their own existence, and that of other living things, in relation to one another and the world in general." It is estimated that scientific knowledge doubles in each decade. Mayer (43:356) contends if this geometric progression is calculated, "there must therefore be 64 times as much to know today as in 1900, and when we enter the 21st Century, there will be over 1,024 times as much to know." A considerable part of our modern life is based upon the newly acquired knowledge of nature. The speed with which this scientific information and knowledge is gathered in these times is swift. This acquisition rate 1 of knowledge offers substantial benefits, but it also poses numerous problems in the teaching of science. The increasing support of basic research and the availability of qualified research personnel assures an ever-increasing rate at which information is gathered. Here is one of the most serious problems facing science educators, for this vast accumulating amount of scientific information complicates curriculum development and construction. What shall be taught? How shall the information be compiled and organized efficiently and effectively for an increasing number of students? Obviously it is neither practical nor feasible to offer students the entire accumulation of scientific information. Although a larger number of students will have an opportunity to take science courses, only a small fraction of students in higher education will major in science. Consequently, science educators are being challenged to select the best and most suitable sampling of relevant scientific information for young men and women so as to enable them to participate effectively in today's society. In biology, the problem is not entirely quantitative, for biological science education has under gone changes in emphasis and objectives. An academic I debate that still remains unresolved is the one between those who favor depth of subject matter and those who 3 favor breadth. According to Hurd (13:236), "the need to plan the biology curriculum from the first through the sixteenth year of school is now apparent." Because of changes in the subject matter of biology, the problem of organizing information into sequential learning experiences may be more of a challenge for community junior colleges than for state colleges and universities. The wide variety of two year institutions, the increasing number of new junior colleges, and the ever-increasing numbers of students attending these multi-purpose institutions of higher education all contribute to the enormously complicated process of curriculum development. California state colleges and the University of California require non-science majors to study biological science in lower division. Yet not all California junior colleges, state colleges, and universities offer the same biological science courses to the non-science majors. Rigid conformity is not desirable, but neither is the total lack of coordination. i J To help students satisfy their lower division ! requirements and to cope with the articulation problems with the other segments of higher education, California junior colleges offer a wide variety of biological science courses to non-science majors. Many agree with Poitras, et al. (70:34) that there are numerous and varied interpretations and understandings regarding the nature of general education science for the non-science major. These diverse opinions arise from the variety of situations, conditions, and requirements found among the California community junior colleges. These two year institutions have experienced more than sixty years of rapid expansion. They have been most effective in preparing lower division students for upper division work. Yet, what shall be taught and how it shall be organized meaningfully for the general education or non-science major are still unique challenges to be resolved. i The problem i --------------------------------- I Statement of the problem.— The purpose of this study was: (1) to determine, analyze, and evaluate the j "actual" practices and recommended "desirable" practices of California junior colleges regarding biological science courses for non-science majors obtained from data based i on the judgment of experienced junior college adminis- | i trators; (2) to determine from the literature the trends, j objectives, practices and emphases of biological science courses in California public junior colleges; (3) to examine the nature and number of current biological science course offerings in California public junior 5 colleges; (4) to compare "actual practices" with "desirable practices" as they relate to curriculum, articulation and sequential planning, students, and general attitudes associated with biological science courses in California public junior colleges; (5) to compare these practices with those recommended in the literature; and (6) to make recommendations for the "desirable" practices regarding general education biological science curriculum for non-science majors in California junior colleges. Basic assumptions of the study.— A genuine effort is made to present assumptions which are objective and basic to the design of this study. The following assumptions are considered basic to the questions proposed for the design of this study: (1) information gained from the division or department chairmen is a valid indication of the actual and/or desirable curricular practices followed by a junior college; (2) interpretations, attitudes, and understandings concerning the nature of general education are numerous and varied; (3) California junior colleges have a responsibility to give all of their ! ! students a basic understanding and fundamental knowledge of biological science education; (4) it is desirable for students to be exposed to a cumulative development of science concepts which is accomplished by a planned total 6 science sequence from kindergarten through a degree from junior college; (5) the development of a list of desirable practices regarding general education biological science courses for non-science majors in California junior colleges can be of use in establishing and evaluating such programs. Importance of the study.— In a report on curriculum studies, prepared for the National Education Association by Fraser (59:1), it was noted that a basic problem facing educators today was the proper relation between "academic disciplines, or the organized fields of scholarly knowledge, and the curriculum." Around the turn of the century, it was generally assumed that "academic disciplines" had the greatest influence on the school curriculum, and secondary consideration was given to factors such as the demand of society on schools and the ability of the learner. It was thought that society's needs would be met by transmitting as much available knowledge as possible. These issues were rarely debated several generations ago. I Through the years, however, several studies have i shown that the emphasis in curriculum development has shifted because of increasing interest in psychology of learning, systematic study of human development, and educational sociology. The studies of Piaget (20), Bruner 7 (6:33-54), Tyler (52:25-28), Brandwein et al. (5:ch.5) all indicate that the major bases of selection of course content generally depend on behavioral objectives, concept formation, problem seeking and solving, and, more explicitly, stated objectives for the schools. Although traditionally disciplines have been viewed as reservoirs from which pertinent information is selected, today these materials are organized in curricula designed to meet the appropriate needs of both the learner and society. Tyler (52:26) pointed to the importance in the process of curriculum development of "examining the concept of the learner as an active, purposeful human being." In addition, he referred to the notion that learning by discovery takes on more meaning to curriculum planners when they "treat knowledge as a growing product of man's effort to understand" (52:26). Not only what is |taught, but how it is taught is the challenge facing educators today. It is acknowledged that information is being gathered at enormous rates, but no less dramatic is the j effect of the population explosion on the schools. In I 1900 six per cent graduated from the twelfth grade and 4 per cent of the college-age youth attended college. Today, according to some estimates, 71 per cent of the nation's youth graduate from high school and about 33 per cent attend college (64:10; 26:161). Junior colleges have 8 been proliferating so rapidly in the last twenty years that statisticians can hardly keep pace with their growth. The American Junior College Association expects this growth rate to continue through 1970, when there will be more than 1,000 publicly supported community junior colleges. At present, the AAJC estimates that there are some 800 junior colleges enrolling about 1.25 million students (67:21). According to a report of the National Science Foundation, . . . junior colleges have absorbed larger segments of higher education enrollments: 1.4 per cent in 1920 (U.S. Office of Education data for 1degree-credit' enrollments); 10.0 per cent in 1940; 12.1 per cent in 1960; 15.2 per cent in 1965; and (the U.S. Office of Education conservatively estimates) 16.9 per cent in 1975. The rate of increase is somewhat more marked when junior college enrollments are related, not to total higher education enrollments, but to under graduate higher education enrollments: 1.4 per cent (1920), 10.8 per cent (1940), 12.5 per cent (1960), 17.0 per cent (1965), and 19.2 per cent (1975). Junior colleges presently account for perhaps more than 30 per cent of all lower division enrollments in higher education (67:5). The trend is directed toward universal college education, because more and more higher education is becoming so important for social, academic, and vocational success. Recently, the Educational Policies Commission | called for America to "raise its sights to make available I at least 2 years of further education for all graduates." The President, the President's Committee on National Goals, the Secretary of Labor, the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress according to 9 Gleazer (67:7), all conclude that, "A nationwide system of free public education through 2 years beyond the high school should be established." Larger enrollments, particularly at the freshman and sophomore levels, seem to be inevitable in the years ahead. According to Gleazer (67:22), California is the leader in the community college movement. According to a report of the Bureau of Adminis tration and Finance, California Community Colleges, dated July 5, 1968 and titled "Community College Active Enrollments, Spring, 1968," there were 600,526 students enrolled in the Spring, 1968 classes of California public junior colleges. This number was an increase of 54,100 or 9.9 per cent from the Spring, 1967 enrollment. Enrollments have exceeded those projected in the Master Plan for higher education and according to Spalding (66:5) the new projections may also prove to be conservative. According to his report as of March, 1966, . . . in the five years that California higher education has operated under the Master Plan, the independent and public segments have grown even beyond the estimates made in 1959. The University of California has expanded full-time students enrollment by 61 per cent, the State Colleges by 74 per cent, the Junior Colleges by 89 per cent, and the independent colleges by 35 per cent. The University has established three new campuses, the State Colleges have opened four new colleges, and 11 new Junior Colleges have been authorized. (66:5) To appreciate the extent and magnitude of the responsibility California public junior colleges assume 10 in educating post-high school students, the following table clearly shows that these two year institutions enroll more than twice the percentage of lower division students than the other two public segments combined. About 80 per cent of the high school graduates in California at present reside in junior college districts (it is expected to reach 100 per cent), and as many as three new freshmen in five now enter the public junior colleges (15:1). Enrollment increases can be found in all three segments of higher education in California. Higher education in this decade may be characterized by the effort to expand educational opportunity beyond the twelfth grade. More and more junior colleges have absorbed larger segments of higher education. At present, junior colleges account for more than 30 per cent of all lower division enrollments in higher education in the lUnited States (67:5). Science educators share the problem of communicating a vast amount of information to an ever increasing number of students within all educational levels. Even though interpretations and understandings regarding the nature of Igeneral education science for the non-science major are varied and numerous, the problem of what general education science should do for the non-science major is still of concern. Table 1.— percentage distribution of the fall term, full-time lower division enrollment among the University of California, California state colleges and junior colleges, 1960-1963, compared with the distribution resulting from the master plan modified projections for 1963 and 1975 Actual (Modified) Master plan Projections Per 1960 Cent 1963 Per Cent 1963 1975 Junior Colleges 69.3 67.9 71.6 75.0 State Colleges 19.2 20.9 18.9 17.5 University 11.5 11.2 9.5 7.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 12 More students enroll in natural sciences today in the United States than they did a decade ago. According to Mayer (43:356) some two and one-half million youngsters a year take biology at the secondary level. Dressel and DeLisle (37:3) traced the changes in undergraduate curricular requirements spanning the decade from 1957 to 1967 at 322 liberal arts colleges and universities and found significant increase in the natural science requirements (Table 2). During the late 1950's and the early 1960's, a number of special curriculum study projects were initiated to study science education in the United States. Although these projects were unofficial in the sense that they were not sponsored by local or state educational authorities, no doubt they have had and will have some effect upon school curricula. Fraser (62:4) reported that these projects all have common goals among which include an effort to close the gap between recent research findings in the academic fields and the related subjects as they are taught in the schools. Some projects were planned to I develop entire curricular areas, such as foreign languages. Others were devoted to a single subject, such as The Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC), The I Chemical Bond Approach (CBA), The Chemical Education Materials Study (CHEM Study), and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). In addition, these projects Table 2.— Undergraduate curriculum trends, 1957 to 1967 Course Requirements % in 1957 % in 1967 5 to 10 per cent of total credits in natural sciences 62.4 70.5 5 to 10 per cent of total credits in social sciences 54 59 11 to 20 per cent of total credits in humanities 43 48 1 year of English composition 59.9 47.8 1 year of literature 44.4 36.6 2 years of foreign language for degree of Bachelor of Arts 57.8 67.1 2 years of foreign language for degree of Bachelor of Science 39.1 41.3 2 years of physical education 68 62.1 Mathematics not specifically required 73 64.6 H (jO 14 have addressed themselves to the objective of improving subject matter at the elementary and secondary schools level. During the 1960's, eight separate college science commissions, with support from the National Science Foundation, were organized with the primary objective of bringing undergraduate science instruction closer to the research frontier. Each has its own history, organiza tional structure, mode of operation, and goals. The eight commissions are organized around the following academic disciplines: agriculture, biology, chemistry, engineering, geography, geology, mathematics, and physics. Their aim is not only to update the content of undergraduate courses, but also to emphasize the processes of discovery and the spirit of creative research (36:12; 67:5). The primary concern of the biology commission, The Commission on Undergraduate Education in Biological Sciences (CUEBS), is to help bridge the gap between recent biological research and undergraduate course content. In addition, it directs its activities toward improving and modernizing biology curricula, and upon methods of improving the effectiveness of instructional programs (36:5) . The Commission, which is made up of 24 elected biologists, identifies problem areas which are assigned to panels and study groups for more intensive study and 15 recommendations. One such panel, "The panel on Biology in the Two Year College," held its first meeting on April 15 and 16, 1966, in Washington, D.C., to study the problems in biological education in the two year colleges and to recommend action programs aimed toward alleviating them (35:6; 36:6; 67:4). While several approaches have been made to the problem, currently the Panel is focusing on general or liberal biological science education. In the formative years of The Commission on Undergraduate Education in Biological Sciences, discussions led to the concept of a "core curriculum," encompassing a body of essential knowledge for all students of biology. In 1965 the Panel on Undergraduate Major Chirricula (PUMC) was organized to define the specific content of a core curriculum (58:1) and to present a working model to stimulate and assist curriculum evaluation, modification and improvement. Although this study (PUMC) deals with the problems of biology majors in colleges and universities, it is of interest because it reflects the renewed interest in the concept of a "core curriculum." It raises the question of whether there is a need of devising a unique kind of biological science curriculum for junior colleges. Generally, national studies cover a wide range of circumstances, conditions, and institutions. The studies mentioned above cover a variety of subjects mainly in 16 secondary and higher education, with little mention of junior colleges. Less is known about junior college biology curriculum development when compared with other levels of education. It is difficult to make judgments regarding the merit of institutional programs. This is especially true in the case of community junior colleges because of the variety of institutions, diversity of students, and the comprehensiveness of course offerings. At present, a wide variety of science courses is offered by junior colleges. In view of interest and trends and with regard to biology courses in junior colleges, such questions arise as: (1) what types should be offered? (2) should the known facts be organized into sequential learning experiences? In order to find janswers to these questions, more information is needed ! about the current curricular practices in biological science education, and especially those in California community junior colleges. During the early stages in the development of junior colleges transfer of credit was not difficult to obtain because programs in the two year colleges and lower j divisions of the four year institutions were relatively | | parallel. But with the development of community college J functions by the two year colleges, according to Fields (11:309), evaluation of credit became a problem. In the CJCA study (69:21), "Critical Problems and Needs of 17 California Junior Colleges," the problem of articulating between the two year and four year institutions was ranked thirteenth in a list of 45 identified critical issues. California junior colleges have experienced more than sixty years of rapid expansion, and they have been effective in preparing lower division students for upper division work. There are few, if any, undergraduate majors for which a student cannot receive appropriate lower division preparation today in most California junior colleges. If the student plans his courses correctly, he will be granted full junior standing upon transferring to one of the Universities of California or state colleges. In actual practice many students transfer with minor deficiencies which must be remedied before the students are accepted into full junior standing (15:94-96). The University of California and California State Colleges require non-science majors to take biological science courses, yet not all California junior colleges, state colleges, and University of California branches provide the same biology courses to these students. There is some question of whether this practice of a lock | stepped curriculum would be desirable, although sequential learning experiences should be considered. Nevertheless, to cope with the problems of articulation and of satisfying lower division requirements, California junior colleges have proliferated the number of biological 18 science courses which are offered. This study is especially pertinent to the state of California because of the vastness of the junior college program. Over 70 per cent of college students in their first two years are being educated in one of the more than 80 junior colleges presently operating in California (15:1). In the fall of 1968, 665,490 students were enrolled in California public junior colleges (80). According to enrollment data for the same period, there were 1,640,842 junior college students enrolled in the United States (30 per cent of 5,469,472 students in public higher education) (30:1). Therefore, 40.4 per cent of the junior college students in the United States were registered in the California junior colleges. California public junior colleges are destined to play an even greater role in the tripartite state system of higher education. Although the junior colleges will be handling a greater number of lower division courses in the future, a better way must be found to coordinate the present junior college curriculum not only with high schools, but especially with the state colleges and University of California, so that students may transfer j J from any accredited public junior college to any other I institution of higher learning without penalty. Continual changing of requirement without consulting with the junior colleges causes needless inconveniences and financial 19 burdens to both students and junior colleges. The problems of biology curriculum and courses in California community junior colleges are affected by the following factors: (1) the shift in emphasis in curriculum development, (2) interest in improving the quality of instruction, (3) the expanding educational opportunities to an increasing number of students, (4) the increase in the quantity of information and knowledge, (5) the influence of national study groups in updating the science curriculum, (6) the problem of what should general education science do for the non-science major, (7) the demand for more sequential planning in curriculum development, (8) the unique nature of the open door, comprehensive junior college and its phenomenal growth both in new institutions and in student population, and (9) the problems associated with transfer credit and articulation from lower to upper levels. These factors indicate that there is need to discover what are desirable practices related to curriculum, articulation and sequential planning, students, and general attitudes associated with biological sciences for non-science majors in California public community junior colleges. The information gathered in this study cannot only guide the development of new programs, but can be of value in evaluating and improving the existing ones. 20 Hypotheses.— The study was based upon the hypotheses that (1) there is a wide variety of biological science courses offered to science and non-science majors in California public junior colleges, and that most of these institutions offer separate biological science courses for majors and non-majors; (2) the biological science instructional programs in California public junior colleges are administered by departments or divisions which have established specific departmental or divisional objectives; (3) the Biological Science Curriculum Study (1958) has influenced the nature of the biological science curricula in California public junior colleges; (4) the trend at present is to offer general education biology courses to non-science majors in California public junior colleges, rather than botany and/or zoology; (5) little is being done among California public junior colleges statewide to plan biological science curricula in a sequential pattern or around a core of experiences; (6) although there is a common body of knowledge of biology to be transmitted, the emphasis is being placed now upon the molecular and cellular levels of organization rather than upon morhological and systemic levels and the emphasis has shifted from the descriptive to the discovery or process approach to the subject matter; (7) the actual mechanics for accomplishing effective articulation have not been worked out in California public junior colleges and the 21 actual practices in resolving articulation problems are not in harmony with the accepted recommendations of educational leaders; and (8) the quality of instruction and facilities for biological sciences in California public junior colleges are considered to be adequate. Delimitation and scope of the study.— This study was delimited to the 80 operating tax supported California public junior colleges between the academic years of 1967 and 1969. A better understanding of the nature of California public junior colleges during this period of time can be acquired by referring to the Summary of the Annual Fall Report on California Public Junior College Courses of Study and Standards, 1967-1968 (81:1): The Fall Report on California Public Junior College Courses of Study and Standards is submitted annually by each California public junior college in compliance with Education Code Sections 25510 and 25510.5 and California Administrative Code, Title 5, Section 132. These code sections state, in effect, that the State Board of Education (effective July 1, 1968, the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges) shall adopt rules and regulations fixing minimum standards entitling districts to receive state aid for the support of junior colleges, and that the State Department of Education (Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges) shall annually investigate each junior college to determine whether it has met these standards. The information contained in these reports serves to attest that the legal requirements regarding junior college programs are being fulfilled. The approval of any junior college as eligible for the apportionment of state funds is dependent upon the knowledge that these requirements have been met. 22 In addition, the summary reported on the number and nature of the California public junior colleges as follows: . . . there were 80 public junior colleges offering classes during the academic year 1967-68. Four of these colleges were reporting for the first time— De Anza, Los Angeles Southwest, Moorpark, and Ohlone. Of these 80 colleges, 6 were maintained by unified districts and 74 were maintained by separate junior college districts. There are no junior colleges maintained by high school districts. A total of 66 districts maintain junior colleges in the state, and, of these, 60 are separate junior college districts. Recent legislation provides that future colleges may be established only in independent junior college districts. In addition, according to the report (82:1): The average daily attendance figures give the following information: Number of Colleges Enrollment 16 Over 10,000 24 Between 5,000 and 10,000 27 Between 1,000 and 5,000 8 Below 1,000 The lack of uniformity among the California two year colleges is one of their distinguishing character istics. In spite of their diversity, all California public junior colleges operate within the framework of the "minimum standards established by the Legislature and the State Board of Education (Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges) (82:1)." From this information, the unique character of the California junior colleges and the sampling area of this study are identified. 23 No attempt was made in this study to evaluate biological science courses other than by the course descriptions found in the college catalogs. In addition, there was no attempt to study course content in depth because of the impossibility of securing such information from the sampling of institutions used in this study. It is noted that a questionnaire, among other methods of accumulating data, was used as an evaluative instrument for the major part of this study. The findings derived are necessarily limited to the imperfections of the evaluative instruments used. Descriptions of Terms Key words and important nomenclature used in this study are defined as follows: Articulation.— The system or process of communi cating among the various levels of educational institutions and among the segments of higher education is referred to as articulation. Generally, attention is focused on course content, unit values, prerequisites, and acceptance of credit for transfer courses. The broad fields curriculum.— A type of curriculum design which combines several specific disciplines into larger fields in an effort to overcome compartmentaliza- tion of the subject area. An example developed around the 24 "fundamental biological concepts, with stress on ideas and on experimental approach of physiology and biology" is provided by the "blue version" of the biology text of the Biological Science Curriculum Study. The main advantage of the broad field curricular design is that it permits greater integration of subject matter (22:394). Community junior college.— According to Fields (11:22) , . . . the term 'community college* or 'community junior college1 should be, and may well be, applied increasingly to those junior colleges which take on the task of serving their communities or regions as multi-purpose institutions. Institutions which do not meet community needs should continue to be known as junior colleges. Comprehensive curriculum.— The term "comprehensive" refers to the multiplicity of educational functions provided by most California community junior colleges. Briefly, these functions are described as follows: (1) transfer function which provides courses paralleling those offered in the lower division of four year colleges and universities; (2) occupational training function which provides programs of two year duration or less designed to prepare students with vocational, technical, or semi- professional training; (3) general education function provides courses which will enable students to function more effectively as members of society and for living in the twentieth century; (4) developmental function assists 25 students whose skills and educational background are insufficient upon entry to allow them full benefit from the regular college program; (5) guidance and counseling function offers a sequence of services to the student which help him to define realistically his objectives in life and to plan effectively to meet these objectives; (6) adult education function provides courses designed to provide adults with opportunities for improving themselves, either for job advancement, cultural enlightenment, or creative interests; (7) co-curricular function offers the student many opportunities for participation in activities which will assist him to develop socially, emotionally, intellectually, and physically; (8) community service function provides the community with a variety of services and programs which cause the college to become the cultural resource center for the community. Core program.— A prescribed sequence of courses, or educational experiences, or body of knowledge essential for all students of the subject is referred to as a core program or curriculum. Generally, a set of courses in a I fixed sequence which extends over a period of time is required of biology majors in institutions of higher learning. General education.— There are many definitions of general education. For the purpose of this study, general 26 education is regarded as the type of education which equips students with the common knowledge, attitudes, and skills to function effectively and to meet the complexities of modern life. Johnson (14:42-46) lists at least six approaches to general education as follows: the "great books" approach, the liberal arts approach, the survey of fields of knowledge approach, the infusion approach, and the composite approach. According to Johnson (14:387) the functional approach seems best adapted to the junior college because of the diversity of the student body and its direct community orientation. Through the functional approach, general education is provided through courses based directly upon problems and areas of living derived and identified from studies of student characteristics and needs in addition to information about the society in which they live. According to Bogue (4:60) unless an "institution performs this function well, it cannot claim to be a junior or community college. General education should be at the heart of the community program." Junior college.— Each California public junior college is comprised of the thirteenth and fourteenth grades, or the freshman and sophomore years of college. The junior college is considered as a free public two year community institution which attempts to offer a post high school educational program appropriate to the educational 27 needs of its community. A high degree of local autonomy has been delegated to local governing boards of California public junior colleges under broadly defined regulative powers exercised by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, which became effective July 1, 1968. According to the Master plan for Higher Education in California— 1960-1975 (56:2), The junior colleges shall be governed by local boards selected for the purpose from each district maintaining one or more junior colleges. . . . Said public junior colleges shall offer instruction through but not beyond the fourteenth grade level including, but not limited to, one or more of the following: (a) standard collegiate courses for transfer to higher institutions, (b) vocational technical fields leading to employment, and (c) general, or liberal arts courses. Studies in these fields may lead to the Associate in Arts or Associate in Science degree . . . The regulative policies adopted by the State Board of Education (Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges) and described in Title 5, California Administrative Code, which provide considerable freedom of local control and initiative, outline the administrative policies with which each junior college must comply. I Master plan for higher education.— In the 1959 I I Legislature the late Assemblywoman Dorothy Donahoe introduced Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 88, which called for a Master Plan for Higher Education during the next decade in California. This set in motion a massive 28 study of California system of higher education conducted by a survey team representing all segments of public and private institutions of higher education. On December 18, 1959, the late Dr. Arthur Coons, then chairman of the Master Plan Survey Team, presented the plan to a joint session of the State Board of Education and the Regents of the University of California. They unanimously approved in principle the sixty-seven recommendations designed to implement the Survey Team report, A Master Plan for Higher Education in California 1960-1975. In 1960 the Legislature enacted the Donahoe Higher Education Act, later signed by Governor Brown. As a result of the Act, a tripartite plan was developed for the three segments of public higher education in the state of California. The functions were delineated among the segments which included the junior colleges, the State College System, the Universities of California, and independent colleges and universities. In addition, an advisory body, originally made up of twelve to fifteen members, the Coordinating Council for Higher Education was formed (currently, it consists of eighteen members). It includes lay representatives as well as the four segments of higher education. Non-science major.— A junior college student whose career objective or major does not require more than one 29 course in science. Students in this category generally can satisfy requirements for graduation by taking a general education science course, which should enable the non-science major to develop certain competencies, such as making observations and collecting and analyzing of data in the laboratory, and in his everyday life. Open door.— The term "open door" as applied to community junior colleges refers to an unrestricted entry into college; and that the institution provides a variety of opportunities to a high school graduate or anyone over eighteen years of age who can profit from the educational experience (8:45). It does not mean an open door curriculum, but refers instead to a variety of curricula which matches the potentials of a broad spectrum of abilities among students within the established standards of the junior college. Sequential planning.— A process or plan of curriculum planning dealing with continuity of learning I which initiates subject matter instruction in elementary schools and continues the presentation of a non-repetitive | sequence of experiences on a vertical pattern from one level to another through secondary and higher education. 30 Procedures Used Methodology.— The following procedure was used in this study: (1) a thorough review of the literature pertaining mainly to biological science offered at the junior college level; (2) the conduction of a pilot study in fourteen California junior colleges to evaluate the problems and interest level; (3) formulation of the evaluative instrument; (4) acquisition of the approval of the California Junior College Association; (5) evaluation of findings from pilot study and of evaluative instrument by a jury of experts; (6) circulation of evaluative instrument to sampling area, the chairmen of departments/ divisions of biological sciences in 80 California public junior colleges; (7) tabulation of data with the aid of the Data Processing Center at the University of Southern California, (8) evaluation, correlation, and interpretation of the data. Review of the literature.— The literature pertaining to biological science education was studied extensively. Most information dealing specifically with the subject of i j biological sciences as offered in junior colleges came from studies of learned societies and college catalogs. Other information, of a general nature, dealing with the historical background and functions of the junior college, articulation and other curricular problems, and the 31 changing emphases in biological sciences, was found in books, periodicals, government reports, dissertations, and in the published findings of learned societies. The literature was especially helpful in formulating the questionnaire or evaluative instrument, and aided in interpreting the data derived front it. Pilot study.— This study was conducted to gather information regarding the general nature of the problem and to identify any possible trends related to general education biological science courses for non-science majors in California junior colleges. The information gathered was helpful in determining the important facets of the study. Not only was a sense of direction gained, but the pilot study was of appreciable help in formulating the main questionnaire or evaluative instrument used. The following procedure was followed in the pilot study: 1. An evaluative instrument (questionnaire) was formulated to survey trends in biological curriculum. 2. A stratified sampling of fourteen specified California junior colleges was employed. The institutions were selected on the basis of size, geographical location, type of community environment, and a representative student body. 3. The fourteen institutions selected were: 32 Bakersfield College, Cabrillo College, Compton College, Fullerton Junior College, Glendale College, Golden West College, Long Beach City College, Los Angeles Harbor College, Merced College, Mt. San Jacinto College, Orange Coast College, Pasadena City College, and Riverside City College. 4. Questionnaires were sent to the deans of instruction of the aforementioned institutions. 5. Responses were received from eleven out of the fourteen sent. This amounted to an acceptable 78.5 per cent return of the questionnaire. 6. The findings of the pilot study were: a. Eight junior colleges (72.7 per cent) offer a special biology course for non-science majors, while three (27.3 per cent) offer a single course to both majors and non-majors. b. Seventy per cent offer botany and zoology to non-majors, while 30 per cent do not. c. Major biological concepts are stressed in biology courses for non-science majors. d. Biological science was offered with a laboratory in 72.7 per cent of the cases. e. It was intended to phase out zoology and botany courses in 55.5 per cent of the cases, although 80 per cent felt that 33 non-science majors could profit from such courses. f. Special biology courses for low achievers were offered in 40 per cent of the sample. g. Integrated anatomy and physiology course was offered in 54.5 per cent of the sample. h. All junior colleges offering biological science courses participate in field trips. i. Nine per cent used programmed materials in study carrels for their general education biology courses. j. A total of 45.5 per cent used closed circuit television in the general education biology courses. Because of the trends and emphases identified in the pilot study it was decided to focus the attention of this study upon the biological science courses offered to non-science majors in California junior colleges. Formulation of the questionnaire.— The use of a questionnaire was considered to be the most efficient method for obtaining current information concerning the actual and desired practices in regard to biological sciences offered to non-science majors in California junior colleges. While its limitations are recognized, the questionnaire is still a valuable tool for gathering 34 information from widely separated respondents. The final form of the evaluative instrument or questionnaire was the result of several revisions. The pilot study gave the study direction, and the review of literature provided the background required for devising a rough draft of the questionnaire. After consulting with various experts in the field, numerous revisions were made on the question naire . The revised questionnaire was submitted, then, to a jury of experts for further evaluation and recommenda tions. Jury members were selected from a representative group of people having not only an interest in the subject, but some experience in biological science education in junior colleges. They were asked to read the revised questionnaire and check specifically for the following: 1. Order of questions and the wording of the items. 2. Sequence of questions in order to avoid putting ideas into the respondent's mind. 3. Relevancy of questions to purpose and hypotheses of the study. 4. Length of time required to complete question naire. 5. Orientation of questionnaire with regard to respondent. 6. Advise as to whom the questionnaire should be sent. 35 The jury of experts proved to be most helpful. They provided information, checked descriptions and interpretation of questionnaire items, and made many valuable recommendations. For their efforts I owe a deep debt of gratitude, which I am pleased to acknowledge, to Dr. Bruce E. Conklin, Department Chairman, Pasadena City College; Mr. Howard Craig, Biology Instructor, Fullerton Junior College; Dr. William V. Mayer, Director, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Committee; Dr. James T. Robinson, Associate Professor Science Education, Teachers College, Columbia University; Mr. Floyd L. Younger, Assistant Superintendent, Cabrillo College (former Chairman of the Committee of Instruction, California Junior College Association); Dr. Larry Pinter, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University; and Mr. Lyndon E. Taylor, Assistant Dean of Instruction, Cypress Junior j College. The recommendations of the jury of experts were considered, and after consultation with the chairman of the doctoral study committee, the suggested changes were made, after which the questionnaire was ready for distribution to the chairmen of the biological science departments in California junior colleges during the spring of 1968. The questionnaire contained five sections. It sought information regarding the actual practices related 36 to (1) curriculum, (2) articulation and sequential planning, and (3) biology students. In addition, the respondents were asked to evaluate each item in the aforementioned sections according to "desired practices." This design provided not only the "actual practices" followed by each institution, but it provided the opportunity for comparison with recommended "desired practices." The fourth section of the questionnaire sought to derive information on the general attitudes of the respondents toward biological sciences in California junior colleges. The fifth section endeavored to gather information regarding the nature of the institutions in the study. See the Appendix for a copy of the contents of the questionnaire. The results were punched on to data processing cards for tabulation and analysis. This served as a basis for framing a list of recommended desired practices pertaining to biological sciences offered to non-science majors in California junior colleges. Returns from the questionnaire.— Questionnaires were distributed in the spring of 1968 to 80 California community public junior colleges and 70 were returned. The questionnaires were mailed to the chairmen of the biological science departments or divisions of the junior 37 colleges. In the event there was no department or division of biological sciences, such as in small junior colleges where there was only one biology instructor, then the questionnaire was sent to the instructor of biology. Two different sets of postcards were sent to those who did not return the questionnaire within two weeks. Fourteen questionnaires were received as response to the first postcard and ten to the second postcard. Telephone calls were made to check on those outstanding. Of those questionnaires distributed a respectable response of 87.5 per cent was received. Recommendation of study.— The study received the approval of the California Junior College Association (see Appendix), which helped its status. Organization of the Study The remainder of the study consists of eight chapters, a bibliography, and an appendix, organized in this fashion: The review of literature pertinent to the study is presented in Chapter II. The literature was discussed according to the following outline: (1) historical background, (2) curriculum trends in biological sciences in junior colleges, (3) articulation and sequential planning, (4) general education, (5) institutional concern, and (6) summary. 38 Chapter III through VI presents the findings concerning existing practices in biological science curricula for non-science majors in California junior colleges. These chapters also include general attitudes of the respondents regarding these practices. Chapter VII presents a list of desired practices as evaluated by the respondents which is based on the findings reported in Chapters III through IV. The Appendix contains a list of the curricular offerings of biological sciences in California junior colleges as evidence of the wide variety of approaches to the subject. Chapter VIII includes a summary of the findings, the conclusions drawn from the literature and findings, and recommendations with respect to a good science program for non-science majors which any junior college could adopt. Summary The chapter presented an introduction to this study of biological science curricula for non-science majors in California junior colleges. The problem, its importance, basic assumptions and procedures used were stated. The problem was considered important because of the apparently inconsistent variety of practices regarding biological sciences for non-science majors in California community junior colleges. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE Introduction A review of literature concerning the issues and problems related to biological sciences for non-science majors in California junior colleges is presented in this chapter. Despite a history of more than sixty years of existence, junior colleges have emerged only recently as significant institutions of higher education. Certain roles and functions along with concomitant expectations have been assigned to them. Even though some consider those expectations unrealistic and contradictory, their existence has important implications for education, for I it leads one to question just how these institutions fit into the scheme of higher education. Within the past ten years several excellent books have been published about junior colleges dealing with their role, philosophy, patterns of organization, financial support, functions, and administration. The most useful books dealing with the general nature of junior colleges are The Two-Year College: A Social Synthesis by Blocker, Plummer, and Richardson (1965)? The ______________________________ 39_______ _____ 40 Open Door College: A Case Study by Clark (1960); The Community College Movement by Fields (1962); The American Two-Year College by Hillway (1958); The Junior College; Progress and Prospect by Medsker (1960); Community Colleges: A President's View by O'Connell; and The Community Junior College by Thornton (1966). Of particular value was the excellent yearbook published by the National Society for the Study of Education, The Public Junior College, The Fifty-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, edited by Henry (1956). The historical background provided by Biological Teaching in the Colleges of the United States by Campbell (1891) and Biological Education in American Secondary Schools 1890-1960 by Hurd (1961) were informative and helpful. Of particular interest was New Thinking in School Biology (1962), the product of a seminar, organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, at which some ninety people from twenty countries representing administrative, university and (secondary) school levels of education met for twelve days to discuss problems of "school biology education." Useful current literature on science education was found in copies of BioScience, published by the American Institute of Biological Sciences, The American Biology 41 Teacher, published by the National Association of Biology Teachers, and various publications of the National Science Teachers Association and the Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences. A report of the National Science Foundation, titled "The Junior College and Education in the Sciences," was of immense help in this study. Several unpublished dissertations were found helpful, especially An Analysis of the Organization and Administration of Certain Functions and Curricular Practices in California Public Junior Colleges by Rockwell (1955) and A Critical Study of the Relationship Between the Biological Science Courses in Selected High Schools and Those at the University of California at Los Angeles (1960- 1965) by Rozolis (1966). Although a special study group referred to as the "Panel on Biology in the Two-Year College" was organized in 1966 by the Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences, little information has been published regarding their findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Despite the research being done on a national scale in the general area of this study, i virtually no literature is available in the specific area covering biological sciences for non-majors in California junior colleges. 42 It is the purpose of this chapter to review the literature pertaining to the factors which influence the biological science for non-science majors in California junior colleges pertinent to.the problems stated in Chapter I. Background Historical background— biological science education. In one way, biology is considered a very old science because it had its roots in antiquity. In another way, it is considered a young science, for the major generalizations which are the foundations of any science have been made comparatively recently and some are still being developed. As an organized body of knowledge, biology is said to have begun with the classical Greeks (21). Biology expanded greatly in the nineteenth century and has continued its growth at an ever accelerating rate in the twentieth. This advance is due partially to the greater scope of knowledge available today, and partially to the new developments in physics and chemistry and their applications to biological research. j The character of biological science education ! cannot be appreciated fully without some consideration of its historical development. Although no attempt is made to present a complete or even extensive historical background (for it neither would serve the objectives of 43 this study nor would it be feasible) attention will be focused mainly on the evidence found regarding course offerings in biological sciences beginning with the nineteenth century. In a study by Campbell, in which he presented the extent and scope of the biological science courses offered by the colleges of the United States of the nineteenth century, he reported that the biological courses offered by the various institutions of the country showed a wide diversity (7:114). In studying the catalogs of forty-five colleges, considering the courses leading to the bachelor of arts degree, Campbell (7:123) found that some branch of biology was taught by fifteen colleges in the freshman year, by twenty-nine in the sophomore, by thirty-one in the junior, and by nineteen in the senior year. In the same study, he found that the favorite subjects were botany, zoology, physiology, and biology, the details of which are in Table 3 (7:123) . From this it was noted that largest number of courses offered was in zoology, followed by botany and biology. Campbell also found that in thirty-four out of forty-five colleges, biology was the first scientific subject taken. In four cases it was preceded by chemistry, in three by physics and chemistry, in two by physics alone, in one by physical geography, and in one other by geology (7:124). Table 3.— Biological science courses offered in forty-five four year colleges in Nineteenth Century Class Physiology Zoology Botany Biology Total Number of Courses in Each Year Senior Junior Sophomore Freshman 2 5 5 6 8 18 7 5 2 8 19 7 7 13 4 1 19 44 35 19 Total number of courses in each subject 18 38 36 25 117 45 In another study, in which Campbell considered the place which biology occupied in the science courses offered by forty-two colleges, he found that some branch of biology was taught in the freshman year by twenty-six colleges, in the sophomore year by thirty-seven, in the junior year by twenty-eight and in the senior year by thirteen colleges (7:124). The favorite subjects were found to be essentially the same as before, except that botany was the subject in which the largest number of courses was offered, with biology second, and zoology third. Campbell (7:126) noted that during the years from 1800 until 1840, most of the colleges made provisions for "at least brief courses" in botany and zoology. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, he observed the tendency to place biology, and "especially the general biology course," late in the curriculum, usually in the junior year (7:139). Regarding its place in general education, he suggested that it should be prominent, "because it furnishes at least as good a subject for teaching inductive methods as any other science, and has the additional advantage of giving information which must ! be of value in broadening the student's views of life and better fitting him for the minute study of its highest form" (7:139). Although these studies of biology in American 46 colleges in the nineteenth century were the reflections of one individual, nevertheless it was noted that the curriculum offered was widely diversified; the favorite subjects were botany, zoology, physiology, and biology; that biology was generally offered in upper division; and that biology was recommended as a good general education course. Biological science— secondary education.— According to Hurd, the decade from 1890-1900 was a period of concern about secondary education and the nature of science education (13:17). In 1893 a new era began in secondary education and high school biology teaching with the report of the National Education Association*s Committee on Secondary School Studies, also known as the "Committee of Ten." Charles W. Eliot, President of Harvard University and a former professor of chemistry at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, served as the general chairman of the committee which investigated the whole field of secondary education as conducted in private academies and public schools. Subcommittees on natural history, botany, zoology, and physiology were established to study instruction of these subjects in grades one through twelve. A consensus of the committee reports showed the following (13:10): (1) The desirability of continuous offerings of biological science from the first grade through _________ high school;________________________________________ 47 (2) The establishment of a required course in biological science at the tenth grade level; (3) The requirement of one year of biology for entrance into college; (4) The need for more uniformity of content in high school biology; (5) The teaching of biology as a laboratory science; (6) The need for an emphasis in biology teaching on the broader principles of the discipline; (7) The importance for all young people to receive instruction in hygiene and human physiology before completing high school. The distinguishing characteristics of the 1890-1900 period in biological science education was a shift away from a natural history approach to courses of "pure" botany and zoology with emphasis upon morphology (13:18). The high school course in biology began during the decade from 1900-1910 (13:27). A major development in the science curriculum between 1910 and 1920 was the introduction of a general science course in the ninth grade (13:30). During the decade from 1920-1930 the special sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics) in high school were evaluated and refined (13:51). This was not an exciting period from the standpoint of new developments, i | but the enrollments in high school biology continued to mushroom. Science teaching was extensively scrutinized by numerous organizations during the decade of the depression years between 1930-1940 (13:53). The National Association of Biology Teachers was founded and, for the 48 first time, science curriculum committees were involving the learning theory as a factor in curriculum planning. In the decade from 1940-1950, questions were raised concerning the purposes of science teaching, and about secondary education as a whole. In 1940, a special committee on the ACE issued a report on "What the High Schools Ought to Teach" (13:74). The major recommendation called for a program of general education suitable for all students with some provisions for specialized training. Several attempts were made to absorb science into "core," "unified," or "integrated" science courses. In 1950, nearly all high schools in America offered a general biology course and 21.7 per cent of all high school students were enrolled in a biology class (13:107). In the next decade, 1950-1960, science education was in a period of "crises and confusion." Needed improvements in science education were sought by groups of state and national committees. The Second Session of the Eighty- fifth Congress of the United States recorded 1,600 pages of testimony in twenty-two days on the question of "science and education for national defense" (13:108). According to Hurd, "over a period of a half century one can recognize that gradual change has taken place in the content and manner of biology teaching, although the observation of a number of individual courses in the schools of today would reveal examples of 49 every decade herein reported" (13:18). The factors covered so far were those concerned with biological sciences in four year colleges and in secondary schools. It is assumed that through understanding these historical trends a clearer picture of the pattern of the biological sciences development in junior colleges will be obtained. Curriculum studies.— During the late 1950’s and the early 1960's a number of special projects and studies dealing with academic subjects in school curriculum were initiated (62:10; 17:35). Biological Science Curriculum Study.— In 1958 the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), a national organization composed of the majority of biologists, became concerned about the instruction of biology in American high schools. The Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) was brought into existence the same year as a result of a grant received by AIBS from the National Science Foundation (17:35-36; 62:10) with a mandate to improve biological science education. They were aware of the discrepancy between biology as it was practiced by biologists and as it was taught in schools. To improve the situation was an urgent matter, and a major j effort was undertaken to produce a new approach to teaching biology in the high schools. According to Mayer (43:360), with some two and one-half million youngsters a 50 year taking biology in secondary schools, it was obvious that the greatest impact would be made at this level. According to one source (17:36), BSCS set up offices on the campus of the University of Colorado and then served as "the stimulus through which a large number of the nation's outstanding biologists and biology teachers became involved in the production of new teaching and learning materials." Many science educators have felt that the materials produced by BSCS had literally reshaped the entire pattern of biology teaching, and that no chapter of biological science instruction and curriculum development would be complete without mention of this important group. There is also the question of what influences BSCS and Advanced Placement have had upon junior college biology (28; 47:366; 40:640; 53:145). Although no specific evidence pertaining to junior colleges is presently available, in a related study of the interaction and relationship between the biological science courses in selected high schools and the introductory courses of the University of California at Los Angeles, Rozolis (77) i I found that neither the university nor the high schools had any appreciable influence upon one another in the development of these courses. In addition, he found that the newer high school courses were oriented more toward subject matter and less toward the learner and society, 51 and they were more inductive than were their predecessors. The newer courses typically represented an approach which was independent of all previous ones. Commission on Undergraduate Education in Biological Sciences.— The National Science Foundation and other agencies have sponsored other curriculum studies. In higher education, with NSF support, there are eight commissions through which scientists are providing direction, stimulation, and guidance toward improvement of the undergraduate instruction in the sciences. Of special interest to this study was the Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences (CUEBS) organized in March, 1963 (67:13). The objectives of these commissions, which are devoted to higher education, are as follows: (1) to serve as a bridge between research and the college curriculum; (2) to accelerate the rate of change toward improvement of undergraduate instruction in the respective fields; (3) to interest senior professional (especially research) personnel and able younger men in teaching problems; (4) to encourage material experimentation with the curriculum; and (5) in fields where problems are numerous, to establish priorities, and generate a sense of direction. (67:13) Panel on Biology in the Two Year Colleges.— "The Panel on Biology in the Two-Year Colleges" was established early in 1966 by the Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences (67:14). It addressed itself to problems of general concern to the two year institutions 52 such as: (1) instructional personnel, (2) biological facilities, (3) biology for occupational education, (4) biology for the university bound student, (5) relation ships of biology curricula in the two year colleges to those in four year colleges (78:2; 67:14). In reviewing the undergraduate program, the panel concerned itself with five tracks in biology for junior college students: (1) prebaccalaureate biology majors, (2) prebaccalaureate non-science majors, (3) associate degree programs for biologically oriented careers (nursing, agriculture, medical technology, et cetera) , (4) associate degree programs for non-biologically based careers (automotive, secretarial sciences, et cetera), and (5) continuing or adult education (67:14). It would be of great value to science education, if it were found possible to experiment with an integrated five track content package (superimposed on ability tracking in the larger junior colleges) in a sampling of the many new junior colleges being founded annually. Obviously there were many possible approaches to biological science education. The Panel identified the following two tracks most often offered in junior colleges: (1) a program oriented biology curricular sequence for the biological sciences major, and (2) liberal arts or general education courses in biological sciences (78:6). Although the study has not been finalized at this point, the Panel made the following recommendations: (1) a 53 placement examination should be given to all students entering a biologically oriented occupation curriculum, (2) biology majors should take organic chemistry by the end of the sophomore year, (3) biology taken in the first year need not depend on a chemistry prerequisite, (4) all college students should take one year of biological sciences, preferably a core biology course, and (5) two year colleges enter into curriculum planning with local four year colleges to formulate the context of the introductory biology course (78:4). Of most significant importance, the Panel recommended that an appropriate educational experience or course in general biology be required of all candidates for the Associate in Arts or Associate in Sciences degrees. The Panel has not completed its study of biology in the two year institutions and further recom mendations should be expected. Curriculum studies are not the solutions to all problems. The curriculum studies of the 1960's have not provided all of the answers, but they do attempt to take steps, hopefully in the right direction, in preparing students to become scientifically literate citizens of the twenty-first century (17:10; 43:361). From the studies of Hurd (13) the problems of biology education from 1890 to 1960 were identified and recommendations were proposed. Their consensus was that there were many issues relative to science education which still remained to be solved, and 54 that each generation must assume its responsibility in examining the issues and contributing suggested solutions. International biology seminar.— Besides national curriculum studies, special groups have addressed themselves to the general issues relative to the future of biological science education. Of particular significance were the recommendations of an international seminar, organized by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, at which some 90 distinguished scientists from 20 countries representing various facets of education met for 12 days in 1962 in Switzerland to discuss problems of biological science education. "Biology" was considered as an essential constituent of a balanced education for contemporary life as illustrated in the following statement: As is widely appreciated, natural science is one— but only one— of the main elements in contemporary life and culture. Clearly, it seems destined in the future to take on greater importance. Therefore the natural sciences, of which physics, chemistry and biology are the main branches, should be part of the common core of education for all. Unless it keeps pace with the increasing importance of all three natural sciences, without unduly sacrificing other important elements of contemporary culture, no nation can hope to improve, or even to maintain its present place, in the years ahead. (16:15) The seminar concluded that: Biology at present almost nowhere effectively fulfills its role in school education, for almost everywhere one or more of the following deficiencies occur: too few students learn biology; those who learn, learn too little; they learn it in ways that are scientifically or pedagogically unsound; what they learn is often lacking in important modern advances; 55 and the teaching of biology is not integrated into the rest of the natural science curriculum. . . . Aside from hopeful local exceptions, in every country biology teaching is predominately conservative, lacks the modern approach required to convey the large and rapidly increasing number of important advances made . in recent decades, and fails to make adequate provisions for meeting the urgent needs for teachers, for researchers, and for personnel trained to take their places in the professions, vocations, and industrial positions mentioned above. (16:17) In order to correct this, the following recommendation was made: We unanimously and strongly recommend that all pupils between the ages of 11 and 18 years be provided with an integrated and continuous natural science curriculum in which broad, up-to-date and well taught biology takes its place as an essential component in general education. (16:17) With such a strong statement it seems reasonable to assume that the same recommendations could apply today to biological science education in higher education. i i v Challenge for Future.— Much has been written concerning the challenge facing higher education in the future and a variety of opinions have been expressed. Elam and'McLure explored those forces for change— political, technical, social, and economic— which could be expected to play a decisive role in shaping the requirement of the educational system as it enters the decade of the 1970's (10). Woodring, in his analysis of higher education in America today, projected a course which American education could follow in the future (27). He 56 questioned for whom is higher education— as opposed to a higher degree— truly valuable or necessary. On the other hand, Gleazer, in assessing the changing role of two year colleges, referred to the developing new concepts of educability and suggested, The time will surely come in America with almost 1,000 junior colleges serving close to two million students, and with that number of students, incidentally bound to double within the next five to eight years— the time has already come for these institutions to be less preoccupied with conventional definitions of 'collegiate* functions, and more concerned about providing productive learning experiences (79:3). We need new methods that will enable people in all communities to learn to support themselves, to contribute toward the corporate life, and hopefully, too, to develop social prospective . . . and compassion for their fellows. Renowned science educator DuBridge, expressing a concern for the future of biological science education, pointed out, It is a sad day for a nation like the United States if a majority of its college educated population is illiterate in science. Such illiterates— and we know there are only too many of them in our population today— have not only missed a great personal opportunity for understanding and appreciating some of the great scientific adventures of our time, but they are also depriving themselves of opportunity of becoming more informed and more useful citizens of a country in which scientific and technological develop ments constitute a dominating feature of our national life. (61:1) As Mayer so eloquently put it, Today we are educating students who will end their lives in the 21st century, but we cannot teach them what they need to know in the year 2000 for it has not yet been discovered . . . 57 He goes on to say that through curricular studies we are taking, . . . a tentative step in what we hope is the right direction for preparation of scientifically literate citizenry for the 21st century. (43:360) This brief background covered 170 years of science education in secondary and higher education in the United States. The main objective was to cover the trends. Despite the lack of much information concerning junior colleges, it was assumed that the forces which operated on biological science education in secondary schools and four year institutions conceivably could have the same influence upon the subject matter taught in junior colleges. Curriculum Trends in Biological Sciences in Junior Colleges Interest in curriculum revision in the United States is in full swing. The transfer curricular pattern offered in the junior colleges generally has been influenced by the pattern of courses offered in the high schools and in the other segments of higher education. During certain periods, one approach is accepted as common practice, while during other periods, another approach to the mastery of the discipline is taken. Biological sciences in California junior colleges.-- At present there is a trend toward offering a greater number of biology courses in California junior colleges 58 rather than botany and zoology. It appears that these latter two courses are being phased out. Data obtained from the pilot study (see page 30) indicated that 55.5 per cent of the sampling of junior colleges intended to phase out zoology and botany courses from their curricula. Most California state colleges and universities require liberal arts students to take some study in biological sciences in the lower division. Also, many professional programs require students to take biology during their lower division experience. This multiple need— for non-majors and majors— requires California junior colleges to provide several different kinds of biological science courses for their students. By comparing two studies performed by Thornton (23:225; 24:227), one done six years after the other, a trend, or at least a shift in the kinds of courses in biological sciences offered in the junior colleges, was identified. From a sample of thirty public junior college catalogs, Thornton listed the courses in zoology, botany, biology, anatomy and physiology, bacteriology, micro biology, and paleontology. In Table 4, the results of his 1960 study (23:225) are listed. Although the sampling of colleges was not identified by Thornton, it was assumed that they were selected from a sampling of junior colleges in the United States. Table 5 presents the results of the Table 4.— Number of public junior colleges offering instruction in stated biological sciences and extent of offering in a sample of thirty public junior colleges (1960) Units Offered Zoology Botany Biology Anat. Physio. Bacteriol. Micro biol . Pale- ont. Survey 19-24 3 1 1 1 13-18 4 1 3 1 7-12 19 11 11 8 4 8 2 1-6 4 16 12 9 10 2 2 Total Colleges 30 28 25 21 15 10 2 2 Total Units 316 191 186 176 89 41 5 19 Mean Units 10.5 6.9 7.4 8.4 6.0 4.1 2.5 9.5 cn same type of study published six years later (24:227). By comparing the two studies, it was observed while the number of colleges offering zoology remained constant, the number offering botany decreased from 28 to 25, and those offering biology increased slightly from 25 to 27. The total number of units in zoology and botany decreased, while units in biology appreciably increased from 186 to 297, which amounted to an increase of 37.3 per cent. Anatomy-physiology and microbiology also gained signifi cantly in total units. The mean number of biology units per college showed a significant gain from 7.4 to 11.0 units. In addition, there was an increase in the number of colleges and the total units of general survey courses of biological sciences. According to Thornton (23:225; 24:226), the expansion beyond offering introductory courses was made to fulfill the needs of specific occupational groups, such as nursing and laboratory technicians. The most frequent offerings in each discipline consisted of only one or two semesters of work with laboratory. In the "7-12" unit group were found the two semester courses with labora tories, yielding four or five units per each semester. The increase shown in anatomy and physiology may be because of the increased interest in allied health courses and paramedical professions. The increase in Table 5.— Number of public junior colleges offering instruction in stated biological sciences and extent of offering in a sample of thirty public junior colleges (1966) Units Offered Zoology Botany Biology Anat. Physio. Bacteriol. Micro biol. Pale- ont. Survey 19-24 3 3 1 1 13-18 3 2 4 2 1 7-12 16 11 13 13 1 1 1 1-6 8 12 7 11 7 19 4 5 Total Colleges 30 25 27 27 8 22 4 6 Total Units 299 187 297 223 40 119 17 31 Mean Units 10.0 7.5 11.0 8.3 5.0 5.4 4.3 5.2 O' 62 microbiology may be due to the fact that bacteriology may be classified presently as microbiology. By comparing these data it was evident that there was a shift within the past six years in the types or kinds of biological science courses offered in the public junior colleges. In retrospect to the Thornton studies see Table 6 on the following page for the study of 80 California public junior college catalogs. Proliferation of courses.— preparing students for transferring for further study at four year colleges and universities is an important function of community junior colleges. However, no less important are their other functions. Biological sciences are offered to a heterogeneous group of students with a wide variety of objectives. Many larger junior colleges make it possible for their transfer students to complete preparation for almost any area of specialization in four year colleges and universities. According to some educators (9:55; 24:234; 44:246) this proliferation of courses may become a source of weakness in the junior college besides being I a source of unnecessary expense. The president's Committee on Education Beyond the High School advised curriculum people in the following manner: proliferation of narrow course offering is worthy of note. . . . The result may be to dissipate teaching resources without necessarily strengthening the student's education. . . . The Committee strongly Table 6.— Number of California public junior colleges offering instruction in stated biological sciences and extent of offering in a sample of eighty California public junior colleges 1968-69 Units Offered Zoology Botany Biology Ana. & Physiol. Bact. Micro Others 37-42 1 2 31-36 3 25-30 1 6 1 1 1 19-24 2 11 3 1 2 13-18 6 9 18 20 3 8 7-12 45 28 22 45 2 9 22 1-6 14 31 18 6 26 44 19 Total Colleges 66 70 79 77 28 58 52 Total Units 577 555 1101 898 139 338 480 Mean Units 8.7 7.9 13.9 11.7 5.0 5.8 9.2 cn UJ 64 suspects that the majority of colleges and universities could improve the quality of education offered by reducing substantially the number of courses offered and using the resources thus released, including faculty and student energies, to improve the rest. (23:32-33) Core curriculum.--On several occasions, regional conferences on "Undergraduate Courses and Curricula in Biological Sciences," sponsored by the Commission on Undergraduate Education in Biological Sciences (CUEBS), have recommended a common core curriculum for all undergraduate majors, including pre-professional students and prospective high school teachers (31:2; 32:2; 33:2), The undergraduate curriculum in biology at Stanford University was substantially revised in 1963 (73:17). A "core" of material spanning all levels of biology, including molecular and population biology, was offered to majors. The commissioners of CUEBS considered recommending a change because the content of the curricula had fallen far behind the discoveries being made in biological research, and in 1965 CUEBS assigned the Panel on Undergraduate Major Curricula (PUMC) to define the specific content of a core curriculum (58:1). The Panel collected data from a sample of four selected institutions of higher education in the United States by making an in-depth analysis of the biological science curricula offered at these institutions. 65 The following two recommendations were of immediate interest to this study: (1) that the common or "core" preparation for biologists in any specialty be extended over a minimum of two years . . . and that this common set of courses be taken in a fixed sequence, so as to allow instructors in successive courses to build logically on what precedes, and (2) that the content of the curriculum be carefully balanced to cover . . . fundamental biological concepts . . . including all levels of biological complexity, i.e., structure- function relationships, growth and development, the nature of hereditary transmission, the molecular basis of energetics, synthesis and metabolic control, the relationship of organisms to one another and to their environment, and the behavior of populations in space and time— especially in reference to evolution. (58:31) The Panel showed that the current development of biological science core curriculum at the four institutions studied (Dartmouth College, North Carolina State University, Purdue University, and Stanford University) was charac- terized by the following conclusions (58:29): (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 specialties. This is designated the ’core curriculum;' (2) The Titles and content of these courses vary widely and depart considerably from traditional biology courses; (3) Although no preferred course pattern is apparent, it is clear that a primary factor in restructuring 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) There is a general departure from earlier curricula in placing greater emphasis on molecular, cellular, and population biology at the expense of organismal biology. However, the developmental and physiological aspects of organismal biology continue to be strongly represented; (6) The relatively greater emphasis on molecular, cellular, and population biology necessitates increased collateral preparation in mathematics, physics, and chemistry; 66 and (7) Within general categories of information there is much variation in specifics, but there is less variation in cellular and molecular biology than in other areas. Even though the PUMC study applied primarily to a core curriculum for biology majors in four year institu tions, undoubtedly its recommendations will influence in some measure curriculum planning of the general education biological science courses for non-majors. The recom mendation of one course for majors and non-majors will be taken up later. As a design, according to one authority, core curricular programs attempt to promote greater integration of learning by unifying subject matter. Generally, core curricula use broad units, more flexible and freer instructional procedures, and a great variety of learning experiences (22:410). Core programs are not new in education. One critic pointed to their failure to offer significant and systematic knowledge (22:410). Another source identified the attitude of instructors and coordination of the program as two of the most important factors influencing their success (68:16). If implementation of the program consists of assigning a group of teachers representing subject areas to different facets of the core program, then the new combination will be effective only if the new organization is coordinated and if the instructors are sufficiently 67 steeped in the academic discipline. The recommendation of the PUMC study for "a carefully balanced curriculum covering fundamental biological concepts" (58:31) cannot be ignored, nor can the recommendation of CUEBS (33:8) that "all undergraduate majors regardless of their future specialization would profit from having taken a common core of biological science courses." These positions were endorsed for all college students by the Panel on Biology in Two-Year Colleges through its recommendation, "All college students should take one year of biological sciences, preferably a core biology course" (78:4). A shift in courses and curricula.— The traditional introductory courses in zoology at the University of California at Los Angeles were offered for the last time in the school year 1963-1964 (49:618). The new courses were similar to those offered at the other campuses of the University of California and at other colleges and universities. Two introductory biology courses which were designated as Biology 1A and IB were offered for the first time in the academic year 1964-1965. Zoology 1A and IB and Botany 1 and 2 were replaced by Biology 1A and IB. The latter were entered in the General Catalog of the University of California at Los Angeles (1964, p. 210) as biology, with a cross-reference to bacteriology, botany 68 zoology and other sciences, as well as for premedical and predental students. The course was given for three hours of lecture and six hours of laboratory per week for five units of semester hours credit (49:620). According to an evaluative study of this program by Rozolis (49:620) the greatest weakness of the traditional zoology courses at UCLA was their traditional approach with facts and details— almost to the exclusion of unifying principles. Both science and non-science majors took them, and it was found that the course of instruction generally was directed at the average student (49:620). With respect to emphasis, the new biology courses will stress the entire discipline of biological sciences with more emphasis directed toward botany and bacteriology, with much less orientation given to zoology (49:625). Rozolis questioned 19 professors at the University of California regarding the biology core curriculum, and found that 32 per cent of those questioned thought that the new core program at the University of California at Los Angeles was more prescribed than the former (50:704); although they felt it insured that students would be exposed to at least a minimum amount of information in essential subjects. Despite the suggested advantages, Rozolis reported that 52 per cent of the professors felt that the unnecessarily restrictive nature of the core curriculum was its greatest weakness (50:703). They 69 thought it demanded too much time from the students, preventing them from taking courses in other fields and departments. The controversy between "modern biology" versus "traditional botany and zoology" was noted (34:7; 45:105). The classic division between the two organismally oriented courses such as botany and zoology has been eroded by current integrated biology courses which are organized and integrated generally around microbiology, biochemistry, physiology, ecology, genetics, et cetera (54:20-33; 55:11-20; 68:15). The classic and traditional recounting of the morphological theme was challenged as being irrelevant for beginning students. This change was influenced by the ascending popularity of the experimental analytical disciplines, such as genetics, physiology, and morphogenesis; in addition to the increasing acceptance of the interdisciplinary approach found in ecology, biochemistry, biophysics, behavioral sciences, and molecular biology (73; 13:109; 43:360). The interdisciplinary or integrative approach ; designed for secondary schools by the Biological Science Curriculum study was a good example of the new biology curricula (13:159; 43:356). Three different textbooks were developed around three distinct themes: (1) biochemical and molecular approach; (2) cellular approach; or (3) ecological approach. Emphasis was placed upon 70 investigation rather than description. While it may be too early to make a valid assessment of the effects of BSCS programs, it was noteworthy as an organized attempt to change a traditional curriculum. Although it was not directly related to California, the following recommendations made for undergraduate education in biology at South Dakota State University served as a good example of institutional reaction to the changing emphases of biology curricula (34:7): (1) The presentation of an eight semester hour introductory General Biology course as a prere quisite for all upper division life science courses. This course would satisfy the biological science requirement for those curricula requiring eight or less semester hours of such science and will replace the two semester sequences of introductory Botany and Zoology; (2) A biological science entrance examination to be given to all entering freshmen. Students failing the entrance examination would be permitted to register for General Biology only after completing a semester of Inorganic Chemistry. This provision is aimed at reducing the attrition rate which has been experienced in the General Biology courses (six credits) which have been taught at South Dakota State for the past two years; (3) The adoption of a five semester biological science core, the second year courses being optional with departments offering major curricula in a biological science; (4) The adoption of a curriculum in biology, as distinct from those continuing to be offered in botany and zoology; (5) The centralization of authority and responsibility for undergraduate instruction in biology into a Division of Biology. (34:7) 71 General education botany and zoology courses.— Although it was shown that biology was offered more often than botany or zoology, dissenting opinion against the trend still can be found. According to one source, a general elementary zoology (or a general elementary botany) course was not a particularly useful experience for the student, but a general course in biology could be less valuable (29:733) . The author reasoned whatever aspect of life science originally appealed to a student, it might be omitted or be treated lightly in a general (integrated) biology course given in a large lecture section. Smaller classes and courses (preferably general elementary botany or zoology) which cover the subject in more depth were recommended. Place of the laboratory.— There was general agreement that the laboratory experience was the most important part of any introductory biology course (55:26; 17:10; 43:361; 16:18; 5). One source strongly endorsed laboratory for all biology courses pointing out that better understanding takes place when the laboratory is integrated with the lectures (57:48). At some larger institutions it is typical for graduate students to handle the laboratory portion of the course. The laboratory is used in the newer courses as a means of discovery, not just as a verification of what is presented in the 72 textbook. The laboratory experience is designed to enhance the motivation of the students as well as exposing them to the processes by which scientific information is gathered (17:10) . In addition, laboratory procedures give students a familiarity (with varying degrees of sophis tication) with many tools and techniques of science— the microscope, microtome, physiograph, Kymograph, pHmeters, et cetera (55:28). The concentration on the nature of scientific inquiry was considered as an important counterforce against the confusion as to the aims and processes of science. Placement examinations.— By its very nature, a public community junior college should accept anyone over J eighteen years of age who could profit from the experience, j It should provide curricula appropriate to the needs of a {wide variety of students. If this institution is to serve its functions of "democratizing higher education," it must continue to offer strong lower division curricula to prepare its qualified students for advanced study (24:150). Means should be used in directing students toward making realistic choices of courses, programs, goals. Placement examinations are used by counseling personnel to aid students in making these necessary decisions. The "Panel on Biology in the Two-Year College" had recommended that, 73 . . . all students entering a biologically oriented occupation curriculum (should) take a placement examination covering biological principles to determine their placement in either a general biology course or more specialized courses. Those who are not successful in such an examination should be required to take a principles oriented biology course before taking a more specialized biological science course. Such a basic course should be laboratory oriented. (78:4) One course for majors and non-majors .---Should a separate biological science course be offered including majors and non-majors, or should at least two introductory courses be offered, one for majors and the other for non-majors? Opinions regarding these questions vary in relation to the attitudes of instructors and to the diversity among institutions. With the interdisciplinary trend in vogue, some institutions are now covering all of the introductory science courses in one comprehensive, integrated sequence required of both majors and non-majors (68:16). These courses follow a conventional format using blocks of subject matter from mathematics and the physical sciences before commencing the life sciences. At the University of California at Berkeley general education students who are not majoring in science will be offered an integrated contemporary natural science (CNS) course (73:22). Courses of this type can be of value to the student who is interested in following a sequence dictated by subject matter rather than an arbitrary, overlapping or disjointed 74 sequence. The molecular biologists favor these courses because every student in the biology sequence would have received a controlled prior exposure to the physical sciences (68:16). The "Panel on Biology in the Two-Year College" concluded that all college students should take one year of biological sciences, preferably a core biology course, yet a minority felt at least two introductory courses should be offered— one for majors and the other for non-majors (78:4). The Commissioners of CUEBS have strongly recommended one course for both majors and non majors. Although this recommendation was shared by the majority of participants in the "Colloquium on Biology in a Liberal Education," which was held between August 2 and 13, 1965, at Stanford University, the opinion depended on the belief that the one course should not be a "traditional" phylogenetic approach which stressed rote memorization of animal and plant taxonomy (55:34). It was felt that non-science majors should receive, in their one year exposure to biological sciences, an appreciation of the scope, history, and philosophy of biology, in addition to its current problems and probable future (55:34). Others have felt majors should take the specialized aspects of biology now taught in introductory courses at some later date; and that non-majors should not be exposed to the same course 75 traditionally given to the majors, but rather, they should receive a newly designed course (55:35). It was pointed out that some institutions simply cannot offer two different courses because of staff limitations (55:42). For example, Rockwell reported that junior colleges with enrollments under 500 students were at a distinct disadvantage in their offerings of transfer and terminal curricula and courses (76:210). Another source suggested that separate courses were necessary in junior colleges because of differences in student backgrounds and objectives (55:48). Others have felt that where two similar courses were offered side by side, one for majors and one for non-majors, the latter course inevitably became a watered down version of the other (55:42; 42:297). Biologists, according to one authority (42:299), were missing a great opportunity, for they should teach the non-majors in the same way and with the same enthusiasm as the majors. "Biology at the Freshman and Sophomore Levels" was the topic of a conference on biological science curriculum held on April 1 and 2, 1966 at the Center for Continuing Education at the University of Georgia. Each of the seventeen four year and seven, two year institutions in the University System were represented. A total of 55 biologists participated and made the following recom mendations : 76 The groups agreed that there should be one two-quarter (10 quarter hour) introductory, laboratory oriented biology sequence for majors and non-majors alike. The specific organization of this sequence should be left to individual institutions; however, the following topics should be included: structural, developmental, organisman, cellular, genetic, evolutionary, environ mental, molecular, and behavioral biology. The group specifically recommended that non-laboratory and single quarter terminal courses be dropped from all curricula. (35:17) The problem of offering a separate biology course for the non major was studied by CUEBS through the "Panel on Biology in a Liberal Education." After examining the separate course concept, the possibility of offering a junior-senior non-recruiting biology course was proposed. The suggested new course differed from the regular introductory course for majors. It was recommended because it would eliminate the danger of being a watered down course. By making the course open only to juniors and seniors, it was felt there would be no pressure to include subject matter deemed essential for any further work in the field. (54:8) To ascertain the feasibility and advisability of the proposed upper level course for non-majors, letters were sent by the Panel on November 10, 1966,to 110 distinguished biologists for their reactions to the proposal. Better than 60 per cent responded to the survey. Although a variety of opinions were gathered, at least it was generally conceded it would have been inadvisable at this point to recommend any one course as being 77 universally satisfactory (54:79) . The Panel intends to continue its work on the problem of biology in a liberal arts education. A separate course for non-majors offered only in the upper division certainly would have important implications for the California community junior colleges. Although a clear cut consensus regarding one course for both majors and non-majors was not reached, the discussion illustrates the diverse nature of the problem at the present time and the various opinions, studies and institutions involved. At present, biology majors are required to take courses in physical sciences, mathematics, and various courses in life sciences before complete submergence in one specialty is encouraged (68:15). Junior college students majoring in biology should be alerted to the specific institutional requirements before transferring I to another institution of higher education. High school biology.— Many educators have questioned the nature of the effect or the kind of influence BSCS program high school programs will have upon the biological science courses offered in higher education (55:8-10; 40:639; 73:4; 13:239; 43:359). In the opinion of some, the BSCS program will produce changes in the biological sciences in higher education (43:360; 17:107; 53:148). Others have suggested 78 that certain secondary school courses were equal or superior to the introductory college courses offered at some four year institutions, although the number of such courses and teachers capable of teaching them was thought to be still quite limited (55:8; 42:297). The College Board Biology Examination reflected no significant differences between BSCS students and non-BSCS students (53:148) . Some biologists believed that the impact of BSCS materials had not yet been felt at the college level (55:8; 47:368). The Rozolis study concluded that although it may be too early to make a relative assessment of the college success either as an undergraduate or graduate of those who have taken the BSCS program in high school, it was the unanimous opinion of his sampling that a good biology background was not synonymous with BSCS and that any observable superior training was more properly attributable to the quality of instruction in high school, rather than to the subject matter or curriculum (50:706). Articulation and Sequential Planning Articulation is related to the coordination of the state-wide resources in making equitable the opportunities for higher education. It involves students, curriculum and instruction, student personnel services, facilities, and procedures for articulation. The problems in the area 79 of curriculum and instruction include the acceptance of transfer credit, the coordination of methods and materials in teaching, grading standards, course and classroom experimentation, and the preparation of teachers. They are related to such questions as these: What type of admission standards for transfer students are most appropriate in achieving articulation objectives? How much faculty and/or institutional autonomy in matters of curriculum and instruction is possible in a highly coordinated system of higher education? Who will do it? In his study, Rockwell reported that the majority of the junior colleges were aware of and attempted to plan their course offerings cooperatively with other junior colleges and four year colleges, although such cooperation existed mostly on an informal basis (76:208). In addition, Rockwell found unanimous agreement among the adminis trators who affirmed the right of junior colleges to i j determine the appropriateness of a new course or curri culum at the local level (76:211). Transfer function.— Preparation for advanced study of the "transfer function" is one of the oldest and best understood functions of the junior college. Transfer courses attract the largest number of regular students to the community junior colleges. According to several sources, about 66 per cent of the beginning students 80 declared at entrance that their purpose in attending junior colleges was to prepare for advanced standing, but only approximately 33 per cent actually do continue advanced study (2:79,80; 18:90-96,112; 23:153). Although junior colleges focus more on the transfer than on other functions (18:112; 76:213; 23:234) junior college educators are sensitive to this differential. Thornton (23:282) pointed out that the issue of an "open door" admission policy obligates the institution to provide a wide range of courses and careful guidance. In addition, he recommended that in-depth persuasive coun seling should be made available to help students distinguish among colleges and to help them choose realistic objectives. Nelson (76:25) emphasized the importance of cooperative planning among the institutions of higher education in order to derive the most effective personnel services. The transfer function is important because of the opportunities for higher education it makes available to students and because more and more junior college students are being admitted to the other two segments of higher education with advanced standing. But as the number of institutions increase, the problems of coordination and articulation become more complex (76:26). The transfer function may be pointless if junior college students have a low probability of succeeding in 81 upper division. Numerous studies have been made on the performance of transfer students and have generally agreed with the findings of Bird (2:85): 1. Junior college students usually experience some drop in grade point average in their first term after transfer, below the cumulative average they earned in junior college. The grades of the students who persist in the four-year colleges generally improve in successive terms after transfer. 2. Junior college students do less well than native students in their first term in the upper division, but the differential between the two groups decreases in successive terms. 3. Attrition tends to be higher for junior college transfer students in upper division than for native students who persist to the junior year. 4. Junior college transfer students often require more time than native students to complete their baccalaureate degree programs. Maintenance of standards and effective preparation must be safeguarded, but too frequently, according to Thornton (23:65), this safeguarding has resulted in "unnecessary and hampering restriction on the right of the junior college to develop its own program." The academic success of transfer students was reported by Knoell and Medsker (15:4) who made a national j study beginning in 1960 of the achievement of 4,026 ! junior college transfer students who graduated in 1962 by comparing them with 3,349 native students who graduated also in 1962. In addition to the transfer function, the study addressed itself to the problems of student 82 characteristics and articulation between the two year and four year colleges. They made the following assumptions to their study: 1. Students going to junior colleges are probably different from those attending four-year institu tions as freshmen, in their socioeconomic characteristics, intellectual disposition, occupational interests, and ability to do college work. 2. Junior college grading standards may (and perhaps should) be different from those of many four-year colleges because of differences in the students whom they serve and in the objectives they are expected to achieve. 3. The junior college should not be a carbon copy of the lower division of the state university or any other four-year institution. Instead, each junior college should create the best possible program to prepare transfer students for upper division work in a multiplicity of four-year institutions, and to give those students who do not transfer a general education experience of high quality. Knoell and Medsker concluded that cumulative averages at four year colleges were generally lower than the junior college averages but reflected steady improve ment following the first term loss immediately after transfer. Also, they found the increases in the term averages were the result of both attrition among the poorer students and improvement on the part of the students who persisted (15:178). Institutional integrity, open door admission policy, diverse curriculum, articulation and communication with four year colleges, guidance and counseling, grading standards, prerequisites, student characteristics all 83 were identified as issues concerned with the transfer function of junior colleges (2:79-93; 18:53; 46:26; 23:65). Problems of articulation.— By its very nature education is subject to growth and change, and because of this, it is important to provide for good articulation machinery. Planning for transfer presents many problems, several of which are rooted in inadequate communications among institutions. Thornton (23:281) referred to the perennial articulation problem as a concern of the receiving college for the transfer student to be fully prepared to compete with the "native" students, and as an equal concern of the junior college that none of its transfer students or courses were inferior to those of the four year institu tions . According to Nelson (46:26), as the number of two year and four year colleges increases, the problem of coordinating curriculum developments gets more complicated. Medsker (18:33) referred to the differences in requirements among four year institutions which made it difficult for the two year colleges, and particularly the smaller ones, ! i to offer a sufficient variety of courses appropriate to the needs of all transfer students. Nelson (46:26) identified the difficulty experienced by a junior college in coordinating its curriculum with that of six or eight 84 senior institutions, especially if each of the latter insisted upon one-for-one correspondence with its programs. Different purposes and programs call for different standards, and according to Fields (11:309), junior colleges risk losing their uniqueness if their objectives are minimized or frowned upon. He suggested in evaluating transfer of credit, cooperation should be the order of the day. The reluctance of some four year institutions to accept courses in the same field but different from the specific one which they require, according to Medsker (18:53), often forces the two year college into a pattern identical with the four year institution. Others suggested that different standards and rigidity of requirements tend to hamper the development of junior college transfer programs (2:86; 24:65). Bird (2:86) identified various factors which i j contributed to the communication problem as: i . . . the lag in keeping junior colleges informed of changes in programs and policies of senior colleges; the slow transmittal to the teaching faculty of knowledge of agreements reached on the administrative level; the too-little exchange of meaningful data on the characteristics of the students in the two-types of institutions. I While there are no quick, patent solutions to articulation problems, nevertheless, good articulation requires a systematic means of communicating information. According to Bird (2:88) and Nelson (46:26), mutual respect and understanding constitute constructive forces 85 for the improvement of articulation. There may be more than one way to fulfill an educational objective. Institutions need not be imitative. The principle of "equivalence" as contrasted to strict "parallelism" is the one accepted and practiced in many institutions (2:89) . Where sound educational policies exist for cooperation, and where well thought out machinery for liaison operates, according to Bird (2:93), good articulation will take place. According to Knoell and Medsker, California and Florida appeared to have the most complete models for articulation of any of the ten states in their study (15:78). The California model was not presented as ideal or unique, but rather as a complex set of machinery for voluntary articulation. It differs from the Florida model because it is not a legally constituted coordinating agency. The heart of the California model is the Articulation Conference. It was established in 1944, many years before the creation of the Coordinating Council for Higher Education. The California Articulation Conference is a quadripartite group of representatives appointed by the California Junior College Association, the Association of Secondary School Administrators, the state colleges, and the state university (15:79). Additional participants 86 may include staff from the State Department of Education and the Coordinating Council for Higher Education. Although the organization has been subjected to consider able self study and critical evaluation recently, Knoell and Medsker assumed it would retain its major function as a forum and clearinghouse for a wide range of articulation problems (15:80). In addition, both the University of California and state colleges perform certain articulation functions independently with high schools and junior colleges. Bird (2:93) recommended the following procedures as a model of good machinery for continuous coordination: 1. Adequate provisions should be insured for the clearest and fullest possible mutual understanding in junior college and senior college of similar ities and differences in their functions, in the nature of their instruction, and similarities and differences in the characteristics of their students. 2. Policies governing transfer and acceptability of transfer credit should be jointly developed . . . 3. Continuing organized machinery for cooperation should exist. . . . The machinery should provide for the participation of teachers, counselors, and administrators. 4. Both institutions should make periodic evaluations of their transfer students. Not only the performance of the students but the students themselves should be a party to the evaluation. Gates (63:39) extended these recommendations, with special interest in science education in mind, as follows: 1. There should be better communication and under standing among science faculties among institutions 87 of higher learning, also using both formal and informal methods. 2. Junior college faculty members should participate in professional organizations and become involved in the solutions of problems germane to both types of institutions. A second area of articulation concern is between high schools and community junior colleges. Thornton pointed out that constant communication would help to resolve conflicts of interest and would enhance sequential progress of learning experiences (24:279). Rozolis (50:707) referred to the conclusion of the professors in his study regarding their belief that the most effective communication between the University of California at Los Angeles and high schools was between and through teachers. It was evident that the various types of institutions were sensitive to the problems of the transfer students. Although the suggested guidelines do not represent solutions to all the problems, if they are followed in the context of mutual respect and understanding, they may constitute a constructive force for the improvement of articulation (2:88; 46:26). Sequential planning.— According to Taba (22:292), classical problems of organizing the curriculum have been those of establishing a sequence, of cumulative learning or continuity, and of integration. Sequence was referred to as putting the content and materials of the curriculum 88 into some order of succession. Leonard (65:70) posed three related problems; "what should determine the order of succession of materials of instruction, what follows what and why, and what is the most propitious time to acquire certain learning?" Planning learning sequences requires organizing content as well as a sequence of reactions, behaviors, or learning experiences. Gardner suggested that when priorities were established in the selection of educational experiences it was not clear on what basis they were selected (12:86). When the curriculum is considered as a plan for learning and not merely as a plan for communicating content, then sequential planning takes on additional importance. In discussing the planning of learning experiences, Tyler (52:27) listed the following ten conditions for effective learning: 1. The student must have experiences that give him an opportunity to practice the kind of behavior implied by the objective; 2. The learning experiences must be such that the student obtains satisfactions from carrying on the| kind of behavior implied by the objective; 3. The motivation of the learner, that is, the impelling force for his own active involvement, is an important condition; 4. Another condition is that the learner finds his previous ways of reacting unsatisfactory, so that he is stimulated to try new ways; 5. The learner should have some guidance in trying to carry on the new behavior he is to learn; 89 6. The learner should have ample and appropriate materials on which to work; 7. The learner should have time to carry on the behavior, to practice it until it has become part of his repertoire; 8. The learner should have opportunity for a good deal of sequential practice. Mere repetition is inadequate and quickly becomes ineffective; 9. Another condition is for each learner to set standards for himself that require him to go beyond his performance, but standards that are attainable; 10. The tenth, related to the ninth, is that to continue learning beyond the time when a teacher is available, the learner must have means of judging his performance to be able to tell how well he is doing. Without these means, his standards are of no utility. Educational leaders have accepted the hypothesis that with scientific planning of sequences, formal learning can develop much earlier than has been indicated by Piaget. Yet, outside of the national curriculum studies, little has been done toward developing curricula with sequential learning experiences through the various levels of education. As an unresolved problem in science education, Hurd (13:236) noted the increased demand for collegiate i education created an apparent need to plan the biology curriculum from the first through the sixteenth year of school. Mayer (43:361) noted the creation of more biology departments today at the collegiate level, and suggested that subject matter should be integrated into meaningful 90 and truly integrated biological sciences. He suggested further that we should look forward to a science program that begins in kindergarten and carries a student beyond the post-doctoral, if he so desires. In the offing, according to Mayer (43:361), "is a non-repetitive integrated sequence of scientific experiences each appropriate for the grade level concerned, each building on the one before and leading to one after, . . . providing science— first for the citizen and secondarily, at a later stage, for the teacher and the professional." The author assumed that general education was one of the main objectives of science education and because of this, sequential planning should be of great importance. Nanney (45:105) blamed "institutional inertia" as the reason why we have not resolved what should be taught. The author noted that even if we could agree today on the proper content for biological curricula, on the most appropriate sequencing of subjects, on the most ideal packaging of biologists into administrative units, and on the best techniques and laboratory facilities for instruction, years would probably elapse before the desired changes were effected. Nanney (45:105) suggested developing a new institutional pattern designed not for stability, but for flexibility, one which was capable of changing systematically and sensitively as a discipline develops. 91 Combining subjects is not the only way of integrating learning. Taba (22:301) noted that much could be accomplished toward integrating learning by developing more consistent patterns of thinking in the various subjects, by stressing broad concepts, and by guiding students through a consistent framework for understanding the use of these concepts within the disciplines. Noting that existing patterns of organization in colleges and universities were numerous and quite different, Dressel (9:55) considered the problem of sequential planning by stating: Variations in requirements in college curriculums and among colleges, combined with the cafeteria pattern of course offerings at the various levels, makes sequential planning nearly impossible for all but the minority of students preparing for specific programs in specific colleges. The discounting of rigorous academic admission requirements has some basis in research, but it has also some disadvantages. The able student, who used his freedom of choice in high school to avoid some of the basic disciplines of science, mathematics, or foreign language has thereby lost much of his freedom of choice in problem of disjunction between the first two years and the last two years increases. Junior colleges cannot be expected to offer all the specialized work of freshman and sophomore years required by various vocational programs offered in the colleges and universities. If, by general agreement, a limited number of basic departmental introductory courses were offered in the freshman and sophomore years, the quality of the work could be considerably improved and the student would be insured of a sequential educational program as he moves from the junior to senior college. 92 Core curricula for public junior colleges in Texas.— Articulation and sequential planning can be accomplished in a variety of ways. As an example of a curricular organization between two year and four year institutions, the pattern of core curricula in Texas was of concern to this study. In carrying out its transfer function, the junior college in Texas was directed to give primary emphasis to the implementation of core curricula adopted by the "Coordinating Board" in October, 1967 (60:1). Evaluation and approval of "collegiate transfer academic curricula" at the state level would be the responsibility of the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System. A special liaison advisory committee with representation from both "junior and senior institutions" was established for this function (60:3). The statute (Section 10 (8) of House Bill No. 1 of the 59th Legislature) creating the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System, directed to the Board to develop a . . . basic core of general academic courses which, when offered at a junior college during the first two years of collegiate study, shall be freely transferable among all public institutions of higher education in Texas who are members of recognized accrediting agencies on the same basis as if the work had been taken at the receiving institution. (60:3) The core curricula were implemented in Texas by the following statutory provisions: 93 To be eligible for and to receive an appropriation, a public junior college must— comply with the following provisions: The standards of instruction in the courses of study of each Public Junior College shall be equivalent to the standards maintained in the accredited four-year State-supported institutions of higher learning. Only student semester hours of enrollment in courses similar in content to those offered by one or more of said four-year institutions and which meet the standards of such four-year institutions, shall be counted in determining the number of 'full-time student equivalent' being hereby defined as fifteen (15) semester hours of such enrollment. (59:vii) Without a doubt, this system promoted close coordination between two year and four year colleges. The form of liaison machinery was prescribed and provided for continuous effort. Yet, there was no evidence that it provided a procedure whereby teachers and administrators in both types of institutions could get together to work on the resolution of common problems. National Curriculum Commission.— Coordination could be extended to the national level. Hanna (41:25) and Tyler (51:76) agreed that because school programs were becoming too diverse and chaotic, a national effort should be exerted to establish main outlines and patterns for curriculum development. In essence, a national curriculum commission was suggested. It was not clear how junior colleges would fit into this scheme. 94 General Education There are many statements on general education. Several writers agreed with the statement by Thornton (25:199) that programs of general education were "specifically designed to prepare young people for the responsibilities which they share in common as citizens in a free society and for wholesome and creative participation in a wide range of life activities"(4:60; 14:21-22; 18:62-63). The problem of meeting the needs of an unusually wide and heterogeneous range of student population was of concern. According to Fields (11:320), if junior colleges were to be effective in meeting this challenge, they should develop different general education programs for a variety of students. Johnson found that California junior colleges used many and diverse plans for meeting the needs of individual students (14:388-389). He emphasized the importance of each individual student and of providing a program adapted to his particular needs. This was considered more important than the development of particular devices and uncoordinated efforts. Role of biology in general education.— The role of biology in general education has been emphasized by numerous authorities. Muller suggested that biology even more than physical sciences was instructive to students in 95 general in illustrating the nature of scientific inquiry in its broadest sense (19:22-30). General education biology for the non-science major should enable the student to develop certain competencies, although there was no agreement as to what the course should be like (54:75). Others have suggested that it should enable the student to make observations, collect and analyze data, and it should assist him in developing an appreciation and understanding of the principles and concepts which characterize the scientific processes (70:34; 72:155). No one curriculum was recommended (16:18). Courses should be designed so as to meet the needs and capabilities of students of different ages and of different prospective professional careers (16:18). During 1965-1966, the National Science Teachers Association's Commission on the Education of Teachers of Science held four conferences on science education in junior colleges. Among various conclusions drawn, the following objectives for science in general education for non-science majors were developed and are listed as follows (70:35): 1. To help students see and comprehend the scientific phenomena about them, 2. To show how scientists arrive at their views and to instill in students the means of applying these methods to daily problem solving, questioning, and inquiry, 3. To present the effect of science upon our society. 96 4. To recognize the basic unity of science by introducing inter disciplinary approaches whenever possible, 5. To show and to develop an appreciation for the aesthetic values inherent in the field of science. In essence, general education science for the non-science major consists of a core of experiences, principles, and competencies which relate science to daily living and which make the student an informed citizen (70:37). In addition, the problem of developing curricula appropriate to goals and objectives of a diverse student body should be considered. Such a program requires faculty preparation and training, facilities, liaison with other institutions, and patterns of course offerings which will meet the general education objectives (70:36). Thornton (25:139) summarized by stating, "the problem, then, is one of making the most efficient use of the common concern and varying abilities of the student, the adult citizen, the faculty member, and the administrator, in devising a program of general education which will truly serve both social and individual needs." Practices Related to Students A study of biological sciences in California junior colleges would not be complete without some information and understanding of the students who enroll in these courses. According to Thornton, unless the institution defines the 97 group it plans to serve, it may not escape the possibility of offering a partial or inappropriate education (24:147). Therefore, a statement regarding characteristics of junior college students was considered important before deliberating on curricular practices. Characteristics of junior college student.--Despite the inconsistencies in the data concerning the charac teristics of junior college students, several distinguish ing facts seemed to stand out. Medsker suggested that there was no stereotyped student body in the two year college (18:49). Fields (11:80), Blocker, et al. (3:106), and Thornton (23:147) agreed with Medsker (18:49) in pointing out that there was a diversity of junior college student bodies in terms of aptitude, socioeconomic background, marital status, sex, and age range. Another source described the junior college student in the following way: He is . . . not strongly attracted to the junior college. He is older than the general run of college student, and a product of a lower socioeconomic stratum. Probabilities are that he is less able (in the academic sense), less mobile (in the geographic sense) and less motivated to pursue graduate studies. (67:88) Because of what Fields (11:80) referred to as the greater "academic heterogeneity in the student body of the community college," Medsker (18:49) suggested that "the diversity of programs in the junior college must provide opportunity for the widely varying levels of ability." Junior colleges would have to operate as comprehensive institutions to fulfill such purposes. Counseling and advisement.— Many agree with Medsker regarding the importance of counseling and guidance services for junior college students with different abilities and backgrounds (18:50). Special assistance is needed to help the students in ascertaining appropriate and realistic occupational and academic goals. Guidance and counseling personnel need to be aware of the alternatives for their counselees as well as having up-to- date information on the requirements for transferring to four year institutions. According to Nelson, the evaluation of transfer courses is of prime importance to those junior college students who plan upon transferring (46:25). The student was poorly served if he took a course because he was advised that it would meet a specific requirement at the four year institution, and then found out upon transfer that the course evaluation did not substantiate this advice. California junior colleges use many plans for meeting the general education needs of individual students according to Johnson (14:388-389). Because of the wide 99 and heterogeneous range of student population served, the problem of meeting their needs with an appropriate curriculum demands attention. Evaluating the counseling and advisement function, Knoell and Medsker found that transfer students gave less favorable ratings to counseling and academic advisement they received in junior college compared to the other aspects of the instructional program (15:64). It was felt that the counseling and/or advising received was infrequent and too short, rather than poor services received (15:64). Most writers felt that qualified personnel were needed for this service. In addition, professional people in various science fields should be consulted for information. One group suggested that there should be more national, regional, and state conferences, workshops, and institutes on career information for counselors and faculty advisors; and that some should be sponsored by the junior colleges for junior college personnel (63:39). Importance of studying biology.— According to Gardner, since Sputnik, priorities are being established by assigning more time to science, foreign languages, and mathematics on the grounds that scientific and mathematical literacy was needed in a technological culture and that competition with Russia required that we develop more scientists and technicians (12:86-87). 100 Authorities have agreed that all students should study or at least have some knowledge of biological sciences. One authority, from an international point of view, stated that adequate instruction in biology was of particular national importance at this time in history (16:12-13). While chemistry was perhaps the science of the twenties and physics that of the forties and fifties, that author was convinced that biology will be the science of the seventies and eighties. The National Science for the Study of Education devoted its Fifty-Ninth Yearbook to the problems of science education and the purposes of science education are reassessed in light of the increasing significance of science in our culture (1). Biology has undergone dramatic changes and fundamental changes in emphases (45:104). According to Glass, the biology actually being taught is twenty years behind the advancing front of science, and in important respects is a full century in arrears (38:18). Because of the profound change in the discipline, Nanney suggested that our teaching must change, our institutions must change, and we ourselves must change (45:107). In a study of 350 junior colleges in the United States and its possessions, Pollock found that biology courses were included in the curriculum of 94 per cent of the responding schools of his sampling (48:624) . This appears to be consistent with the recommendation that all 101 junior colleges should offer biology courses, which would make it convenient for junior college students to take biology. In addition, these results strengthen the case for recommending that appropriate credit in biology be required for an Associate in Arts degree (78:9). If all students attending junior colleges took biological science courses, still to be resolved will be the problem of multitrack courses for students with different educational objectives; and the problem of determining which experiences in biology would be most appropriate for the vocationally oriented students? Feedback from students.— In his study of sixty-one public junior colleges in California, Rockwell reported only a minority of junior colleges made follow-up studies of their graduates (76:209). Knoell and Medsker found that very few transfer students at four year institutions had ever been approached by their junior colleges for interviews (15:84). Most students felt they could have made specific suggestions to help other students in transferring to their four year j colleges. It was pointed out that the students felt their junior colleges did not lack interest in their transfer experiences but merely failed to have any systematic procedure for following up their transfer students (15:84). According to one authority, the primary problem 102 faced by the comprehensive community junior college was to provide a comprehensive curriculum challenging students with widely diverse abilities, backgrounds, and objectives to grow toward the limits of their respective potentials (3:131) . Characteristics of the Faculty Faculty and administration of any institution influence the nature and quality of the educational program. They are the primary agents of curriculum development, the instructional program, services to students, and community relationships (3:148; 18:169). Authorities have agreed that the junior college faculty need versatility beyond academic or technical competence. Dealing with a student body with a wide range of student abilities, interests, and backgrounds than his colleague in four year institutions, the typical junior college instructor must be both an academic advisor and teacher (67:7; 18:170). Junior colleges emphasize quality instruction. In his sampling of four different community junior colleges, Fields concluded that community junior college staffs generally were well prepared in their teaching fields (11:253). Pollock pointed out in his study that the average junior college biology instructor had a sound and diversified teaching experience (48:625) . 103 Academic attainment.— Data were available on the extent of academic preparation of junior college faculty members. Various studies have been made on this subject and they have shown a steady increase in doctorates and master’s degrees and a corresponding decline in the bachelor's (67:74). See Table 7 for data pertaining to this item. Thornton reported on the findings of a study of academic and professional qualifications and found that the master's degree was almost universal requirement for employment in junior colleges except in certain special fields (23:135). A registry of junior college science and mathematics teachers was established through two studies made by the American Association of Junior Colleges and sponsored by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Data were compiled from the academic years of fall 1963-1964 and i spring of 1965-1966 (67:63) . In terms of academic attainment, most junior college science teachers (70.5 per cent) were found to hold master’s degrees; fewer than one in ten held the doctorate and about one in seven held baccalaureates (67:64). General faculty responsibilities in junior colleges.— Blocker, et al., reported on a study which showed that most junior college instructors were assigned Table 7.— Highest earned degree of junior 1918-19 college faculty to 1964 (67:74) : selected years (and studies) > Year of Study Author Doctorate Master's Less than Master 1s Total* 1918-19 McDowell 2.8 39.5 57.8 100 1922-23 Koos 3.0 47.0 50.0 100 1953-54 Covert and Litton 6.3 67.5 26.2 100 1955-56 Colvert and 7 .2 Baker 68.5 24.4 100 1958-59 Medsker 9.7 64.6 23.8 100 1964-65 Brown** 10.8 75.1 14.1 100 *Totals may not equal 100 per cent because of rounding **Newly hired faculty only H O 105 from 12 to 15 hours in classes and from 15 to 20 hours laboratory per week (3:143). On the other hand, Thornton stated that junior college teaching assignments approximate fifteen credit hours per week with some variation between twelve and eighteen hours (23:137). In a study of eleven Minnesota junior colleges, Condell found the teaching loads for instructors in ten of the eleven junior colleges too heavy for effective teaching (74:76). In his study of biology in 350 junior colleges, Pollock reported that the mean class size for biology classes was 41.43 for lecture and 24.42 for laboratory (48:526). Also, he found that about half of the instructor’s time was spent in the laboratory, and he reported that the mean teaching load in biology was 16.50 hours per week and the overall number of daily preparations was 2.37 preparations. On the other hand a recent study recommended equal credit should be given for lecture and laboratory work, hour for hour, for biological science laboratories (57:49). In addition to the limit in clock hours, it was recommended that consideration should be given to the number of preparations and administrative duties, and that extra reimbursement should be given for extra hours. A total of twelve contact hours was recommended— with fifteen as maximum (57:49). In general, it was found that junior college faculty were not required to produce specialized and 106 theoretical research; rather, the focus was upon students and teaching (3:143; 18:180). Regarding research responsibilities, a distinction was made between pure and applied. It was reported that junior college instructors participate generally in such projects as studying teaching materials, student achievement, course structure, and student follow-up studies (3:143). The Panel on Biology in the Two-Year College recommended that biological science faculty in the junior colleges assume responsibility for "productive scholarship" which was defined as professional activity in expanding personal and professional knowledge in order to enhance effective science instruction (78:7). In essence, Fields felt that junior college instructors had considerable experience, many having taught previously in high schools and in other junior colleges (11:253). But he felt that salaries, work loads, and provisions for further scholarly activities needed serious attention (11:253). Faculty attitudes.— In gathering data on faculty attitudes toward their institution, Medsker found "more than ordinary disagreement among staff concerning the role, program, and policies of the two year college, particularly the comprehensive community college" (18:203- 205) . In his study of 691 full-time faculty in 72 107 California public junior colleges, Fitzgerald found a considerable number of the instructional staff was not sympathetic with the generally accepted purposes of the junior college (75:268). On the other hand, Medsker found that faculty were generally in agreement with the concept of the two year college and a great majority were satisfied with their positions on the staff. He found strong agreement among them regarding the fact that the institu tions must perform multiple functions, that the quality of instruction was high, and that the junior college should be administratively autonomous (18:202-203). A study of Blocker and Richardson examined faculty morale in six colleges and found that the lack of faculty understanding of and rapport with students indicated that a substantial proportion of two year college faculty members do not clearly understand or accept the primary functions of the junior college (3:160). Challenge for biological science instructors.— Hanes questioned whether or not junior college biology instructors could keep pace with the sophisticated core curricula in biology, when they must face heavy teaching loads, limited laboratory assistance, and the changing nature of biology (40:639). He referred teacher training, credential requirements, and recruitment as further problems (40:639), and he recommended internship programs 108 and more released time for the instructor to carry on the work necessary for improvement of instruction. Another source pointed out that the whole question of college teacher preparation, particularly in view of the burgeoning junior college growth, was in some need of restudy (68:15). Several writers pointed out that there was still a problem in training and obtaining an adequate number of biology instructors (13:240; 16:18; 67:70). The problem becomes involved as the breadth of biological sciences is considered. The type of science courses junior college instructors become involved in depends upon the compre hensiveness of the junior college program. According to Mathewson, the molecular preoccupation had created the most difficult problem in biological science education (68:15). Lack of preparation could lead to an abandonment of presenting molecular biology. On the other hand, a strong molecular presentation could be made at the expense of coverage of higher levels of organization — the cell, organism, and population (68:15). Nanney felt that it would be futile to attempt to teach all the material taught fifty years ago and every thing discovered since and he felt that value judgments must be rendered (45:106). There was general agreement with Nanney that what was taught in biology (in a narrow factual sense) may be less important than the approach to the discipline (45:106). Also, Nanney suggested that 109 perhaps biology should not be taught as a body of knowledge (a product), but rather that biology is a cultural activity (a process) (45:106). According to Mayer, instruction of biology in the future will require greater cooperation with scientists in the field and with curriculum study groups in preparing classroom materials. Laboratory will become more acceptable and will be used to enhance "inquiry." Students will become more active participants in the educational process and classrooms will become sites of mutual discussion (43:360) . Chapter Summary This chapter has presented a review of the literature pertaining to the problems of biological sciences in California junior colleges. It was indicated that the majority of current periodicals, dissertations, i and books found were either of a general nature concerning curriculum development or science education, or were written with the high school or four year college in mind. Reference was made to general works not dealing exclu- i sively with community junior colleges, although the literature was found applicable to the problems of this study. The chapter was divided into eight sections: The Introduction, Historical Background, Curriculum Trends in 110 Biological Sciences in Junior Colleges, Articulation and Sequential Planning, General Education, Practices Related to Students, Characteristics of the Faculty, and Summary of the Chapter. The literature was especially important to this study because (1) it provided insight and understanding of the problems and previous work in the field, (2) it summarized the current curriculum trends in biological sciences, and (3) it helped in preparing the questionnaire used in the study. There was general agreement in the following recommended practices: 1. All students should study or should at least have some knowledge of biological sciences. 2. Appropriate credit in biological sciences should be required for an Associate in Arts or Associate in Sciences Degree. 3. Biological sciences placement examinations should be given to all students entering junior colleges and especially to those who enter biologically oriented occupational curricula. 4. Biological science majors should take courses in biological sciences in a fixed sequence and extending over approximately two years. 5. Two year colleges should plan the curriculum cooperatively with four year colleges to formulate the Ill context of the introductory biology courses. 6. Emphasis in general education biology courses should be placed upon "discovery" rather than upon "description." 7. Biology curriculum should be administered by a separate department or division in the junior college. 8. An introductory biology course should not be offered without a laboratory experience. Laboratories should be offered with all biology courses. Non-laboratory and single quarter (or semester) courses should be dropped from all curricula. 9. Junior college students majoring in biology should be aware of specific institutional requirements before transferring to a four year institution. 10. Systematic means of communicating information and well thought out machinery for liaison should be implemented to effect a cooperative system of articulation among institutions. 11. There should be cooperative planning among the institutions of higher education and high schools in order to derive the most effective student personnel services. 12. The junior college should not be a carbon copy of the lower division of the state university or any other four year institution. 13. The principle of "equivalence" as contrasted 112 to strict "parallelsim" should be practiced in articulation agreements. 14. Junior college transfer students should be assured of sequential educational experiences as they move from two year to four year colleges. 15. A college wide positive attitude should be developed toward the importance of general education in junior colleges. 16. A college wide attitude should be developed which recognizes the importance of each individual student and of providing a program adapted to his particular needs. 17. General education science for the non-science major should enable the student to develop certain competencies. It should enable him to make observations, collect and analyze data, and it should assist him in developing an appreciation and understanding of the principles and concepts which characterize the scientific processes. 18. There should be more national, regional, and state conferences, workshops and institutes on career information for junior college counselors and faculty; and they should be sponsored by junior colleges for junior college personnel. 19. Junior college faculty should participate in academic professional organizations to enhance communica tion and to gain understanding among institutions of 113 higher education. 20. Junior college faculty should be both a teacher and an academic advisor. 21. There should be a special effort made to train junior college instructors, such as internship programs and through well organized in-service activities. 22. Biology should not be taught as a body of knowledge (a product), but rather as a cultural activity (a process) with emphasis upon "discovery" and "inquiry." There were differences of opinion in the literature regarding the following: 1. Current biology courses for non-majors should be offered as integrated courses organized around cytology, microbiology, biochemistry, physiology, ecology, genetics, et cetera. 2. One course in introductory biological science should be offered to majors and non-majors at the college level. 3. A conservative, phylogenetic approach to biological sciences should be offered at the college level. 4. All college students should take a one year core biology program. 5. Biology courses taken in the first year of college should not depend upon a prerequisite of chemistry. 6. All undergraduate biology majors regardless of their future specialization should profit from having 114 taken a common core of biological science courses. 7. Biology should be offered to non-science majors in college rather than botany or zoology. 8. Procedures, articulation and sequential planning of learning experiences between two and four year institu tions should be prescribed by state statute. 9. National effort should be exerted to establish main outlines and patterns for curriculum development. 10. The community junior colleges should offer diverse programs to provide opportunities for wide levels of abilities of their students. 11. The impact of BSCS materials should have been felt at the college level. The literature provided the following items of general interest to the study: 1. There was a wide diversity of biology courses offered by institutions of higher education in the United States. 2. There was a trend toward phasing out of botany and zoology courses in college curricula. 3. The total number of units of biology courses offered have increased, while the number of units of botany and zoology offered by California junior colleges have decreased. 4. California junior colleges offered a wide range of biological science courses. 115 5. Biology was considered an essential general education course. 6. A common core curriculum in biology was recommended for all undergraduate majors. 7. Proliferation of courses may become a weakness in junior colleges besides being a source of unnecessary expense. 8. There was a general departure from earlier curricula in placing greater emphasis on molecular, cellular and population biology at the expense of organismal biology. 9. Good articulation practices require a systematic means of communicating information. 10. Formal learning is enhanced by careful sequential planning of learning experiences. 11. A need was expressed for a sequentially planned biology program from the first through the sixteenth year of school. 12. General education science for the non-science majors consisted of a core of experiences, principles, and competencies which relate science to daily living and which make students informed citizens. 13. There was no stereotyped junior college student body. There was a diversity of students in terms of aptitude, socioeconomic background, marital status, sex, and age range. 116 14. Proper counseling and guidance service was of great importance for junior college students with different abilities and background. 15. Junior college faculty were found well qualified and had sound and diversidifed teaching experiences. 16. In general, junior college faculty salaries, work load, and provisions for further scholarly activities needed serious attention. 17. There was significant disagreement among junior college staff concerning the role, program, and policies of the two year college— particularly the comprehensive functions of the junior colleges. CHAPTER III THE FINDINGS OF PRACTICES RELATED TO BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM The presentation of the data provided by the questionnaire is organized into five sections: (1) biological science curriculum; (2) articulation and sequential planning; (3) students; (4) general attitudes; and (5) general information. The findings are based upon the data obtained from department or division chairmen of biological sciences of 70 public junior colleges in the state of California. Reporting of the findings is in accordance with the procedures which were described in Chapter I. Of the 80 questionnaires distributed, 70, or 87.5 per cent, were completed and returned. Several were partially completed. Therefore, in certain categories reported on in these chapters, the total returns for the items under consideration does not always equal 70. Chapters III through V include the findings regarding the actual and desirable practices in the curriculum of biological science for non-science majors in California public junior colleges. Chapter VI includes the findings related to the general attitudes of the respondent 117 118 regarding these practices. Chapter VII includes a list of desirable practices in biology. The summary, conclu sions, and recommendations are in Chapter VIII. The Appendix contains a list of curricular offerings of biological sciences in selected California public junior colleges and several pertinent tables and information. Findings with Respect to Curriculum Administration of curriculum.— The centralization of authority and responsibility for administering the biological science instructional program rested with either a department or division in 49, or 73.1 per cent, of 67 respondents to this item. This practice was considered to be either essential or desirable by 65, or 97.1 per cent, of the 67 respondents. (See Table 8 for data.) Biological science courses were grouped together with physical sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and physical sciences, into a department or division in 25, or 37.3 per cent, of the 67 cases. On the other hand, they were not grouped together in 37, or 55.2 per cent, of 67 cases. There was a varied opinion related to the desirable practice. Of the 66 respondents, 5 or 7.6 per cent felt grouping was essential, 18 or 27.3 per cent thought it was desirable, 28 or 42.4 per cent thought it was questionable, and 15 or 22.7 per cent thought the practice was undesir able. This indicated that a separate division or Table 8.— Biological science program administered through a department or division Actual Practice____________ Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 49 73.1 4 Essential 46 68.1 3 Partially 13 19.4 3 Desirable 19 28.4 2 No 5 7.5 2 Questionable 1 1.5 1 Don11 Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 1 1.5 X = 3.657 3.642 Total Cases 67 67 119 120 department for biological sciences was preferred (see Table 9) . Specific objectives for the department or division were established by 29, or 43.9 per cent, of 66 res pondents, while 30, or 45.5 per cent indicated that they partially established objectives. This meant that 59 out of 66 respondents, or 89.4 per cent, indicated that some objectives for the department or division were established. It was considered an essential practice by 32 of 65 respondents, or 49.2 per cent; and it was considered desirable practice by 32, or 49.2 per cent, of the respondents. This indicated that 64 of the 65 respondents, or 98.4 per cent, thought that it was j desirable practice to establish specific objectives for the biology department or division. See Table 10 for data pertaining to this item. In actual practice, 64 out of 67 respondents, or 95.5 per cent, did not further subdivide the biological science division or department into separate units of botany, zoology, and microbiology, each with a different head. In addition, 20 or 29.9 per cent, of 67 respondents thought that subdividing the biology division or department was a questionable practice, while 41, or 61.2 per cent, indicated that it was an undesirable practice. This was consistent with the findings in the literature. Table 11 covers the data for this item. Table 9.— Biological sciences and physical sciences grouped together in one department Actual practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 25 37.3 4 Essential 5 7.6 3 Partially 5 7.5 3 Desirable 18 27.3 2 No 37 55.2 2 Questionable 28 42.4 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 15 22.7 X = 2.821 2.197 Total Cases 67 66 H to H Table 10.— Specific objectives for the department or division Actual practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 29 43.9 4 Essential 32 49.2 3 Partially 30 45.5 3 Desirable 32 49.2 2 No 7 10.6 2 Questionable 1 1.5 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 0 0 X = 3.333 3.477 Total Cases 66 65 H to to Table 11.--Subdivision of the units biological science department or division each with its own administrator into separate Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 1 1.5 4 Essential 1 1.5 3 Partially 2 3.0 3 Desirable 5 7.5 2 No 64 95.5 2 Questionable 20 29.9 1 Don11 Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 41 61.2 X = 2.060 1.493 Total Cases 67 67 H to OJ 124 Biological sciences for non-science majors.— Organismally oriented courses, such as botany and zoology, were still offered to non-science (liberal arts) transfer students by 37, or 55.2 per cent, of 67 respondents, while 13, or 19.4 per cent, indicated they partially offered these courses. This meant that 50 or 67 respondents, or 74.6 per cent, offered some form of an organismally oriented botany and/or zoology course to non-science majors. This practice was considered as either essential or desirable by 41 of 67, or 61.2 per cent, of the respondents. On the other hand, 26 or 67, or 38.8 per cent, thought the practice was either questionable or undesirable. See Table 12 for information pertinent to this item. Approximately one-third of the responding junior colleges considered phasing out courses in botany and zoology for non-majors. This was in agreement with the related literature that these courses were being phased out of the general education or liberal arts curricula in some institutions of higher education. Actually, botany courses for non-science (liberal arts) students were being considered for phasing out of the science curriculum by 19 of 65, or 29.2 per cent, of the respondents. Another four or 6.2 per cent, claimed the botany courses will be phased out partially. On the other hand, 41 of 65, or 63.1 per cent, stated that botany courses for non-majors were being Table 12.— Botany and zoology courses offered to non-science (liberal arts) transfer students Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 37 55.2 4 Essential 8 11.9 3 Partially 13 19.4 3 Desirable 33 49.3 2 No 17 25.4 2 Questionable 22 32.8 1 Don11 Know 0 0 1 Undesirable ' 4 6.0 X = 3.299 2.672 Total Cases 67 67 125 kept in the curricula. See Table 13 for pertinent informa tion. Practically similar results were obtained in response to the same question concerning zoology courses for non-majors. About three-fourths of the cases indicated that phasing out these courses for non-majors was either questionable or undesirable. This was inconsistent with the literature in science education as opinions obviously differed on this matter. See Table 14 for the data. Separate courses for majors and non-majors.— The same introductory biological science course was offered to both majors and non-majors in about one-fourth of the junior colleges responding, whereas 50 or 67, 74.6 per cent of the respondents indicated that biological science majors and non-majors took separate introductory courses. Only one out of 66 respondents felt that the practice of offering the same course to both groups was essential, although 13 of 66, or 19.7 per cent, thought that it was desirable. A larger group, 52 out of 66, or 78.8 per cent, felt that the practice was either questionable or undesirable. Separate courses were taken in about three- fourths of the cases, and 78.8 per cent of the respondents indicated that the same course for majors and non-majors was either questionable or undesirable. See Table 15 for information covering this item. On the other hand, in checking to ascertain if Table 13.— Phasing out of botany courses for non students -science (liberal arts) transfer Actual practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 19 29.2 4 Essential 5 7.8 3 Partially 4 6.2 3 Desirable 10 15.6 2 No 41 63.1 2 Questionable 26 40.6 1 Don't Know 1 1.5 1 Undesirable 23 35.9 X = 2.631 1.953 Total Cases 65 64 127 Table 14.— phasing out of zoology courses for non-science transfer students Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 19 29.2 4 Essential 5 7.8 3 Partially 8 12.3 3 Desirable 11 17.2 2 No 37 56.9 2 Questionable 29 45.3 1 Don11 Know 1 1.5 1 Undesirable 19 29.7 X = 2.692 Total Cases 65 2.031 64 H to 00 Table 15.— Separate courses for majors and non-majors Rank Actual Practice Desirable Practice Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 3 2 1 Yes 14 Partially 3 No 50 Don't Know 0 20.9 4.5 74.6 0 4 3 2 1 Essential 1 Desirable 13 Questionable 22 Undesirable 30 1.5 19.7 33.3 45.5 X = 2.463 Total Cases 67 1.773 66 H to < X > 130 double or multiple track biological science courses, one for majors and another for non-majors, were offered, 41 of 66, or 62.1 per cent, indicated that they were, and 2 of 66, or 3.0 per cent, indicated that this was done partially. About one-third of the 66 respondents revealed that they did not offer separate courses to majors and non-majors. The practice of offering multiple track courses was considered essential or desirable by 51 or 66, or 77.3 per cent, of the respondents. Only 13 of 66, or 19.7 per cent, thought that multiple tracking of biology was questionable and 2 of 66, or 3.0 per cent, indicated that it was an undesirable practice. The problem of offering multiple track biology courses to majors and non-majors is far from being resolved. Differing opinions were found in the literature, although professional science organizations favored one introductory course for both majors and non majors. A majority of the respondents in this study favored two separate courses. See Table 16 for the data pertaining to this item. Biological sciences for non-transfer students.— Specially designed biological science courses were offered to the non-transfer student seeking an Associate in Arts or Science degree in 30 of 66, 45.5 per cent, of the cases. Approximately an equal number, 34 of 66, 51.5 per cent, indicated that they did not offer such courses. About the Table 16.— Multiple track biological science courses Actual practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 41 62.1 4 Essential 21 31.8 3 Partially 2 3.0 3 Desirable 30 45.5 2 No 23 34.8 2 Questionable 13 19.7 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 2 3.0 X = 3.273 3.061 Total Cases 66 66 H to H 132 same results were obtained in attempting to ascertain the desired practice, for 35 of 65, 53.9 per cent, indicated that it was either an essential or desirable practice, and 30 of 65, 46.1 per cent thought the practice was either questionable or undesirable. See Table 18 for the data pertaining to this item. The laboratory.— In response to the question of whether biology courses were offered without laboratories, 41 of 64, 64.1 per cent, of the cases indicated that they were not offered without laboratories. On the other hand, 23 of 64, or 35.9 per cent, revealed that they offered biology courses either without or partially without laboratories. The fact that about two-thirds of the junior colleges offer biology courses only with labora tories is significant because this practice was consistent with the recommendations found in the literature. One- third of the institutions were not in harmony with these recommendations. About three-fourths of the respondents, 48 of 64, indicated that it was either questionable or undesirable to offer biological science courses in junior colleges without laboratories. See Table 17 for the data pertaining to this item. Table 17.--The laboratory Actual Practice Desirable practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 12 18.7 4 Essential 4 6.2 3 partially 11 17.2 3 Desirable 12 18.7 2 No 41 64.1 2 Questionable 12 18.7 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 36 56.2 X = 2.547 1.750 Total Cases 64 64 i - 1 u> U) Table 18.— Biological sciences for non-transfer students Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 30 45.5 4 Essential 12 18.5 3 partially 2 3.0 3 Desirable 23 35.4 2 No 34 51.5 2 Questionable 24 36.9 1 Don11 Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 6 9.2 X = 2.939 2.631 Total Cases 66 65 i - * OJ 135 The nature of biology courses offered to non-majors. Fifty-five of 66, or 83.3 per cent, indicated that the biology courses offered to non-science (liberal arts) transfer students was process centered around topics such as genetics, or physiology, or metabolism, or energetics with organismal illustrations used regardless of whether they are plant, animal, or virus. On the other hand, 11 of 66, or 16.7 per cent, did not offer courses organized in this manner. Although there was general agreement in the literature regarding the objective of providing the non-science major a general education course, which enables the student to develop certain competencies, there was still disagreement as to the nature of the course. In ascertaining the desired practices, 50 of 64 respondents, or 78.1 per cent, indicated that such a course would be either essential or desirable, and 14 of 64, or 21.8 per cent, of the respondents indicated that the practice would be either questionable or undesirable. The majority agreed with the recommended practices found in the literature that biology should be taught as a cultural activity (a process) with emphasis upon "discovery" and "inquiry." See Table 19 for the data covering this item. Table 19.— Nature of biology courses offered to non-majors Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 40 60.6 4 Essential 15 23.4 3 Partially 15 22.7 3 Desirable 35 54.7 2 No 10 15.2 2 Questionable 12 18.7 1 Don't Know 1 1.5 1 Undesirable 2 3.1 X = 3.424 2.984 Total Cases 66 64 H U) C T i 137 Integrated biology courses.— Differences of opinion were found in the literature regarding offering to non- majors an integrated biological science course. According to 37 of 63, or 58.7 per cent, respondents in this study an integrated biological science course was offered to non-science majors rather than the organismally oriented courses of botany and zoology. Thirty-eight of 62, or 61.3 per cent, of the cases indicated that this was either an essential or desirable practice. See Table 20 for the information concerning this item. Prerequisites for biological science courses for non-science majors.— Very few respondents, 5 of 66, or 7.6 per cent, indicated that a prerequisite was required for a biological science course for non-majors. A large number, 61 of 66, or 92.4 per cent, revealed that prerequisites were not required. About the same results were obtained in evaluating desirable practices. Seventeen of 65, or 26.2 per cent, indicated that the practice was essential or desirable, whereas 48 of 65, or 73.8 per cent, of the respondents considered that prerequisites for such a course were either questionable or undesirable. The literature provided differences of opinion regarding this problem. See Table 21 for the data pertaining to this item. Table 20.— Integrated biology courses Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Responses No. Per Cent 4 Yes 22 34.9 4 Essential 8 12.9 3 Partially 15 23.8 3 Desirable 30 48.4 2 No 25 39.7 2 Questionable 19 30.6 1 Don't Know 1 1.6 1 Undesirable 5 8.1 X = 2.921 2.661 Total Cases 63 62 u> o o Table 21.— Pre-requisites for biological science courses for non-science students Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 3 2 1 Yes 5 Partially 0 No 61 Don11 Know 0 7.6 0 92.4 0 4 3 2 1 Essential 2 Desirable 15 Questionable 21 Undesirable 27 3.1 23.1 32.3 41.5 X = 2.152 Total Cases 1.877 66 65 H U> V O 140 Introductory biology course as a prerequisite.— The question was raised whether an introductory biology course was used as a prerequisite for all other courses in biological science. Forty-one of 65, or 63.1 per cent, of the respondents indicated that it was not. Twenty-four of 65, or 37.0 per cent, of the respondents reported that in actual practice it was used as a prerequisite for another course. On the other hand, 24 of 64, or 37.4 per cent, of the respondents indicated that it was either an essential or desired practice. Forty of 64, or 62.5 per cent, of the cases thought that it was either questionable or undesirable. See Table 22 for the data covering this item. De-emphasis of phylogenetic considerations.— Phylogenetic considerations were being de-emphasized in 49 of 63, or 77.8 per cent, of the cases, although 14 of 63, or 22.2 per cent, continued to offer biological science courses with this emphasis. There was no clear-cut expression regarding the desired practice. Thirty-four of 62, or 54.8 per cent, indicated that de-emphasis was either essential or desirable, whereas 28 of 62, or 45.2 per cent, thought that it was either questionable or undesirable to de-emphasize the phylogenetic approach to biology. Although there were differences of opinion in the literature concerning the phylogenetic approach to Table 22.— Introductory biology course as a prerequisite Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 17 26.2 4 Essential 4 6.2 3 Partially 7 10.8 3 Desirable 20 31.2 2 No 41 63.1 2 Questionable 19 29.7 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 21 32.8 X = 2.631 Total Cases 65 2.109 64 H 142 biological sciences, over three-fourths of the respondents indicated that it was being de-emphasized in California public junior colleges. Yet there were no significant data regarding the desired practice. Slightly more than one-half of the respondents indicated that de-emphasis was either essential or desirable. See Table 23 for information concerning this item. Chapter Summary The purpose of this chapter was to report the actual practices, and what practices the respondents considered as desirable, related to the biological science curriculum for non-science (liberal arts) transfer students in California public junior colleges. The chapter reported and compared these data in tabular and written form. The Jmajor findings of the chapter are listed below. | 1. The centralization of authority and responsi- I bility for administering the biological science instruc tional program rested with either a department or division in about three-fourths of the cases. Almost all of the respondents considered the practice to be either essential or desirable. 2. Biological sciences were grouped together with physical sciences into a department or division in slightly more than one-third of the cases. Opinions differed regarding the desirable practices, although Table 23.— De-emphasis of phylogenetic considerations Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 19 30.2 4 Essential 2 3.2 3 Partially 30 47.6 3 Desirable 32 51.6 2 No 14 22.2 2 Questionable 22 35.5 1 Don11 Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 6 9.7 X = 3.079 Total Cases 63 2.484 62 143 144 two-thirds of the respondents indicated that separate division or department for biological sciences was preferred. This finding concurred with the literature. 3. Nearly all of the respondents revealed that specific objectives were established for their departments or divisions. Almost all of the respondents indicated that the practice was either essential or desirable. 4. Practically all of the respondents indicated that biological science department or division was not subdivided into separate administrative units for botany, zoology, et cetera. . Nearly all considered subdividing the department or division as questionable or undesirable. 5. About three-fourths of the respondents reported that some form of an organismally oriented botany and/or zoology course was offered to non-science majors. About two-thirds of the respondents considered this practice as either essential or desirable. 6. Approximately one-third of the respondents reported that botany and slightly more revealed that zoology were being phased out, although about three-fourths of the respondents considered that it was either questionable or undesirable to drop them from the junior college curriculum. 7. The same introductory biological science course was offered to majors and non-majors in about one-fourth of the junior colleges responding. Over three-fourths of 145 the respondents considered the practice of offering the same course to both groups as either questionable or undesirable. Approximately the same results were obtained regarding the question of offering multiple track biology courses. The problem of offering separate courses is still far from being resolved. Differences of opinion were found in the literature, although a majority of the respondents in this study favored multiple track or separate courses. 8. Specially designed biological science courses were offered to non-transfer students in about one-half of the cases reported. Approximately the same number considered the practice as desirable or essential. 9. It was reported that biology courses were offered only with laboratories in about two-thirds of the cases. About one-third of the respondents were not in harmony with the recommendations of the literature. Approximately three-fourths of the respondents considered that the laboratory experience was either essential or desirable. 10. Over four-fifths of the respondents reported that the biology courses offered to non-science (liberal arts) transfer students were processed— centered around designated topics. A majority agreed that this practice was desirable or essential. This was in agreement with the literature on this subject. 146 11. More than one-half of the respondents reported that an integrated biological science course was offered to non-science majors rather than the organismally oriented courses of botany and zoology. Almost two-thirds of the cases considered this practice as either essential or desirable. 12. Almost all of the respondents reported that prerequisites were not required for the biological science course for non-science majors. About three-fourths of the cases considered that prerequisites for such a course as either questionable or undesirable. The literature provided differences of opinion regarding this problem. 13. The introductory biology course was used as a prerequisite for other courses in biology in about one- third of the cases. About two-thirds of the respondents considered the practice as either questionable or undesirable. 14. Phylogenetic considerations were being de-emphasized in more than three-fourths of the cases. There was no clear-cut consideration regarding the desired practice. More than one-half of the respondents indicated that it was either essential or desirable, and less than one-half reported that it was questionable or undesirable. CHAPTER IV THE FINDINGS OF PRACTICES RELATED TO ARTICULATION AND SEQUENTIAL PLANNING The data concerning the practices related to articulation and sequential planning among the public California junior colleges in this study are presented in this chapter by means of general description and tables. Findings with Respect to Articulation and Sequential Planning Duplication of transfer courses.— The biological science departments or divisions in the junior colleges in this study reported a strong tendency to duplicate the transfer courses offered in the lower division of the California state colleges and the University of California. Thirty-two of 70 respondents, or 45.7 per cent, reported they actually attempted to duplicate the lower division transfer courses, while 29 of 70 respondents, or 41.4 per cent, indicated that they actually made a partial attempt at duplication. Regarding the desirable practices, 47 of 69, or 68.1 per cent, of the respondents reported that duplication 147 148 was either essential or desirable. This meant a large majority of junior college department or division chairmen agreed that the practice of duplicating transfer courses was desirable. This did not agree with the position of current writers on the subject who felt that the junior college should not be a carbon copy of the lower division of the state university or any other four year institution. Table 24 presents the data pertaining to this item. Articulation conferences with local state colleges and universities.— According to 32 of 70, or 45.7 per cent, of the respondents, articulation conferences were held, as a matter of policy, with local state colleges and universities. Twenty-one of 70, or 30 per cent, of the respondents indicated that they partially carried out this practice. On the other hand, 17 of 70, or 24.3 per cent, of the respondents reported that this was not practiced at their junior colleges. Regarding the desirable practices, 66 of 70, or 94.3 per cent of the department or division chairmen thought that an articulation conference policy was either essential or desirable. See Table 25 for the data. This was in agreement with the literature which recommended that a systematic means of communicating information and well thought out machinery for liason should be implemented to effect a cooperative system of Table 24.— Duplication of transfer courses Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 32 45.7 4 Essential 13 18.8 3 Partially 29 41.4 3 Desirable 34 49.3 2 No 9 12.9 2 Questionable 18 26.1 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 4 5.8 X = 3.329 2.812 Total Cases 70 69 VO Table 25.--Articulation with local state colleges and universities Actual practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 32 45.7 4 Essential 38 54.3 3 Partially 21 30.0 3 Desirable 28 40.0 2 No 17 24.3 2 Questionable 4 5.7 1 Don11 Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 0 0 X = 3.214 3.486 Total Cases 70 70 U1 o 151 articulation. Two and four year colleges have become more interdependent regarding the planned mobility of their undergraduate students. If relative curricular autonomy is to be preserved, considerable attention must be given to articulation policies. Yet it should be pointed out that about one-fourth of the junior colleges in this study still do not carry out articulation practices. This situation should be improved. According to some, unless there is a high degree of articulation, it may become necessary to institute comprehensive college testing programs. Articulation conferences with appropriate high schools.— Thirty-nine of 70 junior colleges, or 55.7 per cent, reported that the biological science department or division, as a matter of policy, engaged in articulation conferences with appropriate high school groups in the community. Included in this data were those respondents who indicated that they partially performed this practice. By comparison, a rather large group, 31 of 70, or 44.3 per cent, revealed that this activity was not practiced in their respective junior colleges. A large number, 63 of 70, or 90 per cent, of the department or division chairmen reported that such an articulation policy with appropriate high schools was either essential or desirable. This agreed with the 152 current literature which recommended the implementation of cooperative planning among institutions of higher education with high schools so as to derive more effective student personnel services for incoming students. Table 26 presents the data pertaining to this item. Transfer credit for biology.— In actual practice, nearly all of the respondents, 69 of 70, or 98.6 per cent, claimed that non-science or liberal arts students received transfer credit at California state colleges and the University of California for the biology courses taken in California junior colleges. This was consistent with the findings reported by Knoell and Medsker that four year colleges (participating in their study) were fairly liberal in their policies for awarding transfer credit, although most transfer institutions placed some restriction on the total amount of junior college credit which could be used to satisfy baccalaureate degree requirements. All of the respondents felt that it was either essential or desirable for non-science majors who transfer to California state colleges or to the University of California to receive transfer credit for biology taken in junior college. Table 27 presents the responses to this questionnaire item. Table 26.--Articulation with appropriate high schools Actual practice Desirable practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 13 18.6 4 Essential 22 31.4 3 Partially 26 37.1 3 Desirable 41 58.6 2 No 31 44.3 2 Questionable 5 7.1 1 Don11 Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 2 2.9 X = 2 Total .743 Cases 70 3.186 70 153 Table 27.--Transfer credit for biology Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 69 98.6 4 Essential 57 83.8 3 Partially 1 1.4 3 Desirable 11 16.2 2 No 0 0 2 Questionable 0 0 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 0 0 X = 3.986 3.838 Total Cases 70 68 H U1 155 Methods and materials used in instruction.— The extent to which junior colleges coordinate methods and materials used in biology instruction with California state colleges and the University of California was investigated. In actual practice, about half or 36 of 70, or 51.5 per cent, of the respondents indicated that they coordinated instructional methods and materials with the other two public institutions of higher education in California. On the other hand, regarding desirable practices, 38 of 70, or 54.3 per cent, of the respondents reported that it was either essential or desirable to perform this practice. This should hardly be considered decisive as 32 of 70, or 45.7 per cent, of the respondents considered the practice questionable or undesirable. Responses to this questionnaire item are presented in Table 2 8. Faculty involvement with research scientists.— According to 53 of 70, or 75.7 per cent, of the respondents, the junior college biological science faculty have not been involved in a cooperative effort with university research scientists to produce new biology curricula. By comparison, 52 of 69, or 75.3 per cent, of the respondents indicated that it was either essential or desirable for junior college biological science faculty to Table i • 00 CM -Methods and materials used in Instruction Actual practice Desirable practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 9 12.9 4 Essential 6 8.6 3 Partially 27 38.6 3 Desirable 32 45.7 2 No 32 45.7 2 Questionable 24 34.3 1 Don11 Know 2 2.9 1 Undesirable 8 11.4 X = 2.614 2.514 Total Cases 70 70 H ( _ n cn 157 work cooperatively with university research scientists in order to develop new curricula in biological sciences. These responses indicated that although biological science faculty in California junior colleges generally have not worked with university research scientists in curriculum development, it was considered a desirable practice. Responses to this item may be found in Table 29. Sequential pattern of biology courses for majors.— Biological science courses were offered to biology majors in a sequential pattern to articulate with the programs in California state colleges and in the University of California in 62 of 70, or 88.6 per cent, of the cases reported. This included 23, or 32.9 per cent, of the respondents who reported that they partially performed this practice. In reference to the reported desirable practices, 63 of 70, or 90.0 per cent, of the respondents indicated that it was either essential or desirable for California junior colleges to offer biological sciences majors curricula which articulate with those programs in California state colleges and the University of California. This was consistent with the recommendations for biology majors found in the literature which recommended that the common or core preparation for biologists in any specialty be extended over a minimum of two years. It was believed Table 29.— Faculty involvement with research scientists Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. per Cent 4 Yes 8 11.4 4 Essential 7 10.1 3 partially 9 12.9 3 Desirable 45 65.2 2 No 52 74.3 2 Questionable 17 24.6 1 Don't Know 1 1.4 1 Undesirable 0 0 X = 2.343 2.855 Total Cases 70 69 H U1 oo 159 that this common set of courses should be taken in a fixed sequence allowing instructors in successive courses to build logically on what precedes. Table 30 presents the data pertaining to the pattern in which biology courses were offered to biological science majors in junior colleges. In-service opportunities.— Of the 70 junior colleges which replied to this item, 36, or 51.4 per cent, reported that in-service opportunities were provided for junior college biological science faculties. In 33 junior colleges, or 47.1 per cent, in-service opportunities for professional growth were not provided for the biological science faculty. One respondent reported no knowledge of this practice. Regarding the desirable practices, 60 of 67, or 91.0 per cent, of the respondents indicated that it was either essential or desirable for in-service opportunities to be provided for biological science faculty in California junior colleges. These responses revealed that about one-half of the California junior colleges reported that they provided in-service training for the biological science faculty, although more than 90 per cent indicated that the practice would be essential or desirable. Because of the added breadth in biological science curricula, the literature recommended research participation, summer Table 30.— Sequential pattern of biology courses C; for majors Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 39 55.7 4 Essential 24 34.3 3 Partially 23 32.9 3 Desirable 39 55.7 2 No 8 11.4 2 Questionable 7 10.0 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 0 0 X = 3.443 3.243 Total Cases 70 70 H <T> O 161 institutes, conference attendance, additional course work, and released time for study as ways for faculty to increase their versatility in addition to providing the resources for professional growth and for updating the content of their courses. Responses to this item may be found in Table 31. Waiver of courses by challenge examinations.— According to 22 of 69, or 31.9 per cent, of the respondents, the biological science department or division in California junior colleges allowed a waiver of courses through an examination to well prepared high school students who may have had previous experience with the subject matter. Forty-seven junior colleges, or 68.1 per cent, reported that they had no such practice. The respondents were almost evenly split in their evaluation of desirable practices for this item. Forty junior colleges of 69 reporting, or 57.9 per cent, indicated that challenge examinations for biological sciences in California junior colleges would be either essential or desirable. On the other hand, 29 of 69, or 42.0 per cent, of the respondents reported that this practice would be either questionable or undesirable. Table 32 presents the data pertaining to this questionnaire item. Table 31.— In-service opportunities Actual Practice______________ Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 14 20.0 4 Essential 22 32.8 3 Partially 22 31.4 3 Desirable 39 58.2 2 No 33 47.1 2 Questionable 6 9.0 1 Don't Know 1 1.4 1 Undesirable 0 0 X = 2.700 Total Cases 70 3.239 67 cn to 163 Chapter Summary The purpose of this chapter was to report data obtained from the questionnaire regarding the reactions of the respondents as to the actual practices, as well as what they considered to be desirable practices in reference to articulation and sequential planning. Data in this chapter were reported by means of general description and tabular form. Listed below are the major findings of this chapter: 1. A large majority of the respondents indicated that they duplicated the transfer courses in biological sciences offered in the lower division of the California state colleges and in the branches of the University of California. Over two-thirds reported that duplication was either essential or desirable. This did not agree with some of the current literature which suggested that junior colleges should avoid becoming a carbon copy of the lower division of the state university or any other four year institution. 2. Articulation conferences with local state colleges and universities were carried out in some manner by approximately three-fourths of the cases. About one-fourth of the respondents indicated that their biological science department or division did not participate in this activity. This situation should be improved, for nearly all the respondents indicated that it 164 would be desirable for the junior college biological science personnel to establish machinery for a cooperative articulation system with the four year institutions. 3. Articulation conferences with appropriate high schools were implemented in some manner by over half of the respondents. Nearly all of the junior colleges reported that such an articulation policy would be desirable. This was in agreement with the current literature on the subject. 4. Most of the respondents indicated that liberal arts students received transfer credit at California state colleges and at the University of California for the biology courses taken in California public junior colleges. This was consistent with current studies. All of the respondents considered this practice desirable. 5. A little more than one-half of the respondents indicated that they coordinated instructional methods and materials with the other two public institutions of higher education. More than half of the cases considered this practice desirable. 6. About three-fourths of the respondents indicated that they have not sought the help of university research scientists in developing new biology curricula. On the other hand, three-fourths of the cases reported that practice as desirable. 165 7. Over four-fifths of the cases indicated that biological science courses were offered to biology majors in junior colleges to articulate with the programs in the other two segments of public higher education in California. Nearly all of the respondents considered this practice desirable. 8. More than half of the junior colleges reported they provided in-service opportunities for the biological science faculty. Nearly all indicated that this practice would be desirable. This was consistent with the literature which recommended participating in service activities because of the added breadth in biological science curricula. 9. Less than one-third of the respondents indicated that they allowed waivers of courses through challenge examinations to well prepared high school students. They were almost evenly split in their response to the desirability of this practice. CHAPTER V THE FINDINGS OF PRACTICES RELATED TO STUDENTS Although public community junior colleges in California are composed predominately of transfer students, the student body is described in the literature generally as very heterogeneous. In their study, Knoell and Medsker reported that much of the variability in personal characteristics normally anticipated in the transfer students simply was not found. It was the purpose of this chapter to ascertain actual practices in the public California community junior colleges related to problems encountered by transfer students enrolled in biological science courses. The data were obtained from division or department chairmen who provided, in addition, information as to what they considered in this regard to be desirable practices. By means of general description and tables, the data were presented in this chapter. Findings Related to Students Taking Biological Sciences Choice of biology courses.--The objective of this item was to ascertain the extent to which the junior 167 college non-science transfer students were given a choice of biology courses in order to satisfy their science requirements. It was assumed that biology was required either for an associate degree from junior college or for a baccalaureate degree from a four year college. According to 59 of 69 respondents, or 84.7 per cent, students were given a choice of biology courses. From this, it appeared that the junior colleges in this study provided several different biological science courses for non-science major transfer students. Regarding the desirable practices, 11 of 69, or 15.9 per cent, of the respondents indicated that the practice was essential, while 53 of 69 or 76.8 per cent, of the cases reported that the practice was desirable. Only 5 of 69, or 7.2 per cent, of the respondents indicated that the practice was either questionable or undesirable. Table 33 covers the data pertaining to this item. Declaration of major as freshmen.— There was substantial agreement in the literature that there should be no difference in the "quality" of biology courses offered in junior colleges from those parallel courses offered in four year colleges. Courses offered to biology majors in junior colleges were of concern because these courses should prepare students in their major for the Table 32.— Waiver of courses by challenge examination Actual Practice______________ Desirable practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 16 23.2 4 Essential 3 4.3 3 Partially 6 8.7 3 Desirable 37 53.6 2 No 47 68.1 2 Questionable 23 33.3 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 6 8.7 X = 2.551 2.536 Total Cases 69 69 168 Table 33.— Choice of courses for non-majors transfer students Actual practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 44 63.8 4 Essential 11 15.9 3 Partially 15 21.7 3 Desirable 53 76.8 2 No 10 14.5 2 Questionable 4 5.8 1 Don't Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 1 1.4 X = 3.493 3.072 Total Cases 69 69 H cn VO 170 completion of a baccalaureate degree. Because of the rapid increase of knowledge and the expansion of disciplines, it seemed reasonable to find out if California public junior colleges encouraged or discouraged their freshmen biology majors to declare their areas of speciality in biology at the onset of their junior college experience. According to 29 of 68, or 42.6 per cent, of the cases reported, freshmen were discouraged from declaring their areas of speciality in their first year of junior college. On the other hand, 34 of 68, or 50.0 per cent, of the respondents actually sought the major speciality in biology from their freshmen biology majors. In reference to desirable practices, 34 of 68, or 50.0 per cent, of the respondents reported that it was desirable to discourage freshmen from declaring their major speciality during their first year in junior college. An equal number indicated that this practice was either questionable or undesirable. Consequently, no decisive data were obtained for recommending desirable practices. Table 34 covers data concerned with this item. Biology as a requirement for an associate degree.— In addition to satisfying the basic requirements for transferring to a four year college, junior colleges also require students to take a number of specified courses to Table 34.— Declaration of major as freshmen Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 23 33.8 4 Essential 2 2.9 3 Partially 6 8.8 3 Desirable 32 47.1 2 No 34 50.0 2 Questionable 20 29.4 1 Don11 Know 5 7.4 1 Undesirable 14 20.6 X = 2.691 2.324 Total Cases 68 68 -J H 172 fulfill the requirements for a degree. The item sought to find out how many of the California public junior colleges required a course of biology to satisfy the degree requirement. From the 69 cases reported, 17 or 24.6 per cent indicated that a biology course was required for either an Associate in Arts or Associate in Science degree. A large number of respondents indicated that a course in biology was not required for an associate degree. In reference to desirable practices, 46 of 69, or 66.6 per cent, indicated that requiring biology for a junior college degree was a desirable or essential practice. This agreed with several authors who have recommended some study of biology to help students better understand the biological world in which they live. Data covering this item may be found in Table 35. Associate in Science degree.— Not all junior colleges confer the Associate in Science degree. It was the object of this item to ascertain the number of the public California junior colleges offering this degree and, also, to find out what was recommended in this regard by the division or department chairmen as desirable practices. Associate in Science degrees were offered to students in 26 of 69, or 37.7 per cent, of the junior colleges reported. Reporting on the desirable practices, 43 of 67, or Table 35.— Biology as a requirement for an Associate in Arts degree Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 14 20.3 4 Essential 11 15.9 3 Partially 3 4.3 3 Desirable 35 50.7 2 No 51 73.9 2 Questionable 21 30.4 1 Don11 Know 1 1.4 1 Undesirable 2 2.9 X = 2.435 Total Cases 69 2.797 69 H u) 174 64.2 per cent, of the department or division chairmen indicated that it either would be an essential or a desirable practice. Table 36 contains the data pertaining to these items. Biological science placement test.— Where several different levels of biology are available, some writers have recommended placement tests in biological science for incoming freshmen to help counselors place students in the most appropriate biology course. According to 67 of 69, or 97.1 per cent, of the respondents, they reported that beginning students were not offered a placement examination in biological sciences. In reference to desirable practices, 25 of 68, or 36.8 per cent, of the department or division chairmen recommended placement tests in biology for freshmen entering junior college as either essential or desirable. On the other hand, 38 of 68, or 55.9 per cent, of the respondents indicated that they believed this practice to be questionable. Five of 68, or 7.4 per cent, of the cases reported the practice to be undesirable. These results agreed with some authors who have pointed out the difficulty encountered with obtaining validity in subject matter aptitude or placement tests. The data indicated that a majority of the respondents did not favor the practice of giving biology placement tests to junior Table 36.— Associate in Science degree Actual Practice Desirable practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 26 37.7 4 Essential 6 9.0 3 Partially 0 0 3 Desirable 37 55.2 2 No 41 59.4 2 Questionable 22 32.8 1 Don't Know 2 2.9 1 Undesirable 2 3.0 X = 2.725 2.701 Total Cases 69 67 -J in 176 college freshmen. Table 37 covers the data pertaining to these items. Placement by College Entrance Board Examination.— The results of the College Entrance Board Examinations were used to place students in biology courses by 9 of 68, or 13.3 per cent, of the junior colleges reported. According to 58 of 68, or 85.3 per cent, of the respondents, it was indicated that they did not engage in this practice. Regarding the desirable practices, 20 of 67, or 2 9.9 per cent, of the cases reported that it was either essential or desirable to perform this practice. A larger number, 47 of 67, or 70.1 per cent, of the cases indicated they believed the practice to be either questionable or undesirable. These results showed that a large number did not engage in this practice. In addition, it was not recommended as a desirable practice. The data may be found in Table 38. Feedback from students.— In order to maintain and facilitate the junior college transfer program, the area of curriculum and instruction needs feedback from students regarding their experiences and problems which they encountered in transferring to the four year institutions. In actual practice, 53 of 69, or 76.8 per cent, of the respondents indicated that, as a matter of policy former transfer students are encouraged to return to the Table 37.— Biological science placement test Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 1 1.4 4 Essential 1 1.5 3 Partially 1 1.4 3 Desirable 24 35.3 2 No 66 95.7 2 Questionable 38 55.9 1 Don't Know 1 1.4 1 Undesirable 5 7.4 X = 2.029 Total Cases 69 2.309 68 I —* -j Table 38.— Placement by College Entrance Board Examination Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 5 7.4 4 Essential 1 1.5 3 Partially 4 5.9 3 Desirable 19 28.4 2 No 58 85.3 2 Questionable 38 56.7 1 Don11 Know 1 1.5 1 Undesirable 9 13.4 X = 2.191 2.179 Total Cases 68 67 178 179 junior college to discuss their articulation experiences with four year institutions. It was recommended by 100 per cent of the respondents as either an essential or desirable practice to encourage former transfer students to return to their former junior colleges to discuss articulation problems. As problems encountered by students transferring to four year institutions are identified, junior colleges become better equipped to cope with them and, in turn, should do a better job of producing the best possible educational experiences for their transfer students. Table 3 9 covers the data pertaining to this item. Special counselor for biology students.— Improvement of counseling in two and four year colleges with regard to transfer, according to some, will be of immense help in making the best use of the facilities of higher education. The problems of biology in junior colleges are so urgent that many have recommended that a special counselor should be designated to help those students who intend to major in biology. The objective of this item was to ascertain how many of the California junior colleges designated a counselor to work with biology majors. According to 29 of 69, or 42.0 per cent, of the cases reported, special counselors were assigned to students majoring in biology. Table 39.— Feedback from students Actual practice______________ Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 39 56.5 4 Essential 23 33.3 3 Partially 14 20.3 3 Desirable 46 66.7 2 No 13 18.8 2 Questionable 0 0 1 Don't Know 3 4.3 1 Undesirable 0 0 X = 3.290 Total Cases 69 3.333 69 H o o o 181 In reference to desirable practices, 61 of 69, or 88.4 per cent, of the respondents indicated that it would be either essential or desirable to designate a counselor to counsel and advise students majoring in biology. Data pertaining to this item may be found in Table 40. Special counselor assigned to work with four year colleges .— Because of the variety of student goals and because of the importance of the curriculum for biology majors in junior colleges, proper and effective guidance of students with regard to transferring to a four year college was of immense concern to junior college biologists. With proper counseling and guidance, transferring biology majors should be able to complete their baccalaureate degree programs in the normal period of time. Articulation, according to Knoell and Medsker, "involves people as well as problems and procedures." The question of selecting the appropriate people to become i involved with articulation was of significant interest. The object of this item was to determine the number of California junior colleges which assigned a counselor to work with four year colleges on problems related to students transferring to those institutions. In addition, desirable practices in this regard were sought. According to 37 of 69, or 53.6 per cent, of the Table 40.— Special counselor for biology students Rank Actual Practice Response No. Per Cent Rank Desirable Practice Response No. Per Cent 4 3 2 1 Yes 20 Partially 9 No 40 Don11 Know 0 29.0 13.0 58.0 0 4 3 2 1 Essential 20 Desirable 41 Questionable 7 Undesirable 1 29.0 59.4 10.1 1.4 X = 2.710 Total Cases 3.159 69 69 H 00 to 183 junior colleges reporting, a counselor, among others, was assigned to meet with state college and university liaison and articulation groups. With regard to desirable practices, 63 of 69, or 91.3 per cent, of the respondents indicated that it was either essential or desirable for California junior colleges to assign a special counselor to work with state college and university liaison and articulation groups. This should not be construed as recommending the exclusion of other personnel from articulation practices. Writers on the subject have recommended designating personnel to assume the responsibility for articulating, and have urged them to communicate their agreements throughout the institution. Care should be taken to work out the mechanics for effective communication among institutions and with appropriate members of the staff regarding articulation agreements. Table 41 covers the data pertaining to this item. Common set of courses for biology majors.— According to several curricular studies, it was recommended that biology majors take a common set of biology courses in a fixed sequence in order to articulate properly with biology baccalaureate degree programs, and to provide the students, hopefully, with common learning experiences. In actual practice, biology majors were advised to Table 41.— Special counselor assigned to work with four year colleges Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 29 42.0 4 Essential 23 33.3 3 Partially 8 11.6 3 Desirable 40 58.0 2 No 27 39.1 2 Questionable 5 7.2 1 Don't Know 5 7.2 1 Undesirable 1 1.4 X = 2.884 3.232 Total Cases 69 69 oo 185 take a common set of courses in a fixed sequence with four year colleges by 50 of 69, or 72.5 per cent, of the junior colleges reporting. Regarding the desirable practices, 50 of 69, or 72.5 per cent, of the division or department chairmen responding to this item recommended this practice as either essential or desirable. These findings were consistent with the literature which recommended a common or core preparation for biologists in the form of a common set of courses taken in a fixed sequence and extending over a minimum of two years. Table 42 covers the data pertaining to this item. Botany or zoology for non-science major transfer students.— The object of this item was to ascertain the number or per cent of California public junior colleges offering biology rather than zoology and/or botany to non-science major transfer students. According to 43 of 69, or 62.3 per cent, of the respondents, biology rather than zoology and/or botany was taken by non-science transfer students. This practice was performed partially in 23 of 69, or 33.3 per cent, of the junior colleges reporting in this study. In reference to desirable practices, 55 of 69, or 82.1 per cent, of the department or division chairmen responding to this item, recommended this practice as either essential or desirable. From this data, which is Table 42.— Common set of courses for biology majors Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 34 49.3 4 Essential 12 17.4 3 Partially 16 23.2 3 Desirable 38 55.1 2 No 17 24.6 2 Questionable 19 27.5 1 Don't Know 2 2.9 1 Undesirable 0 0 X = 3.188 2.899 Total Cases 69 69 H 00 ( 7 N 187 covered in Table 43, it appeared evident that California junior colleges were making a variety of biological science courses available for non-science major transfer students. Chapter Summary The data offered in this chapter were gathered from responses to the questions presented to biology department or division chairmen in California public junior colleges regarding their actual practices in dealing with transfer students enrolled in biological science courses. Both biological science majors and non-majors fall into this category. In addition, information was sought from these respondents as to their recommendations for desirable practices in facilitating the biological science curriculum for these students. These recommendations were, in effect, assessments or value judgments and they should be considered in terms of the biases and values of the respondents and in the context of the junior colleges with which they are associated. Data presented in this chapter were reported by means of general description and tabular form. The major findings of this chapter are listed below: 1. Over four-fifths of the respondents indicated that non-science transfer students were given a choice of biology courses to satisfy their science requirements. A larger number of respondents recommended this practice as desirable. Table 43.— Botany or zoology for non-science major transfer students Actual Practice Desirable Practice Rank Response No. Per Cent Rank Response No. Per Cent 4 Yes 43 62.3 4 Essential 4 6.0 3 Partially 23 33.3 3 Desirable 51 76.1 2 No 3 4.3 2 Que s ti onable 11 16.4 1 Don‘t Know 0 0 1 Undesirable 1 1.5 X = 3.580 • 2.866 Total Cases 69 67 oo o o 189 2. Half of the junior colleges reporting in this study actually sought the major speciality in biology from their freshmen biology majors. No decisive data were obtained which recommended desired practice, because exactly one-half of the cases reported that it was either desirable or essential to discourage this information and an equal number considered this practice as questionable or undesirable. 3. About one-fourth of the junior colleges in this study required biology for either an associate in arts or science degree. Two-thirds of the respondents recommended this practice as desirable. 4. More than one-third of the California public junior colleges offered an associate in science degree. Slightly less than two-thirds of the cases reported that this would be a desirable practice. 5. Nearly all of the cases reported that placement tests in biological sciences were not offered to entering freshmen. More than one-half considered placement tests in biology as either questionable or undesirable. 6. More than four-fifths of the respondents reported that they did not use the results from the College Entrance Board Examinations for placing students in appropriate biology courses. More than two-thirds of the respondents recommended the practice of using the examination as either questionable or undesirable. 190 7. More than three-fourths of the junior colleges in this study indicated that former students, as a matter of policy, are encouraged to return to discuss their articulation experiences with four year colleges. All of the respondents recommend this practice as desirable. 8. More than one-third of the respondents reported that special counselors were assigned to students majoring in biology. More than four-fifths of the cases reporting recommended this practice as either an essential or a desirable practice. 9. More than one-half of the junior colleges in this study assigned a counselor, among others, to meet with state college and university liaison and articulation groups. Nearly all of the respondents recommended this practice as either essential or desirable. 10. About three-fourths of the junior colleges in this study advised biology majors to take a common set of biology courses in a fixed sequence. The same number recommended this practice as either essential or desirable. 11. Almost two-thirds of the respondents reported that biology rather than zoology or botany was taken by non-science transfer students. About four-fifths of the respondents recommended this practice as either essential or desirable. CHAPTER VI THE FINDINGS RELATED TO REACTIONS TOWARD THE MAJOR ISSUES Introduction This chapter presents an analysis of the attitudes of the respondents toward the major issues of this investigation as outlined in the statement of the problem in Chapter I. These issues were gathered and later condensed from such sources as the literature, the findings and recommendations of professional organizations, the jury of experts employed in the development of the evaluative instrument used in this study, and from general discussion from among biology faculty in the field. After careful thought, it appeared possible to cluster these issues into the following broad general groupings: (1) Curriculum development appropriate to the needs of: (a) non-transfer students, (b) non-science liberal arts transfer students, (c) transfer occupationally oriented students; (2) influence of modern biology; (3) articulation practices; (4) faculty and facilities. The information presented in this chapter, by general description and through tabular form, added to the 191 192 study another dimension from which recommendations and conclusions were derived. Chapter III through V presented the findings gathered concerning the actual and recommended desirable practices regarding biological sciences in California public junior colleges. Nature of Curriculum The biological science curricula offered in California public community junior colleges were found to reflect the goals, whether realistic or not of their diverse student bodies. See Appendix D for a selected list of biological science courses taken from several different California public junior college catalogues. A rather broad list and a wide variety of biological science courses and course titles will be found. Unique biology curriculum.— Because of the diverse goals, abilities and large number of students, junior colleges appear to face unique curriculum problems not generally found among the other institutions of higher education. Yet, it was surprising to find that according to the respondents, 35 of 66, or 53 per cent, indicated that there was no need for devising a unique type of biological science curriculum for the public junior colleges in California. 193 Non-science major transfer students.— As was expected, nearly all of the junior colleges in this study, 6 6 of 70, or 94.3 per cent, offered a biological science course to non-science (liberal arts) students. This was consistent with the findings in Chapter III. Core preparation for majors.— Of 70 respondents, a majority, 38, or 54.3 per cent, reported that they agreed to the practice of offering the core preparation for biology majors in any specialty such as medicine or veterinary science, and that this experience should be extended over a minimum of two years. Of course, this practice would require the closest possible coordination of biology courses with four year target institutions. Core in a fixed sequence of courses.— If biological science majors should be advised to take a core of courses in a fixed sequence, then junior colleges would be faced with the issue of developing a curriculum which fitted into a sequential pattern of core courses, or at least into a sequential pattern of learning experiences, with the transfer institutions. Slightly more than a majority, 36 of 70, or 51.4 per cent, of the junior colleges indicated they favored the idea. At least 20 per cent of the respondents did not express an opinion regarding the issues of a core curriculum for biological science majors. This subject should be of concern as the 194 issue of a core curriculum is being promoted by profes sional biological organizations, such as CUEBS. Biological concepts prior to botany and zoology.— Some writers in this field have indicated the desirability of subjecting biological science majors to basic biological concepts prior to their study of specific subjects such as botany and zoology. A few felt that all students, both majors and non-majors, should take the same introductory biology course which would be concept oriented. In this matter, 52 of 68, or 76.5 per cent, of the respondents supported the suggestion that biological science majors should be grounded in basic biological concepts before taking botany and zoology courses. Although some institutions no longer offer botany and zoology, as other courses are being offered in their place, it was still felt that beginning courses in biological sciences should emphasize heavily the basic biological concepts. Data pertaining to these items are presented in Table 44. Modern Biology The vast expansion of our knowledge of molecular mechanisms in living processes has generated many new approaches to the study of biology. Some writers have reported that the molecular trend has initiated new Table 44.— Nature of the curriculum No. of Yes No Don't Know Issues Respondents No. % No. % No. % 1. Is there a need for devel oping a unique biology curriculum for junior colleges 66 27 40.9 35 53.0 4 6.1 2. Is general biological science offered to non-science major transfer students 70 66 94.3 4 5.7 0 0 3. Should a core preparation for majors be extended over two years 70 38 54.35 18 25.7 14 20.0 4. Should the core for biology majors be taken in a fixed sequence 70 36 51.4 15 21.4 19 27.1 5. Should basic biological concepts be offered to majors prior to the study of botany and zoology 68 52 76.5 13 19.1 3 4.4 195 196 approaches to the study of biology which are more comparative and integrative; and which emphasize greater unity in life sciences. This trend toward increased unity has influenced a change in the classic academic division between botany and zoology. Of course, not all biologists have agreed with these changes. Emphasis of modern biology.— According to 66 of 69, or 95.7 per cent, of the respondents, their modern biology courses placed greater emphasis upon molecular, cellular, and population biology than the more traditional biology courses. From these data, it would seem reason able to recommend that students should plan to take courses in the physical sciences and mathematics before studying modern biology. Junior college students should be made aware of these requirements. Unit value of modern biology courses.— After perusing catalogs from 80 public California junior colleges, the wide variety of course offerings in biological science became apparent. It was found that modern biology courses were offered in a variety of ways. ! Some were offered as one-semester five unit courses, while others were offered as two-semester courses for three units each semester. A greater number of junior colleges indicated that modern biology should be offered in two-semesters, three 197 units per semester, than in a one semester course for five units. Twenty-nine of 70, or 41.4 per cent, of the junior colleges reported that they preferred offering modern biology for non-science (liberal arts) students in two- semesters, three units per semester. On the other hand, 16 of 69, or 23.2 per cent, of the cases indicated their preference for a one-semester course for five units of credit. Data pertaining to these items may be found in Table 45. The most frequent criticism found among those who favor a balanced presentation for non-science majors is that there is a tendency for those biologists with a strong molecular orientation to cover inadequately the higher levels of organization. It would seem reasonable to assume that a better balance among the important elements of biochemistry, microbiology, physiology, ecology, and genetics could be achieved in an introductory course offered in two semesters for three units per semester. In addition, some writers have suggested that liberal arts students need less emphasis on molecular biology than does the biology major. Articulation Effective practices of articulation were of immense importance to this study. Presumably junior colleges will be handling a larger share of freshmen and sophomores in Table 45.— Modern biology No. of Yes_____________No________Don't Know Issues Respondents No. % No. % No. % 1. Do modern biology courses 69 66 95.7 2 2.9 1 1.4 place greater emphasis on molecular, cellular, and population biology than the traditional courses 2. Should the modern biology 69 16 23.2 39 56.5 14 20.3 course for non-science (liberal arts) students be a one semester five units course 3. Should the modern biology 70 29 41.4 30 42.9 11 15.7 course for non-science (liberal arts) students be a two semester course for three units per semester H o o the future in California, and closer coordination and resolution of the problems of articulation will be needed. In addition, because of the planned mobility of their students, two and four year colleges are becoming increasingly interdependent. The complex issues of articulation will require continuous effort from several coordinated sources. Whatever plan is worked out for effective liaison machinery, according to Medsker, it should provide some method in which representatives from both types of institutions, teachers and administrators, could have the opportunity in the interests of students to share in the resolution of the problems. Practices related to articulation and sequential planning were covered in Chapter IV. It was the objective of this section to gather data from the junior college biological science division or department chairmen regarding their reactions to selected articulation problems. Table 46 covers the data pertaining to the following items. Core courses for biological science majors.— The respondents supported the idea that there was a greater possibility for California public junior colleges to schedule core courses for biological science majors in a sequential pattern with state colleges than the university. Although the difference is not great, forty-eight of 65, Table 46.— Articulation Issues No. of Respondents No Yes % No No. % Don* t No. Know % 1. Is it possible for Calif, junior colleges to schedule core courses for biology majors to articulate sequentially with California state colleges 65 48 73.8 7 10.8 10 15.4 2. Is it possible to schedule core courses with the University of California 66 45 68.2 8 12.1 13 19.7 3. Has the BSCS influenced changes in California junior college biological science curricula 68 35 51.5 13 19.1 20 29.4 4. Is there a need for more state wide planning to coordinate biological science curricula 68 59 86.8 6 8.8 3 4.4 5. Is there a need for a biology sciences accreditation commission for California junior colleges 69 21 30.4 34 49.3 14 20.3 to o o 201 or 73.8 per cent of the respondents felt it would be easier to plan a sequential pattern of courses with state colleges compared to 45 of 65, or 68.2 per cent, of the cases which felt the same about the universities. Nonetheless, these results indicated a strong advocacy of and faith in the coordination and liaison machinery for coordination and articulation. Influence of BSCS.— Opinions have differed regarding the nature of the influence of the Biological Science Curriculum Study (1958) upon the biological science curricula in higher education. Some authors have contended that it was still too early to evaluate fully and accurately its influence, while others have asserted that BSCS has had considerable influence upon higher education. It was the opinion of a little better than one-half of the respondents, 35 of 68, or 51.5 per cent, that the Biological Science Curriculum Study had influenced change in the California public junior college biological science curricula. A rather large number in this case, 20 of 68, or 29.4 per cent, of the cases expressed no opinion. Although these data could hardly be considered conclusive, there was evidence that opinions still vary on the subject. Need for state-wide planning.— Fifty-nine of 68, or 86.8 per cent, of the junior colleges reported that there was a need for more state-wide planning for coordinating 202 biological science curricula among the three segments of higher education in California. These data closely paralleled the recommendations of authorities on the subject. Joint participation in professional meetings and closer coordination between the two and four year colleges have become increasingly common in recent years. However, there are many problems in working out the mechanics of articulation. In particular, care should be taken, while in the process of developing an effective state-wide program, not to replace entirely individual articulation efforts between two institutions and among staff on the local level. Biological science accreditation commission.— There was little agreement among the respondents regarding establishing a commission of this type. Thirty-four of 69, or 49.3 per cent, of the respondents indicated that they did not favor establishing a biological science accredi tation commission for California junior colleges. Twenty- one of 69, or 30.4 per cent, of the cases expressed a need for forming a commission of this kind. A comparatively large number 14 of 69, or 20.3 per cent, of the respondents did not express opinions on the subject. With almost 50 per cent of the junior colleges not in favor of establishing such a commission coupled with slightly more than 20 per cent who expressed no opinions on 203 the subject, it concluded that there was little need of a biological science accreditation commission. Faculty and Facilities Several issues still remained to be studied regarding offering general education biological science courses to transfer students. Some information was needed regarding the conditions within which these courses were offered. For example, in respect to faculty, such questions as, what background and training are considered as adequate qualifications for teaching such courses, how do faculty keep up to date, and do they perform research? In regards to facilities, questions have revolved around the issue of their adequacy. Certainly such issues have some influence upon the effectiveness of biological science education in California public junior colleges. From the information gathered recommendations can be made. See Table 48 for data covering the following items. Faculty.— The quality of instruction depends bo a great extent upon the experience and training of the faculty. In the transfer courses, junior college students should encounter instructors as good as, and certainly no worse than, those found in four year colleges. Some writers have contended that in general junior college instructors reflected more concern for individual students. A rather important consideration for study was the 204 Table 47.— Academic level considered adequate for junior college instructor of biology Degree Number Per Cent B.A. 0 0 B.S. 0 0 M. A. 14 21.2 M.S. 35 53.0 M.Ed. 0 0 Ph.D. 14 21.2 Other 3 4.6 Total number of respondents 66 Total per cent 100.0 Table 48.— Faculty and facilities Issues No. of Respondents No Yes % NO. No ■ -ya ■' Don' t No. Know ' ■ 1. Are the physical facilities adequate for the instruction of biological sciences 70 49 70.0 21 30.0 0 0 2. Are the instructional personnel adequate for the instruction of biological sciences 69 62 89.9 5 7.2 2 2.9 3. Are any staff members involved in any research pro jects 69 42 60.9 27 39.1 0 0 4. Have faculty taken science courses since 1965 69 66 95.7 2 2.9 1 1.4 5. Has division received outside 69 61 88.4 7 10.1 1 1.4 financial assistance from NSF, AEC, or NDEA since 1960 205 206 preparation and adequacy of the two year college biology instructor. According to 62 of 69, or 89.9 per cent, of the respondents, it was reported that they felt the two year college biology faculty was adequate. This was a strong endorsement of them by their colleagues. Although the problem of professional identity has been of considerable importance to two college biologists, they seemed to be recognized as professionally competent and adequate by both their professional colleagues and students. The master1s degree was considered to be the most adequate degree for the junior college instructor of biology. See Table 47 for the data. Research projects.— Although authorities have recognized the importance of concentrating upon the instructional program in two year colleges, there are still those who are interested in institutional and pure research. Medsker indicated that most two year colleges conduct very little research of the kind that would facilitate institutional planning and an improvement of student personnel services. Nonetheless, two year college biologists have been involved in developing new science programs, in updating courses, and in pure research. Without regard as to the nature of the project, a considerable number of respondents, 42 of 69, or 60.9 per 207 cent, reported that staff members had research projects underway. Some writers have recommended encouraging research although not requiring it on the two year college level. Because of what it contributes to professional growth, through professional association with colleagues, and through maintaining contact with current problems of the field, it was considered to be valuable. Graduate study.— A large number of respondents, 66 of 69, or 95.7 per cent, reported that their instructors had taken graduate science courses since 1965. See Table 48 for the data pertaining to this item. These data were reassuring evidence of the professional attitude of the two year college biology instructors in California toward keeping current in their academic field. This was reassuring especially because of the changing nature of the discipline. Graduate study has been considered an excellent way for faculty to keep up to date academically, in addition to maintaining professional association with other two year faculty and four year college colleagues. Although requirements for faculty in junior colleges have differed from four year colleges because of various demands of two year college programs, there was strong feeling among authorities that the two year college instructors should have a strong subject matter background 208 with an effective orientation toward the skills of instruction. Outside financial assistance.— The conditions in which biological science courses were offered are effected to some degree by the limitations of college facilities and budget. Assistance to students, to faculty for study and research, and for long range planning of facilities should help achieve successful educational results. A large number of biological science divisions or departments, 61 of 69, or 88.4 per cent, reported that they had received outside financial assistance since 1960 such as capital outlay grants from the National Science Foundation, Atomic Energy Commission, or the National Defense Education Act. Data pertaining to these items are in Table 48. Prerequisites for biology majors.— It was logical for this study to find out what was recommended in relating chemistry and physics to the background of students majoring in biology. The junior college experi ence for biology majors should prepare them for the baccalaureate degree at a four year college. Most of the jrespondents, 59 of 68, or 86.8 per cent, felt that junior college students majoring in biology should have the equivalent of at least one year of physics and some background in organic and inorganic chemistry. This agreed in part with the study of Biology in the Two Year College 209 which "strongly recommended that biology majors attending two year colleges complete all required lower division courses in chemistry, physics and mathematics before transferring." Another authoritative source, Content of Core Curricula in Biology, recommended "that training in biology beyond the introductory course not begin until the student is grounded in mathematics, at least through the level now generally taught as calculus." The respondents were not as receptive to the idea of substituting other courses for chemistry and physics. Of the 61 junior colleges which responded, 24, or 39.3 per cent, reported that they favored a background for biology majors in biochemistry and biophysics rather than one in the traditional physics and chemistry sequences of courses. Responses to this questionnaire item are shown in Table 49. Chapter Summary The data presented in this chapter were obtained from the 70 questionnaires which were used in this study. These returns showed the responses toward the major issues of this investigation as outlined in the statement of the problem in Chapter I. The major findings of this chapter are listed below. 1. A rather broad list of biology courses and course titles was found in 80 1968-69 catalogues of California public junior colleges. Table 49.— Prerequisites for biology majors No. of Yes No Don 11 Know Issues Respondents No. % No. % No. % 1. Should biology majors have the equivalent of at least one year of physics and some background in organic and inorganic chemistry 68 59 86.8 5 7.4 4 5.9 2. Should biology majors have a background in biochemistry and biophysics rather than one year of physics and two years of chemistry 61 24 39.3 20 32.8 17 27.9 to O 211 2. Over one-half of the respondents indicated there was no need for devising a unique type of biological science curriculum for the junior colleges in California. 3. Nearly all of the junior colleges offered a biological science course to non-science (liberal arts) students. 4. Over fifty per cent of the junior colleges supported the practice of offering a core preparation for biology majors which extended over a minimum of two years. 5. Slightly over 50 per cent favored the idea of developing a sequential pattern of core courses for biological science majors. 6. More than three-fourths felt that biological science majors should be grounded in basic biological concepts before being exposed to botany and zoology courses. 7. Nearly all indicated that their modern biology courses placed greater emphasis upon molecular, cellular, and population biology than the traditional courses. 8. It was preferred for modern biology for non majors to be offered in two semesters, three units per semester, rather than in a one semester course for five units. 9. Slightly less than three-fourths of the respondents felt that it would be easier to plan courses in a sequential pattern with state colleges than with the 212 universities. 10. More than one-half of the respondents felt that BSCS had influenced change in the biological science curricula of California public junior colleges. 11. Most of the junior colleges reported a need for more state-wide planning for coordinating biological science curricula among the three segments of higher education. 12. There was little agreement among the respondents regarding establishing a biological science accreditation commission. 13. Nearly all of the respondents felt that the two year colleges biology faculty were adequate. 14. More than half of the respondents indicated that staff members had research projects underway. 15. Nearly all reported that their staff had taken graduate science courses since 1965. 16. Nearly all reported that they had received outside financial assistance for capital outlay since 1960. 17. Most felt that biological science majors in two year colleges should have an equivalent of at least one year of physics and some background in organic and inorganic chemistry. 18. More than half did not favor substituting 213 biochemistry and biophysics for the traditional courses in physics and chemistry in two year colleges. CHAPTER VII FINDINGS RELATED TO DESIRABLE CURRICULAR PRACTICES IN BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Introduction It was assumed in this study that department or division chairmen of biological sciences could provide valid information concerning the actual and/or desirable practices in biology followed by public California community junior colleges. In addition, it was assumed that these desirable practices could be gathered from the responses of the department or division chairmen. It was acknowledged that the more objective and unbiased the one expressing the opinion, the greater chances were for more accuracy in the measurement. The participation of other faculty was not solicited on the assumption they would present a more biased point of view because of the probability of a greater interest in an academic specialty or of a bias or leaning toward either modern or traditional biology. For these reasons, the department or division chairman was sought as the logical respondent to the questionnaire because it was assumed that he would be more interested in the overall balanced biology curriculum and 214 215 would be more objective in his assessment of it. As stated in Chapter I, it was also assumed the development of a list of desirable practices regarding biological sciences in California public junior colleges can be of use both in establishing new programs and in evaluating existing ones. The list of desired practices was compiled from 70, or 87.5 per cent, of the questionnaires distributed to 80 California public community junior colleges in the spring of 1968. The evaluative instrument or questionnaire used in this study sought responses to the "actual practices" related to (1) curriculum, (2) articulation and sequential planning, and (3) biology students. In addition, the respondents were asked to evaluate each item according to "desired practices." This design provided the opportunity for a comparison between the two as well as the opportunity to compile a list of desirable curricular practices in biological sciences in California public junior colleges. Desirable practices with respect to curriculum.— 1. That the department or division should have the authority and responsibility for administering the biological science instructional program. 2. That a separate department or division for biological sciences was preferred. 216 3. That specific objectives should be established for the department or division of biology. 4. That the biological science department or division in two year colleges should not be subdivided into separate administrative units for botany, zoology, and microbiology. 5. That junior colleges should still offer organismally oriented courses, such as botany and zoology, to non-science transfer students. 6. That it would be questionable or undesirable to phase botany or zoology courses for the non-science majors out of the junior college curricula. 7. That offering the same course to biology majors and non-majors was considered questionable or undesirable. 8. That multiple track transfer biology courses, one for majors and one for non-majors, should be offered. 9. That specially designed biology courses should be offered to non-transfer students expecting to graduate from two year colleges. 10. That biological science courses in two year colleges should be offered with laboratories. 11. That process centered around general topics biology courses should be offered to non-major transfer students. The courses should be taught as a cultural activity (a process) with emphasis upon "discovery" and 217 "inquiry." 12. That integrated biology courses, rather than the organismally oriented courses in botany and zoology, should be offered to non-science majors in two year colleges. 13. That prerequisites should not be required for the biological sciences courses offered to non-major transfer students. 14. That phylogenetic considerations should be de-emphasized in biological science courses. Desirable practices related to articulation and sequential planning.— 1. That California junior colleges should duplicate the parallel or transfer courses in the local state colleges and universities. 2. That California junior colleges should have an articulation policy pertaining to local state colleges and universities. In addition, there should be an established policy for articulation with appropriate high schools. There should be a systematic means of communicating information and well thought out machinery for liaison implemented. 3. That transfer credit for biology courses taken in two year colleges should be given to the non-science major transfer students by California state colleges and the University of California. 218 4. That the public California two year colleges should coordinate methods and materials used in biology instruction with California state colleges and universi ties. 5. That the biological science faculty in California junior colleges should work cooperatively with university research scientists in order to develop new curricula and to keep current in biological sciences. 6. That California junior colleges should offer biological science courses to biology majors in a sequential pattern to articulate with the programs for majors in other two segments of higher education in California. 7. That in-service opportunities should be provided for biological science faculty in California junior colleges in order to enhance their backgrounds and for providing the resources for up-dating the subject matter of their courses. 8. That challenge examinations for biological science courses in California junior colleges should be implemented. Desirable practices related to students of biological sciences.— 1. That junior college non-science major transfer students should be given a choice of biology courses to satisfy their lower division science 219 requirements. 2. That a courses in biological sciences should be required of students seeking an Associate in Arts or Associate in Science degrees. 3. That an Associate in Science degree should be offered to graduates of California public junior colleges. 4. That placement tests in biological sciences should not be given to incoming freshmen in California public junior colleges. 5. That the results of College Entrance Examination Boards should not be used to place students in biology courses in California public junior colleges. 6. That transfer students should be encouraged to return to their former junior colleges to discuss articulation problems. 7. That special counselors should be designated to counsel and advise junior college students majoring in biology. 8. That California public junior colleges should designate a special counselor to work with state college and university liaison and articulation groups. This should not be construed as recommending the exclusion of other personnel from articulation. Appropriate personnel should be delegated the responsibility for articulation and they should be encouraged to communicate their agreements throughout the institution. 220 9. That biology majors should take a common set of biology courses in a fixed sequence in order to articulate properly with baccalaureate degree programs in biology. 10. That biology courses rather than botany or zoology courses should be offered to non-science major transfer students in California public junior colleges. Chapter Summary This chapter has reported the desirable practices in biology which department or division chairmen have recommended for public California community junior colleges. It was assumed that the department or division chairmen were the logical sources for responses to the questionnaire used in this study, because it was assumed they would tend to be more objective in their attitudes and more interested in the overall balanced biological science curriculum. In addition, it was assumed that such a list of desirable practices for the administration of biological sciences in California public junior college can be of use to new colleges as well as in evaluating existing ones. Inconsistent responses from three different but related questionnaire items were noted. It was recom mended by a majority of the respondents for junior 221 colleges, as a desirable practice, to continue to offer organismally oriented courses, such as botany and zoology, to non-science majors. On the other hand, the respondents, the department or division chairmen, have recommended in two different items that biology, rather than organismally oriented courses in botany and zoology, should be offered to non-science majors in two year colleges. This could be interpreted to mean that although biology courses were favored, there still was some reluctance to recommend phasing out completely the traditional academic organismally oriented courses, such as botany and zoology. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Data were derived from a variety of sources. Pertinent information was collected from a pilot study of a stratified sampling of 14 public California community junior colleges as well as from observations, literature, and from data gathered from the evaluative instruments from which an 87.5 per cent response was obtained. These data provided the necessary resources for the determina tion of the actual and desirable practices regarding biological science courses for non-science majors in California public community junior colleges. The information obtained from the 80 California public junior college catalogs (1968-1969) provided the data necessary to establish the fact that these two year colleges offer a wide variety of biological science courses. The mean number of units of biology courses offered by California public junior colleges was found to be 13.9 units which may be compared to a mean number of 11.0 units found in a national study. Chapter I includes the discussion of the pilot study and Chapter II reviews the literature pertaining to the problem of the study. Chapters III through VII 222_________ 223 deals with the findings derived from data found in the evaluative instrument. Chapter VII presents the recommended "desirable" practices regarding offering biological sciences in California public junior colleges. This chapter presents a summary of the findings, the conclusions drawn from the literature and findings, and the recommendations with regards to presenting a good biological science program to non-science major students in California public community junior colleges. Summary The problem.— The main purposes of this study were to: (1) determine, analyze, and evaluate the "actual" practices and recommended "desirable" practices regarding biological science courses for non-science majors in California public junior colleges, obtained from data based upon the experience of the department or division chairmen of biological sciences; (2) determine from the literature the trends, objectives, practices and emphases of biological science courses presently offered in California public junior colleges; (3) examine the nature and number of current biological science course offerings in California public junior colleges; (4) compare "actual" with "desirable" practices as they were related to curriculum, articulation and sequential planning, students, and general attitudes of the respondents associated with 224 biological sciences in California public junior colleges; (5) compare these practices with those recommended in the literature; (6) make recommendations for the "desirable" practices regarding general education biological science courses for non-science majors in California public junior colleges. Basic assumptions.— The following assumptions were considered basic to this study: (1) information gained from the department or division chairmen would provide a valid indication of the actual and desirable practices followed by the public junior colleges in California; (2) interpretations, attitudes, and understandings concerning the nature of general education biological science courses were numerous and varied; (3) California junior colleges have a responsibility to give all of their students a basic understanding and fundamental knowledge of biological science education; (4) it was desirable for students to be exposed to a cumulative development of scientific concepts which could be accomplished by a planned total science sequence from kindergarten through a degree from junior college; (5) the development of a list of desirable practices regarding general education biological science courses for non-science majors in the California public junior colleges could be of use in establishing and in evaluating such programs. 225 Importance of the study.— Studies have shown that the emphasis in curriculum development has shifted because of increasing interest in psychology of learning, in the systematic studies of human development, and in educational sociology. Not only what is taught, but how it is taught is a major challenge facing educators today. It was acknowledged that information is being gathered at enormous rates, but no less dramatic is the effect that the population explosion has upon educational institutions. The trend is directed toward universal college education today because more and more higher learning is becoming more and more essential for social, academic, and vocational success. Science educators share the problem of communicating a vast amount of information to an ever-increasing number of students with all educational levels. The problem of what general education science courses should do for the non-science major is a major concern. At present, a wide variety of science courses is offered in junior colleges, yet little is known about the development of biology curricula in these two year colleges More information is needed on the current curricular practices in biological science education, and particularly in the California public community junior colleges. This study is valuable in the state of California because of the extent or size of its junior college 226 programs. A comparatively large number of public junior colleges are offering a wide variety of courses. These two year colleges have been rather effective in preparing lower division students for upper division work. If the student plans his courses correctly, he will be granted full junior standing upon transferring to one of the two other segments of higher education in California. In actual practice many students transfer with minor deficiencies which must be remedied before they are accepted into full junior standing. A better way should be found to coordinate the present junior college curriculum not only with high schools, but especially with the other two segments of higher education in California, so that students could transfer from any accredited public community junior college to any other institution of higher learning without penalty. The problems associated with biological science courses and curricula in California public community junior colleges are affected by the following factors: (1) the shift in emphasis in curriculum development; (2) the interest in improving the quality of instruction; (3) the expanding of educational opportunities to an increasing number of students; (4) the increase in the amount of information available; (5) the influence of national study groups in updating the science curriculum; (6) the problem of what should general education science do for 227 the non-science major; (7) the demand for more sequential planning in curriculum development; (8) the unique nature of the open door, comprehensive community junior college and its phenomenal growth both in the number of new institutions and in student enrollments; and (9) the problems associated with transfer credit and articulation from lower to upper levels of learning. There was an explicit need to discover what were the "actual" and "desirable" practices related to the biological science curricula, articulation and sequential planning, biology students, and general attitudes of the respondents to biological sciences for non-science majors in California public community junior colleges. The information gathered in this study could guide the development of new programs in addition to being of some value in evaluating and improving the existing ones. Delimitation of study.— The study was delimited to the 80 operating tax supported California public community junior colleges between the academic years of 1967 and 1969. Methodology.— The following procedure was used in this study: (1) a thorough review of the literature pertaining mainly to biological sciences offered at the two year college level; (2) the use of a pilot study in a stratified sampling of fourteen California public junior 228 colleges to evaluate the problems and interest level; (3) formulation of the evaluative instrument; (4) acquisition of the approval of the California Junior College Association; (5) evaluation of the findings from the pilot study and of evaluative instrument by a jury of experts; (6) circulation of evaluative instrument to sampling area, the chairmen of divisions or departments of biological sciences in 80 California public junior colleges; (7) tabulation of data with the aid of the Data Processing Center at the University of Southern California; and (8) evaluation, correlation, and interpretation of data. Review of the literature.— The search of the literature pertaining to biological science education in the two year colleges revealed that most of the information dealing specifically with this subject came from studies of professional biological societies and national committees. Other information, of a general nature, dealing with historical background and functions of junior colleges was found in books, periodicals, governmental reports, dissertations, and in the published findings of professional societies. Although a national study of biology in two year colleges was made while this study was in progress, there has been no major study of biology in the California public junior colleges. 229 Summary of the Findings Biological science curriculum.— The authority and responsibility for administering the biological science instructional program in California public junior colleges rested mainly with either a department or division. About one-third of the junior colleges in this study grouped the biological sciences and the physical sciences together into an administrative unit. Nearly all of the junior colleges revealed that their departments or divisions of biological sciences had established specific objectives. Biological science departments or divisions generally were not subdivided into separate administrative units for botany or zoology. Approximately three-fourths of the i California public junior colleges offered botany or zoology to non-science majors. About one-third of the respondents reported that botany was being phased out and slightly more than one-third revealed that zoology was being dropped from the curriculum. The same introductory biological science course was offered to majors and non-majors in about one-third of the junior colleges in this study. About two-thirds of the institutions offered a double or multiple track biological science curriculum by offering separate courses for majors and non-majors. Special biological science courses were offered to non-transfer students seeking an Associate in Arts or Science degree in about one-half of the cases reported. 230 Two-thirds of the junior colleges reported that biology courses were offered only with laboratories. Nearly all of the two year colleges reported that the biology courses offered to non-science major transfer students were process centered around designated topics. Phylogenetic considerations were being de-emphasized. More than one- half of the cases reported that integrated biological science courses were offered to non-science major transfer students rather than botany and zoology. Nearly all jun ior colleges did not require prerequisites for biological science courses for non-science majors. In about one- third of the cases, introductory biology courses were used as a prerequisite for other courses in biology. The mean number of units of biological sciences offered by California public junior colleges was found to be 13.9 units. Articulation and sequential planning.— There was a strong tendency toward duplication of the transfer courses offered in the lower division of the California state colleges and the University of California. Although three-fourths of the respondents indicated that they participated whether as a matter of policy or partially with local colleges and universities in articulation conferences, it was significant that a number as large as 25 per cent of the biological science divisions or 231 departments in the study reported they did not participate in these activities. A majority of the respondents indicated that they engaged in articulation conferences with local high schools. Still a rather large number of this group did not undertake this activity with the appropriate high schools. Nearly all of the respondents claimed that their non-science major transfer students received transfer credit for biology courses at California state colleges and at the University of California. About one-half of the respondents reported that they coordinated methods and materials used in biology instruction with California state colleges and the University of California. It was indicated that a large majority, 75 per cent, of the junior college biological science faculty have not been involved in cooperative curriculum development efforts with university research scientists. A large majority of junior colleges offered biology majors biological science courses in a sequence similar to those offered in California state colleges and at the branches of the University of California. Over one-half of the respondents indicated that in-service training opportunities were provided for junior college biological science faculty. Less than one-third of the junior colleges reported that they allowed waivers of biological science courses through an examination to well prepared high school students. 232 There was little evidence that California public junior colleges were engaged in planning biological science curricula in a sequential pattern or around a core of educational experiences. Practices related to students.— A large majority of California public junior colleges gave their students, who were non-science transfer majors, a choice of several different biological science courses. One-half of the respondents sought from their freshmen biology majors their major specialty in biology. Approximately one- fourth of the junior colleges required a course of biology to satisfy a degree requirement. About one-third of the respondents offered an Associate in Science degree. Nearly all of the junior colleges reported that they did not offer placement tests in biological sciences to their beginning students. In addition, the College Entrance Examination Boards were not used by a large majority of the respondents. Over three-fourths of the respondents indicated that, as a matter of policy, former transfer students were encouraged to return to the junior college to discuss their articulation experiences with the four year institutions. Less than one-half of junior colleges reported that special counselors were assigned to students majoring in biology. Slightly over one-half of the junior colleges indicated that a counselor, among 233 others, was assigned to meet with state college and university liaison and articulation groups. Less than three-fourths of the junior colleges indicated that biology majors were advised to take a common set of courses in a fixed sequence with four year institutions. Almost two-thirds of the junior colleges reported that biology rather than zoology and/or botany was taken by non-science transfer students. Reactions toward the major issues.— Over one-half of the respondents indicated there was no need to devise a unique kind of biological science curriculum for junior colleges in California. Nearly all of the junior colleges offered a biological science course to non-science transfer students. A majority of the respondents agreed in offering the core preparation for biology majors, and about the same number favored the idea of offering a core of courses which fitted into a sequential pattern of courses from secondary schools through the university. More than three-fourths of the respondents felt that biological science majors should be well grounded in basic biological sciences before taking botany and zoology. Modern biology.— Nearly all respondents reported that their modern biology courses placed greater emphasis upon molecular, cellular, and population biology than the 234 traditional courses. A greater number of junior colleges preferred a two semester, three units per semester, presentation of modern biology than a one shot one semester course for five or four units. There was agreement from more than three-fourths of the respondents that there was a greater chance of scheduling core courses for biological science majors with the state colleges than with the university. More than one-half of the respondents felt that the Biological Science Curriculum Study (in secondary schools) had influenced change in the biological science curricula in California public junior colleges. Nearly all of the respondents felt that there was a need for more state-wide planning for coordinating biological science curricula among the three segments of higher education in the state of California. Slightly less than one-half of the respondents expressed that there was no need for establishing a state-wide accreditation commission for biological sciences for the California public junior colleges. Faculty and facilities.— Nearly all of the respondents reported that the two year college biology faculty was adequate. The attainment of a master's degree was considered adequate for the academic level necessary for the junior college teacher of biology. This finding was consistent with the literature. 235 A large number of junior colleges reported that staff members had research projects underway and a large number of two year institutions reported that their biology faculty had taken graduate science courses since 1965. Most of the biological science departments or divisions in this study reported that they had received outside financial assistance since 1960 such as capital outlay grants from such sources as NDEA. Most felt that biological science majors in two year colleges should have an equivalent of at least one year of physics and some background in organic and inorganic chemistry. More than half did not favor substituting biochemistry and biophysics for the traditional courses in physics and chemistry in two year colleges. Desirable curricular practices in biological sciences.— A list was provided of desirable practices in biology which were recommended by department or division chairmen for public California community colleges. It was assumed that the findings in such a list could be of value in establishing new programs as well as in evaluating existing ones. The findings described as desirable prac tices in Chapter VII covered the following areas: (1) curriculum, (2) articulation and sequential planning, and (3) students of biological sciences. Inconsistent responses were noted such as the practice of phasing out 236 of organismally oriented courses, such as botany and zoology, from the California public junior college curriculum. Conclusions The following conclusions are based upon the findings of this study: 1. The biological science programs of instruction in California public junior colleges are administered mainly by either a department or division which typically had established specific objectives for their programs. A few junior colleges in this study grouped biological sciences together with physical sciences into administra tive units, although very few subdivided the biological sciences into separate administrative groups for botany and zoology, respectively. 2. A large variety of biological science courses, differeing in titles, unit values, semesters or quarters, and emphases are offered by the California public junior colleges (see Appendix). Some feel that a proliferation of courses may become a source of weakness in the junior college besides being a source of unnecessary expense. The mean number of units of biology offered by California junior colleges was found to be 13.9 units. The larger junior colleges offered more units in subjects such as biology. 237 While there is a strong tendency to duplicate the parallel courses at the state colleges and the branches of the university, the various and numerous general education biology courses are dependent generally upon the objectives of individual two year institutions in a climate of local autonomy, the course objectives formulated by faculties, the instructional facilities, the transfer requirements, the size and needs of the student body, and the experience, dedication, and commitment of the faculty. Because of the diverse conditions and the emphasis upon local autonomy among California public junior colleges, understandings and interpretations regarding the nature of general education science for non-science majors have been numerous and varied. A large variety of general education biological science courses are offered to diverse student bodies in California public junior colleges. This appears consistent with recommendations from the related literature and from the respondents in this study who saw no need to develop a special or unique biological curriculum for junior colleges and who suggested that junior college curricula generally should be appropriate to the goals and objectives of a diverse student body in local situations. These conclusions were made outside of budgetary considerations which could be evaluated in another study. 3. There is a strong trend in California public junior colleges in the drift of general education courses 238 away from the traditional organismally oriented descriptive surveys of plants and animals to a discovery process approach to biological sciences organized around topical subjects. There is an increased emphasis upon principles, rather than on facts, while phylogenetic considerations are de-emphasized. Modern biology courses being offered in California public junior colleges place greater emphasis upon molecular, cellular, and population biology than the traditional courses. Some kind of laboratory experience is recommended because modern science, especially for the non-science majors, cannot be taught effectively without it. Although a rather large number of the California public junior colleges are still offering botany and zoology courses, a considerable number of two year colleges indicated that these traditional courses are being phased out. Despite the large number of institutions already having accomplished this, a significant number of institutions still offer botany and zoology to non-science transfer students. Increasingly, two year colleges are offering an integrated biological science course to non-science transfer students rather than botany and zoology courses. A large number of junior colleges reported that the non-science transfer students take biol ogy rather than botany and/or zoology. 4. Although no one course can be considered acceptable in every junior college in California, 239 nevertheless, a curriculum of two semester courses for three units each semester is preferred by the biological science department or division chairmen. Despite differing opinions in the literature, the respondents in this study favored offering two separate courses rather than offering one course for biology major and non-major transfer students. The shift in the approach to the subject matter, the change in emphasis, the value of laboratory experiences, and the increase in the number of biology courses for non-science transfer students all provide evidence that the California public junior colleges are attempting to keep up with current curricular recom mendations found in the literature. 5. The proper appraisal of the biological science major transfer students in two year colleges is a neglected area. This becomes more and more important as the number of junior colleges and the size of student bodies both increase. While a majority of the respondents agreed that the biology major should be given a core preparation planned around a core of common experiences which fitted into a sequential pattern of courses, there is not much evidence that much is being done on a state wide level for implementing current programs for articulating sequential learning experiences for biology majors among the three segments of higher education. 240 6. Despite the majority of California public junior colleges indicating that they participate with local high schools, colleges, and universities in articulation conferences, a significant number of biological science departments and divisions do not engage in these activities. Related literature suggests that the most effective program of cooperation is conducted through teachers, and it is generally accepted that good practices of articulation require systematic means of communicating information. The state of California has a rather complete model for articulation conferences, yet this study shows that those connected with biological sciences are not taking full advantage of this opportunity. The actual mechanics for accomplishing effective communication to all responsible personnel from the institutional representatives have not been completely worked out among California junior colleges. On the other hand, the California Articulation Conference is being subjected to considerable self study and evaluation. Good articulation takes place where sound educational policies exist for cooperation. 7. A large number of junior colleges offer biological science courses which duplicate those offered in four year institutions, although related literature recommends the principle of "equivalence" rather than strict "parallelsim." Few junior colleges allow waivers 241 of biology courses through challenge examinations, although this practice is gaining in popularity with students and among four year institutions. Most of the respondents claim that their non-science transfer students receive transfer credit for biology courses after transferring to another segment of higher education in California. While there is no way to show that they all engaged in common learning experiences, junior college transfer students should be assured of being exposed to a sequential educational pattern of experiences as they matriculate to four year institutions. Persistent effort should be maintained with senior colleges to achieve smooth and equivalent transfer for junior college courses. 8. There is a greater chance of scheduling core courses for biological science majors with state colleges than with the branches of the University of California. Very little is done to coordinate instructional methods and materials with the other two segments of higher education, nor do the junior college instructors generally seek aid from university research scientists. Yet California public junior colleges plan to up date current biology courses so as to articulate with the programs in the other two segments of higher education in California. 9. The study of biology helps junior college students to better understand the biological world in 242 which they live. Nearly all of the California public junior colleges offer biology to non-science transfer students. Related literature recommends the study of or at least some knowledge of biology for all students. Accordingly, it would seem reasonable for California public junior colleges to require biology to satisfy the requirements for a degree. A small number of two year colleges in the state at present require biology for either an Associate in Arts or Science degree. A larger number of institutions are now offering an Associate in Science degree. 10. Some authorities suggest that a measuring instrument be instituted which would evaluate the achievement level of biology students before entering junior colleges. Most of the junior colleges in this study do not give biology students placement tests, nor do they feel that it would be a desirable practice. A small number of California public junior colleges use the results of the College Entrance Board Examination for measuring achievement in order to place students in appropriate biology courses. The problem of using the aquisition of an "adequate" amount of course content as the sole index of achievement overlooks the importance of evaluating thoughtful understanding of what is studied. Oftentimes, the same content may be used to determine different levels of achievement. Placement tests for 243 biological science students in California junior colleges are not considered as either practical or desirable. 11. A variety of suggestions are made to increase the effectiveness of communicating articulation problems and their resolutions among and within institutions. Articulation can be successful only if the efforts are constant and adequate, however, the problems are rooted in the charge of inadequate communication among insti tutions and also within a single institution. A large majority of California public junior colleges, as a matter of policy, encourage their former transfer students to return to discuss their articulation experiences. In some cases, special counselors are assigned to advise and to aid biology transfer students in obtaining equivalent preparation and experience on par with the native students in the other two segments of higher education. In other cases, special counselors are assigned, in addition to other personnel, to meet with the four year college and university liaison groups. The key in resolving the problem is communicating whatever information which is gathered to the appropriate personnel within the institution. 12. A strong endorsement of the junior college biological science faculty and science facilities is made. The faculty is recognized as professionally competent and adequate by both the related literature and by the 244 respondents in this study. The academic level of achievement considered most adequate for instructors of junior college biological sciences is a masters of science degree. It is assumed it would be in an academic subject. Although authorities emphasize teaching and the instruc tional program in two year colleges, a considerable number of California junior college faculty are involved in research projects. In addition, there is evidence that the biology instructors in these institutions are keeping current in their academic field through graduate study. Junior college instructors are considered generally to show more concern and to have more time for their students than their counterparts in the other branches of higher education. Yet, among the perennial problems facing education in this country is not only pre-service, but effective and viable in-service training for faculty. Most of the California public junior colleges provide adequate in-service opportunities for biological science faculty. 13. Although no need is expressed for devising a unique kind of biological science curriculum for junior colleges, it is felt that California public junior colleges should develop for the majors a core of courses which fit into a sequential pattern with the other two segments of higher education in the state. Biological science majors should have an equivalent of at 245 least one year of physics and some background in both inorganic and organic chemistry while they attend public junior colleges in California, a minority of the department and division chairmen favor a background in biochemistry and biophysics for the biology major rather than exposure to the traditional sequence of courses in chemistry and physics. 14. There is abundant evidence of the need for providing the biological science instructors in California public junior colleges with more effective means of communicating and more opportunities to discuss mutual problems. The problem of finding the most effective means of communicating articulation agreements is not yet completely resolved. Much depends upon the personnel involved. There is a need for constant course revision and improvement of instructional techniques because of the increase in the amount of science information being gathered. There is the problem of reconciling the maintenance and improvement of the quality of instruction with the concommitant expansion of educational opportuni ties to an increasing number of students. Consequently, there is a need for more state-wide planning to coordinate the biological science curricula among the three segments of higher education in the state of California. 15. The National Science Foundation and other agencies have funded curriculum studies intended to have an 246 impact on science education at all levels. It is difficult to evaluate the merits of these programs, especially with reference to biological science programs in two year colleges. Opinions on this subject in the related literature and in this study differ. There is a wide difference of opinions in the literature regarding the effects of Biological Science Curriculum Study upon higher education, although the department and division chairman in this study feel that BSCS has influenced a significant change in the biological science curricula in California public junior colleges. 16. A list of desirable practices in biology recommended by the respondents in this study for public California community colleges is provided. General Recommendations Based upon the findings and conclusions, the following general recommendations are offered: 1. A large variety of biological science courses differing in course titles, unit values, semesters or quarters, and emphases are offered by California junior colleges. Credit is usually granted for these courses by four year institutions because of agreements made through a carefully worked out state-wide plan for articulation. Other states have different approaches to resolving the problem of granting transfer credit to junior college 247 transfer students. For example, in the state of Texas, the curriculum for its junior college system is simply prescribed by a state approved list of courses designating courses, course titles, descriptions of courses, and unit values. All junior colleges in Texas must develop curricula from this prescribed list if they wish to qualify for financial aid from the state. Evaluation of transfer credits under these conditions is minimized. This policy, however, is neither feasible or desirable in California. California public junior colleges have experienced more than sixty years of enormous growth from a special and unique pattern of development. It is recommended that these two year institutions, in a climate of local autonomy, should continue to offer transfer courses based upon the principle of equivalence with those lower division courses offered in the other two segments of higher education in the state. Special care should be taken to avoid unnecessary proliferation of the curriculum which could be a source of unnecessary expense. 2. In order to accomodate to their increasing responsibilities, California public junior colleges should seek ways of reconciling the maintenance and improvement of instruction with the concomitant expansion of educational opportunities for an ever increasing number of students. As the state of California is turning to 248 the public junior college system to advance the oppor tunities for higher education, the problem presents both a threat and a challenging opportunity. California public junior colleges have the capacity for absorbing large enrollments in addition to readily responding to student and community needs. Because of different kinds of local community needs, California has developed especially a heterogeneity of institutional types. Possibly now is the time for California public junior colleges to develop their own identity in curriculum development. What kinds of science programs are most appropriate for junior colleges? What kinds of objectives should be developed? What should be done in the future to continue to improve the quality of instruction and to provide a functional and viable in-service training program for junior college biological science instructors? In considering these questions in relation to science education, more study should be made in order to develop better techniques of curriculum planning relevant to science education in these two year colleges, and especially for developing improved methods of financing and evaluating the programs. 3. A large variety of general education biological science courses is offered to the heterogeneous student bodies in California public junior colleges. These courses should enable these students to develop certain competencies and understandings of the principles which 249 characterize scientific processes. Yet the junior college curricula should be protected from an indiscriminate proliferation of courses, which may tend to weaken the instructional program. Some junior college catalogs reveal an increasing tendency to offer advanced upper division work in a number of fields, which may not be acceptable for transfer credit, but which depends mostly upon the special interests of the faculty. What damage does this do to the student who takes entomology or embryology in a junior college, for example, and then must repeat it in a four year institution? The transfer student should be able to receive full credit for his courses in the other branches of higher education. Moreover, the transfer student should be exposed to learning experiences logically developed in a sequential pattern. This could be effectively assured if there is a concentrated effort toward cooperative curricular planning among the institutions of higher education and among high schools in order to derive the most effective student personnel services for the junior college students. This would make it more possible for California public junior colleges to offer curricula appropriate to the goals and objectives of their diverse student bodies. 4. General education biological science courses should provide the non-science major with certain 250 competencies in observing, collecting and analyzing data. It should be process centered, emphasizing discovery. It should assist the student in appreciating and under standing better the biological world in which he lives. All junior college students should be exposed to the experiences gained from a general education biological science course. 5. An integrated course in biological science is recommended for non-science transfer students in California junior colleges. Other institutions of higher education offer such courses as do most junior colleges. The course should cover two semesters of work for three units each semester. This would provide the students and faculty with enough time to cover most effectively the objectives of this course. 6. Instruction in biological sciences in the future should emphasize the necessity of greater faculty cooperation with scientists in the field and with curriculum study groups in order to prepare updated classroom materials. Current and relevant biological science courses which bridge the gap between research findings and what is taught should be organized especially for junior colleges. 7. Although there are differences of opinion in the related literature and in this study regarding offering separate courses to non-majors and majors in 251 biology, it is recommended that this decision should be left up to the individual public junior colleges in California. 8. Four year institutions should continue to work closely with their feeder institutions in resolving problems of articulation. These agreements arrived at should be effectively communicated to appropriate personnel. Moreover, special attention should be given to prerequisites and course requirements. As four year colleges and universities become more and more crowded, students may be diverted and some may find themselves unable to enter those institutions for which they had prepared. Therefore, it is going to be increasingly important to emphasize the principle of "equivalence" in addition to establishing common requirements and prerequisites acceptable to all concerned. Articulation agreements should provide for a smooth flow of students from one segment to another. This is especially important for the biological science major transfer student, who should receive a core preparation planned around a sequential pattern of common learning experiences. More should be done on a state-wide level to articulate sequential learning experiences for biology majors. The actual mechanics for accomplishing effective articulation should be more carefully worked out and emphasized as institutional responsibilities. 252 9. Persistent contact should be made with transfer institutions so that biological science transfer courses may achieve equivalent transfer credit without penalizing the students. Transfer students should be encouraged to return to the two year colleges to discuss articulation problems. 10. All junior college biology courses should provide students with laboratory experiences. This enhances the opportunities for the student to become more familiar with the tools of science and to discover certain things for himself. Modern biology courses should continue to emphasize principles of science rather than disseminate facts. 11. The biological science departments and divisions in the California public junior colleges should actively be engaged in course revision, improvement, and in updating course content. It may be possible to work toward establishing universally acceptable course objectives which could operate as a model providing direction for the general education science courses. Each community college could then select features which seem most appropriate to the local situation. Efforts should be made to encourage junior college instructors to continue to take advantage of the variety of in-service opportunities for the improvement of instruction. The quality of instruction depends upon the dedication and 253 commitment of the faculty and institution. There are various national, state, and local professional organiza tions with which faculty could align themselves, and which would in turn be of benefit to the students and insti tution. Participation in professional organizations should be encouraged. 12. The list of recommended desirable practices in biology for California public junior colleges should be of value in establishing new programs as well as being of service in evaluating existing ones. 13. Biological sciences should be required for graduation from California public junior colleges. In addition, all junior colleges in the state should offer an associate in sciences degree. More should be done to implement these recommendations. 14. If the best articulation practices occur through teachers, then better ways should be found to provide them with means for effective communication. Specific Recommendations Based upon the foregoing, the following may be considered as items for further study: 1. The determination of the kinds and types of biological science courses which are most appropriate within the context of the heterogeneous, amorphous, student centered complexes found among California public 254 junior colleges should be made. Such evaluations are valuable adjuncts to instruction and student personnel services only if they lead to improved educational practices. 2. More research should be done toward developing biological science curricula with regard to sequential learning experiences in grades one through sixteen. 3. Although the transfer students in most institutions of higher education earned grade point average comparable to native students, their record in retention and in attainment of degrees is poor. A thorough study should be made to determine whether biological science students are significantly involved with this problem. 4. The careers of biological science majors who have taken biological sciences in California junior colleges should be analyzed in order to ascertain the number of students achieving their career objectives in addition to gathering relevant information regarding the quality and effectiveness of their junior college experience. 5. More study should be made in defining the objectives, possibly in behavioral terms, for general education science courses in the California public junior colleges. 6. More study should be made of the changing nature and requirements of the biological science courses 255 in the state colleges and the branches of the University of California. 7. Entrance requirements of four year colleges serve to bring some element of unity into high school and junior college programs. Increased use of standardized tests, such as College Board examinations, the National Merit Scholarship Program, and the Westinghouse Talent Awards, has been a factor in working toward a more standardized educational program nati cnally because preparation for these examinations tends to promote standardization of learning experiences. The extent to which these factors influence junior college curricula should be studied. Greater use of advanced placement examinations in junior colleges should be studied with recommendations toward implementation. 8. A more definitive study should be made of which educational enterprise, state colleges and the university or secondary education, has the greater influence on the biological science curricula in California junior colleges. BIBLIOGRAPHY 256 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Barnard, J. Darrell. Rethinking Science Education. The 59th Yearbook of the NSSE. Part I. Chicago University of Chicago press, 1960. Bird, Grace V. "Preparation for Advanced Study," in Nelson B. Henry (ed.). The 55th Yearbook of the NSSE. Part I— The Public Junior College. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Blocker , Clyde E.; Plummer, Robert H.; and Richardson Richard C., Jr. The Two Year College: A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1965. Bogue, Jesse Parker. The Community College. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1950. Brandwein, Paul F., et al. Teaching High School Students Science: A Book of Methods. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1958. Bruner, Jerome S. The process of Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1960. Campbell, John P. Biological Teaching in the Colleges of the U.S. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1891. Clark, Burton R. The Open Door College: A Case Study. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Dressel, Paul L. The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc. 258 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Elam, Stanley and McLure, William P. ed. Educational Requirements for the 1970's. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967. Fields, Ralph R. The Community College Movement. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Gardner, John W. "National Goals for Education," in The Goals for Americans. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1960. Hurd, Paul De. Biological Education in American Secondary Schools, 1890-1960. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1961. Johnson, B. Lamar. General Education in Action: A Report of the California Study of General Education in the Junior College. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1952. Knoell, Dorothy M. and Medsker, Leland L. From Junior to Senior College: A National Study of the Transfer Student. Berkeley: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1966. King, Alexander, ed. New Thinking in School Biology in Report on OECD Seminar on the Reform of Biology Teaching. La Tour De Peilz, Switzerland: 1962. Marshall, J. Stanley and Burkman, Ernest. Current Trends in Science Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1966. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Muller, Hermann J. "The Role of Biology in General Education," in Alexander King (ed.), New Thinking in School Biology, in Report on OECD Seminar on the Reform of Biology. La Tour De Peilz, Switzerland: 1962. Piaget, Jean. Six Psychological Studies. Translated from the French by Anita Tenzer and David Elkind, edited by David Elkind. New York: Random House, 1966. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 259 Singer Charles. A Short History of Scientific Ideas to 1900. London: Oxford University Press, 1959. Taba, Hilda. Curriculum Development Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962. Thornton, James W., Jr. The Community Junior College. First Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960. _______ . The Community Junior College. Second Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. _______ . "General Education, 1 1 in Nelson B. Henry (ed.), The 55th Yearbook of the NSSE. Part I— The Public Junior College. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Woodring, Paul. A Fourth of a Nation. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. _______ . The Higher Learning in America: A Reassessment. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1968. Periodicals Ausebel, David P. "An Evaluation of the BSCS Approach to High School Biology." The American Biology Teacher, XXVIII, No. 3 (1966), 176-186. Chiasson, Robert B. "General Biology: A Dissenting Opinion." American Biology Teacher, XXIX (December, 1967), 733-735. The Chronicle of Higher Education, "Fall Enrollments, 1963-68," III, No. 14 (March 24, 1969), 1. Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences, CUEBS, No. 6 (December, 1964), 2. _. CUEBS, No. 8 (February, 1965), 2. _. CUEBS. No. 9 (April, 1965), 2. 34. CUEBS News. II, No. 3 (February, 1966), 7. 260 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. _______ . ’ ’ Panel on Biology in the Two Year College." CUEBS News, II, No. 5 (June, 1966), 6. _______ . "The College Commissions," (July, 1967), pp. 5-6. Dressel, Paul L. and DeLisle, Frances H. "Under graduate Curriculum Trends," The Chronicle of Higher Education, III, No. 11 (February 10, 1969), 3. Glass, Bentley H. "Renascent Biology: A Report on the AIBS Biological Science Curriculum Study." School Review, LXX (Spring, 1962), 16-43. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "AAJC Approach— Toward Universal Higher Education." Junior College Journal (November, 1966), p. 7. Hanes, Ted L. "problems Related to Biology in the Junior College." The American Biology Teacher, XXIX, No. 8 (November, 1967), 639-640. Hanna, P. R. "National Curriculum Commission." Journalism National Education Association, XLIX (January, 1960), 25. Laetsch, Watson M. "College Biology and the Captive Non-Major." American Biology Teachers, XXIX (April, 1967), 297-299. Mayer, William V. "Biology for the 21st Century." The American Biology Teacher, XXIX, No. 5 (May, 1967), 356-361. McGrath, Earl J. "The College Curriculum— An Academic Wasteland?" Liberal Education, XLIX (May, 1963), 235-246. Nanney, David L. "Some Issues in Biology Teaching." Bio Science, XVIII, No. 2 (February, 1968), 104- 107. Nelson, James H. "Guidelines for Articulation," A Summary of the Recommendations of the Joint Committee on Junior-Senior Colleges. Junior College Journal, XXXVI (March, 1966), 24-26. 261 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. Pearson, Paul G. and Foster, William B. "Change in College Biology— A Case History." The American Biology Teacher. XXIX, No. 5 (May, 1967), 366-372. Pollock, James M. "A Profile of Junior College Biology." The American Biology Teacher, XXVIII, No. 8 (October, 1966), 624-626. Rozolis, James Theodore. "A Comparison of the Traditional University Introductory Courses in Zoology and the Newer University Introductory Courses in Biology." BioScience, XVII, No. 9 (September, 1967), 618-629. _______ . "An Evaluation of the Newer University Biology Core Curriculum from the Professional Viewpoint and Implications for Secondary Schools." BioScience, XVII, No. 10 (October, 1967), 703-707. Tyler, Ralph W. "Do We Need a National Curriculum?" National Association of Secondary principals Bulletin, XLIV (February, 1960), 76-85. Tyler, Ralph W. "New Dimensions in Curriculum Development." phi Delta Kappan, XLVIII, No. 1 (September, 1966), 25-28. Voss, Burton E. "The Impact of BSCS Biology." School Science and Mathematics, LXVII, No. 2, Whole 589, pp. 145-148. Pamphlets Baker, Jeffrey J. W., ed. Commission on Under graduate Education in Biological Sciences. "Biology for the Non-Major." CUEBS Publication No. 19, Washington D.C.: CUEBS', July, 1967. _______ . "Biology in a Liberal Education," CUEBS Publication No. 15. Washington, D.C.: CUEBS, February, 1967. California State Department of Education. Master Plan for Higher Education in California 1960- 1975. Sacramento, 1960. 262 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65 . 66 . Conlon, Helen M. "Laboratory for the Biological Sciences," Science Education in the Junior College. Edited by Albert F. Eiss. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1966. Commission on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences. "Content of Core Curricula in Biology— Report of the Panel on Undergraduate Major Curricula.” Washington, D.C.: CUEBS Publication No. 18, June, 1967. The Coordinating Board, Texas College and University System, Junior College Division. "Course Guide Manual— A Handbook for Deans and Registrars." Austin, Texas, May, 1967. _______ . "The Development of Community Junior Colleges in Texas," and "The Core Curricula for Public Junior Colleges in Texas," Policy Paper No. 2, Austin, Texas, March, 1968. Eiss, Albert F., ed. "Viewpoints on Undergraduate College Science Programs," Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association. Fraser, Dorothy M. "Curriculum Studies in Academic Subjects— A Report Prepared for the Project on Instruction." National Education Association, 1962 . Gates, Claude L. "Problems of Transfer Students," Science Education in the Junior College. Edited by Albert F. Eiss. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1966. Hannelly, Robert J. "Meeting the Challenge II," Science Education in the Junior College. Edited by Albert F. Eiss. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1966. Leonard, J. P. "Some Reflections on the Meaning of Sequence," in V. E. Herrick and R. W. Tyler, editors. Toward Improved Curriculum Theory. Supplementary Educational Monograph No. 71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. Marks, Alvin, ed. "The Master Plan Five Years Later." No. 1024. Sacramento: Coordinating Council for Higher Education, March, 1966. 263 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. U.S. Government Printing Office. The Junior College and Education in the Sciences. Washington, D.C. 1967. Mathewson, James H. "Manpower, Money and Molecules." Science Education in the Junior College. Edited by Albert F. Eiss. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association. Peterson, Basil H., et al. "Critical Problems and Needs of California Junior Colleges." Sacramento: California State Department of Education, June, 1965. Poitras, Adrian, W., et al. "General Education." Science Education in the Junior College. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1966. Second Report to the president. President’s Committee on Education Beyond the High School. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1957. Report of the Harvard Committee. General Education in a Free Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1945. Report of Northern California College Biology Conference Sponsored by Bay Area Biologists Society. "Curriculum Revision and Articulation Problems Associated with the Lower Division Junior College, College, and University Biology Courses." Sacramento: California State Department of Education, September, 1965. Unpublished Materials Condell, Yvonne C. A Study of the Biological Science Curriculum in the Junior Colleges of Minnesota. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1965. Fitzgerald, James Sumner, Jr. Faculty Views of the California Public Junior College. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1964. 264 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. Rockwell, Robert Clarke. An Analysis of the Organization and Administration of Certain Functions and Curricular Practices in California Junior Colleges. Unpublished Doctoral disserta tion, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1955. Rozolis, James Theodore. A Critical Study of the Relationship Between the Biological Science Courses in Selected High Schools and Those at the University of California at Los Angeles (1960- 1965). Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles* 1966. Miscellaneous Brown, Martin D. "Biology in the Two-Year College." A speech presented at the National Convention of the National Association of Biology Teachers, Anaheim Convention Center, Anaheim, California, March 1, 1968. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "Our Changing Two-Year Colleges." Excerpts from a talk at the AAJC Conference on Planning for Development, Airlie House, Warrenton, Virginia, June 16, 1968. "Junior College Active Enrollments, Fall, 1968." Sacramento, California: The California Community Colleges, memorandum, January 20, 1969. "State College and University Admissions and Diversion Policies for Lower Division Students." Coordinating Council for Higher Education. A staff report for presentation to the Council on June 29-30, 1964 . "Summary of the Annual Fall Report on California Public Junior College Courses of Study and Standards, 1967-1968." Sacramento, California: The California Community Colleges, Bureau of General Education, July 1, 1968. "A Consideration of Issues Affecting California Public Junior Colleges," No. 1018. Sacramento: Coordinating Council for Higher Education, April, 1965. 265 84. Hertig, Willis H. "Biology in the Two-Year College," Washington, D.C.: CUEBS Publication No. 26, April, 1969. APPENDICES 266 267 APPENDIX A NATURE OF INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY Characteristics Number Per Cent District 1. Single junior college district 47 68.1 2. Multi-campus district 18 26.1 3. Other 4 5.8 Total number of junior colleges responding 69 Total Per Cent 100.0 Community 1. Rural 23 33.8 2. Urban 45 66.2 Total number of junior colleges responding 68 Total Per Cent 100.0 268 APPENDIX B JUNIOR COLLEGES WHICH RETURNED QUESTIONNAIRE 1. American River College 2. Antelope Valley College 3. Bakersfield College 4. Barstow College 5. Cabrillo College 6. Canada College 7. Cerritos College 8. Chabot College 9. Chaffey College 10. Citrus College 11. Columbia Junior College 12. Compton College 13. Cuesta College 14. Cypress Junior College 15. De Anza College 16. Desert, College of the 17. East Los Angeles College 18. El Camino College 19. Fresno City College 20. Fullerton Junior College 21. Gavilan College 22. Glendale College 23. Golden West College 269 24. Grossmont College 25. Hartnell College 26. Imperial Valley College 27. Long Beach City College 28. Los Angeles City College 29. Los Angeles Harbor College 30. Los Angeles Southwest College 31. Los Angeles Valley College 32. Marin, College of 33. Merced College 34. Merritt College 35. Mira Costa College 36. Monterey Peninsula College 37. Moorpark College 38. Mt. San Antonio College 39. Mt. San Jacinto College 40. Napa College 41. Ohlone College 42. Orange Coast College 43. Palo Verde College 44. Pasadena City College 45. Porterville College 46. Redwoods, College of the 47. Reedley College 48. Riverside City College 49. Sacramento City College 270 50. San Bernardino Valley College 51. San Diego City College 52. San Diego Mesa College 53. San Francisco, City College of 54. San Joaquin Delta College 55. San Jose City College 56. San Mateo, College of 57 . Santa Ana Junior College 58. Santa Barbara City College 59. Santa Monica City College 60. Sequoias, College of the 61. Shasta College 62. Sierra College 63. Siskiyous, College of the 64. Solano College 65. Southwestern College 66 . Taft College 67. Ventura College 68. Victor Valley College 69. West Valley College 70. Yuba College APPENDIX C CYPRESS JUNIOR COLLEGE A state-wide study is being conducted in California public junior colleges for the school year 1967-68. It has the approval of the California Junior College Association Committee on Research and Development. It is under the direction of the School of Education of the University of Southern California, and under the immediate supervision of Dr. Leslie E. Wilbur, Dr. D. Lloyd Nelson, and Dr. Earl V. Pullias. The purpose of this rating scale is to provide information that will aid in determining, analyzing, and evaluating current practices regarding biological science curriculum in California public junior colleges with special concern for biology which is taken by the non-science majors. We are desirous of obtaining your responses because your experience as instructor-in-charge, department chairman, or division head will contribute greatly toward deter mining the actual current practices regarding the biological science curriculum in our California junior colleges. It should not take more than fifteen to twenty minutes of your time to complete the rating instrument. Please use the stamped, self-addressed envelope which has been provided. If you desire a summary of the results of the completed study it will be mailed to you personally. Thank you for your cooperation, Arthur J. Schecter, Dean of Instruction Cypress Junior College 9200 Valley View Street Cypress, California 90630 Enclosures COPY 271 272 INSTRUCTION SHEET Please Complete; Date:_______________ (1) College:________________________________________________ (2) Your Name:________________(3)_Title_____________________ (4) Highest degree earned:______________ (5) Major field of study: ______________ (6) Total years on staff in junior college(s):____________ (7) Total years you have held this position:______________ TITLE: BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGES PURPOSE: The purpose of this rating scale is to provide information that will aid in determining, analyzing, and evaluating current practices regarding biological science in California junior colleges with special concern for biology for non-science majors. DIRECTIONS: Following is a list of selected current practices associated with biological science in California junior colleges as they relate to curriculum, articulation and sequential planning, and students. Please rate each item as it applies to your college for (1) ACTUAL PRACTICE and (2) DESIRABLE PRACTICE. Do not skip any item. RATING SCALE 1. ACTUAL PRACTICE: Please rate each practice as to the degree which it applies to your college by encircling one of the numbers to the left of each item. DOES THE FOLLOWING PRACTICE OCCUR IN YOUR INSTITUTION? 4-Yes 3-partially 2-No 1-Don 11 Know 2. DESIRABLE PRACTICE: Please rate each item in the list of desirable practices by encircling the most appropriate number to the right of each item. SHOULD THE JUNIOR COLLEGE BIOLOGY/DIVISION PERFORM PRACTICES ON THE LIST? 4-practice by the junior college is ESSENTIAL. 3-Practice by the junior college is DESIRABLE. 2-Practice by the junior college is QUESTIONABLE. 1-Practice by the junior college is UNDESIRABLE EXAMPLE: ACTUAL PRACTICE 4 3 2 1 1. Biology is taught in junior colleges. DESIRABLE PRACTICE 4 3 2 1 The second part of this instrument deals with general attitudes and the third part is devoted to general information. SUMMARY AND RETURN: You will not be identified personally. You will be forwarded a summary of this survey which is state-wide in scope. Your participation is needed. (Rating numbers appeared on the original form on left and right hand margins for answers) 1. There is a centralization of authority and responsi bility for instruction in biological sciences into a division or department. 2. Biological sciences courses are grouped together with physical sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.) into a department or division. 3. The biological sciences division or department has established specific objectives for the department relative to transfer, non-transfer, general education, and remedial functions of the junior college. 4. The biological science division consists of separate units of botany and zoology and microbiology, each with a different head. 5. Organismally-oriented courses, such as botany and ! zoology, are offered to non-science (liberal arts) | transfer students. j 6. Botany courses for non-science (liberal arts) students are being phased out of your curriculum. 7. Zoology courses for non-science (liberal arts) students are being phased out of your institution. 274 8. The same introductory biological science course is taken by both majors and non-science majors. 9. Multiple track biological science courses, e.g., biology for majors and biology for non-science majors are offered. 10. Biological science courses are offered without laboratories. 11. Specially designed biological science courses are offered to the non-transfer student seeking an Associate in Arts or Associate in Science degree. 12. The biology course offered to non-science (liberal arts) transfer students is process-centered around topics such as genetics, or physiology, or metabolism, or energetics with organismal illustrations used regardless of whether they are plant, animal, or virus. 13. An integrated biological science course for non majors has replaced the organismally oriented disciplines of botany, zoology, and microbiology. 14. The biological science course taken by the non-science (liberal arts) transfer students requires a pre requisite (s) . 15. The introductory biology course in the junior college is a prerequisite to all other courses in biological science. 16. Phylogenetic considerations have been de-emphasized in biological science courses. COMMENTS TO CLARIFY YOUR RATING OF ANY OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS: PLEASE SUGGEST ANY ADDITIONAL DESIRABLE PRACTICES FOR THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM. 275 B. Practices Related to Articulation and Sequential Planning 17. The biological science department or division (or as it applies to your institution) attempts to duplicate the transfer courses offered in the lower division of the California state colleges and of the University of California. 18. The biological science department or division, as a matter of policy, engages in articulation conferences with the liaison groups at the local state colleges and universities. 19. The biological science department or division, as a matter of policy, engages in articulation conferences with the appropriate high school groups in the community. 20. Non-science (liberal arts) majors receive transfer credit for biology taken at your institution when they transfer to local California state colleges and to the University of California. 21. Methods and materials used in teaching biology are coordinated with local California state colleges and with the University of California. 22. The biological science faculty are or have been involved with university research scientists in a cooperative effort to produce a new biology curricu lum for the junior colleges. 23. Biology courses are offered to biology majors in a sequential pattern to articulate with programs in California state colleges and in the University of California. 24. In-service opportunities are provided for biological science faculties. 25. The biological science department or division allows waiver of courses by examination to well prepared high school students who may have had, for example, two years of high school biology. COMMENTS TO CLARIFY YOUR RATING OF ANY OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS: PLEASE SUGGEST ANY ADDITIONAL DESIRABLE PRACTICES FOR THIS AREA. 276 C. Practices Related to Students 26. Non-science (liberal arts) transfer majors have a choice of biology courses. 27. Freshmen majoring in biology are discouraged from declaring themselves as biology, botany, or zoology majors in their first year of junior college. 28. All students seeking an Associate in Arts or Associate in Science Degree are required to take a course in biology. 29. Students can earn an Associate in Science Degree at your junior college. 30. A specialized departmental/divisional placement test in biological sciences is given to all incoming junior college freshmen. 31. The College Entrance Board Examination results are used to place students initially in biological science courses. 32. As a matter of policy, former transfer students are encouraged to return to discuss their articulation experiences with the four year institutions. 33. A special counselor is assigned to advise students majoring in biology. 34. A special counselor is assigned to meet with state college and university liaison and articulation groups. 35. Biology majors are advised to take a common set of courses in a fixed sequence with four year colleges and universities. 36. Non-science major transfer students take biology rather than zoology and/or botany. COMMENTS TO CLARIFY YOUR RATING OF ANY OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS: PLEASE SUGGEST ANY ADDITIONAL DESIRABLE PRACTICES FOR THIS AREA. 277 D. General Attitudes Please check (X) each item for the answer which you prefer by placing the response in the column on the right. (The columns shown on the original copy of questionnaire were "Yes,” "No," "Don't Know.") 37. There is a need for devising a unique type of biological science curriculum for the junior colleges in California. 38. Is a general biological science course offered to non-science (liberal arts) students in your institution. 39. A core preparation for biology majors in any specialty (medicine, veterinary, etc.) should be extended over a minimum of two years. 40. This core or common set of biological science courses should be taken in a fixed sequence. 41. Modern biology courses have a greater emphasis on molecular, cellular, and population biology than older traditional biology courses. 42. The modern biology course for the non-science (liberal arts) students should be a one semester-five units course. 43. The modern biology course for the non-science (liberal arts) students should be a two semester course for three units each semester. 44. It is possible for California junior colleges to schedule core courses for biological science majors to articulate sequentially with the programs in California state colleges. | 45. It is possible for California junior colleges to | schedule core courses for biological science majors to articulate sequentially with the programs in the Universities of California. 46. In your opinion, the Biological Science Curriculum Study (1958) has influenced change in the California junior college biological science curriculum. 278 47- There is a need for more state-wide planning to coordinate biological science curricula among the three segments of higher education. 48. There is a need for a biological sciences accredita tion commission for California junior colleges. 49. In your opinion, the physical facilities in your institution are adequate for the instruction of biological sciences. 50. In your opinion, the instructional personnel are adequate for the instruction of biological sciences. 51. A biological science major should be grounded in the basic biological concepts before beginning the study of the specific subjects of botany and zoology. 52. Do any of the staff members in the biology division/ department have research projects underway. 53. Have any of the instructional personnel in your biology division department taken any science courses since 1965. 54. Has your division/department received outside financial assistance such as equipment grants from NSF, AEC, or NDEA since 1960. 55. Students majoring in biology should have the equivalent of at least one year of physics and some background in organic and inorganic chemistry. 56. Students majoring in biology should have a background in biochemistry and biophysics rather than one in the traditional one year of physics and two years of chemistry sequence. E. Nature of the Institution Please fill in the blanks with an appropriate answer. District 57. Single College________; Multi-campus______ Other_ 58. Community: Rural or Urban 279 Staff 59. How many instructors on your day staff this year taught biology courses?________ (count even if it is just one class in biology) 60. How many instructors this year taught biology courses during the extended day (after 4:30 p.m.)? _______ 61. In general, which of the following levels of educational achievement do you consider adequate for junior college instructor of biology? B.A. ; B.S. ; M.A.___; M.S.___ ; M.Ed.____; Ph.D. ; Other_____ 62. The number of biology faculty in attendance at summer institutes since 1965__________ Curriculum 63. Which of the following is stressed or emphasized in your general biology course for liberal arts non science transfer students? a. Molecular and cellular biology b. Ecological and environmental biology c. Organismal biology - taxonomy , d. Developmental biology e. Evolution f. Other; please identify____________ 64. In your opinion, what is the special responsibility of the junior college toward biological science education? a. Curricula planned for adult or continuing education. b. Curricula for vocational technical education. c. Curricula which contribute to the general education or transfer non-science majors. d. Curricula for the science majors. e. Other; please specify_____________________ PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS WHICH YOU WOULD DEEM RELEVANT TO THIS STUDY. 280 WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, ARE THE MOST CRITICAL CONCERNS IN YOUR COLLEGE REGARDING THE LIBERAL ARTS BIOLOGY COURSE(S)? DO YOU WISH A SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY? Yes_____ No______ MANY THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS PROJECT. APPENDIX D LIFE SCIENCE COURSES OFFERED BY CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGES— 1968-69 Course Number Descriptive Title Units AMERICAN RIVER COLLEGE Anatomy 25 General Human Anatomy 3 Bacteriology 1 Introductory Bacteriology 5 Botany 1 Introduction to Structure & Function of Plants 5 Botany 10 Plants for Man 2 Botany 12 General Botany 4 Life Science 1 Biology 4 Life Science 2 Biology 4 Life Science 5 Health Education 2 Life Science 8 Conservation of National Resources 3 Life Science 10 Natural History 3 Life Science 14 Introduction to Ornithology 2 Life Science 15 Introduction to Marine Environment 3 Life Science 22 Directed Projects in Science Life Science 51 Survey of Biology 3 Life Science 55 Health Education 2 Microbiology 1 General Microbiology 3 Physiology & Anatomy i Anatomy & Physiology 5 X Physiology 1 Introductory Physiology 5 Science 22 Directed projects in Science 1 Zoology 1A-1B General Zoology 4-4 to 00 H Course Number Anatomy 1 Anatomy 43A-43B Bacteriology 2 Bacteriology 43 Biology 1A-1B Biology 10 Biology 10L Botany 1 Botany 18 Life Science 11A-11B Life Science 53 Life Science 54 Physiology 1 Zoology 1A-1B Zoology 4 Zoology 17 Anatomy 25 Anatomy & Physiology 51 Bacteriology 5 Biology 1A Biology IB Biology 1C Biology 3 Biology 10 Biology 12 Biology 60 Physiology 1 Descriptive Title BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE Human Anatomy Anatomy & Physiology General Bacteriology and Microbiology Microbiology Introductory Biology Introduction to Biology Principles Biology Principles Laboratory General Botany Field Botany Introduction to Life Science General Biology Fundamentals of Biological Science for Vocational Nursing Introductory Physiology General Zoology Microtechnique Field Zoology CABRILLO COLLEGE Human Anatomy Human Anatomy Introduction to Microbiology & Bacteriology General Biology - Molecular General Biology - Animal General Biology - Plant Marine Biology Introduction to Biological Sciences Field Biology Special Problems in Biology Human Physiology Units 4 3-3 4 3 5-5 1-3 5 to 00 to C O C O C O ( J 1 L H U l L J L O C O M t O ^ U l C O 0 0 I H U 1 H LJ Anatomy 1 CHABOT COLLEGE General Human Anatomy 4 Biology 1A principles of Biology 5 Biology IB Animal Biology 4 Biology 1C Animal Biology 4 Biology 2A Plant Biology 4 Biology 2B Plant Biology 4 Biology 10 Introduction to Biology 5 Biology 25 Genetics 3 Biology 40 Natural History of the Vertebrates 4 Microbiology 1 Microbiology 5 Physiology 1 Introduction to Physiology 5 Anatomy 1 CHAFFEY COLLEGE Elementary Human Anatomy 4 Biology 1A General Biology 4 Biology IB General Biology 4 Biology 2 Concepts in Biology 3 Biology 12 Field Biology 3 Biology 31AB Special project in Biological Science 1-1 Biology 32AB Special Project in Biological Science 2-2 Biology 33AB Special project in Biological Science 3-3 Botany 1 General Botany 5 Botany 2 Plant Kingdom 4 Botany 3 Field Botany 4 Microbiology 1 General Microbiology 4 Microbiology 31 Microbiology Seminar 1 Physiology 1 Human Physiology 4 Zoology 1A, IB General Zoology 5-5 to (X ) u CITRUS COLLEGE Biological Sciences 1 Microbiology 4 1 General Botany 5 1 Physiology 4 1A, IB Zoology 4 1 Biology-Lab Technician 2 2 Biology-Lab Technician 2 3 Life Science 3 10A General Biology 4 10B General Biology 4 25 Anatomy 3 CONTRA COSTA COLLEGE Biological Science 101 Applied Biology 3 102 Population and Man 3 110 Introduction to Biological Science 3 111 Introduction to Biological Science 3 116 Animal Biology 3 119 Microbiology 3 125 Introduction to Cellular Biology 3 130 Introduction to Human Anatomy 3 131 Introduction to Human Physiology 3 132 Human Anatomy 3 134 Human Physiology 3 135 Human Physiology (lab) 2 148 Introductory Bacteriology 5 150 General Botany 5 170 General Zoology 5 171 General Zoology 5 190-91 Fundamentals of Biology Lab. Technician 4 to oo 4^ 226 Nature Study and Conservation 3 298-99 Special Studies 1-3 CUESTA COLLEGE Anatomy 25 Human Anatomy 3 Bacteriology 1 General Bacteriology 5 Biology 10A Biology 4 Biology 10B Biology 4 Botany 1 General Botany 5 Conservation 41 Introductory Conservation 3 Life Science 2A Life Science 3 Life Science 2B Life Science 3 Life Science 21 Introduction to Marine Science 3 Physiology 1 General Physiology 5 Zoology 1A General Zoology 4 Zoology IB General Zoology 4 DESERT. COLLEGE OF THE Biology 1A-1B General Biology 3-3 Biology 1AD-BD General Biology - Demonstration Lab. 1-1 Biology 1AL-BL General Biology Lab. 1 Biology 2A-2B Introductory Biology 4-4 Biology 8 Animal Biology 3 Biology 8L Animal Biology Lab. 1 Biology 12A-B Plant Biology 2-2 Biology 15 General Microbiology 2 Biology 15L General Microbiology Lab. 1 Biology 20 Elements of Anatomy 2 Biology 21 Mammalian Dissection 1 Biology 24 Elements of Physiology 3 Biology 49 Individual Study Project 1-3 to oo < J I DIABLO VALLEY COLLEGE Biological Sciences 116 Human Biology 3 117 Fundamentals of Biological Science 3 118 Fundamentals of Biological Science Lab. 1 119 Fundamentals of Biological Science 4 120 Introductory Human Anatomy and Physiology 5 130 Principles of Biology 5 131 principles of Biology 5 140 Introductory Physiology 5 146 Introductory Bacteriology & Microbiology 5 226 Nature Study and Conservation 4 298-99 Independent Study 1-3 GROSSMONT COLLEGE Anatomy-Physiology 124 Anatomy and physiology 4 Anatomy 140 Human Anatomy 4 Bacteriology 144 Microbiology 4 Biology 110 Introduction to Human Heredity 3 Biology 120 Principles of Biology 4 Biology 130 Natural History of plants & Animals 4 Botany 146 General Botany 4 Botany 148 General Botany 4 Physiology 124 Anatomy and Physiology 4 Physiology 142 Human physiology 4 Zoology 160 Invertebrate Zoology 4 Zoology 162 Vertebrate Zoology 4 to oo O ' ! Anatomy 1 EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE Introduction to Human Anatomy 3 Biology 1 Fundamentals of Life Science I 133 Biology 2 Fundamentals of Life Science II 233 Biology 3 Introduction to Biology . 4 Biology 7 General Biology II 5 Biology 10 Natural History 3 Biology 25 Human Biology 3 Biology 33 Practical Medical Biology 3 Botany 1 General Botany I 5 Botany 2 General Botany II 4 Botany 3 Field Botany 4 Microbiology 1 Introductory Microbiology 5 Microbiology 6 Microbiology Survey 3 Microbiology 20 General Microbiology 4 Microbiology 22 Microbiology Techniques 3 Microbiology 25 Applied Microbiology 1 Microbiology 40 Microbiology Lab. Preparations 1-1-1 Physiology 1 Elementary Physiology 3 Physiology 10 Introductory Medical Physiology 3 Coology 1 General Zoology I 5 Zoology 2 General Zoology II 5 Zoology 4 Microscopic Techniques 2 Zoology 5 Introduction to Zoology 3 Zoology 6 Elementary Anatomy and Physiology 5 Anatomy 1 LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGE Introduction to Human Anatomy 3 Biology 1 Fundamentals of Life Science I 3 Biology 2 Fundamentals of Life Science II 3 Biology 3 Introduction to Biology 4 Biology 6 General Biology I 5 to C O Biology 7 Biology 10 Biology 23 Biology 24 Biology 30 Biology 31 Biology 32 Biology 35 Biology 40 Biology 41 Botany 1 Botany 2 Microbiology 1 Microbiology 6 Microbiology 20 Microbiology 40 Physiology 1 Zoology 1 Zoology 2 Zoology 5 Anatomy 1 Biology 1 Biology 2 Biology 3 Botany 1 Entomology 11 Microbiology 1 Microbiology 20 Paleontology 1 Physiology 1 General Biology II Natural History Biological Fundamentals I Biological Fundamentals II Appreciation of Life Science Fundamentals of Clinical Technique Medical Orientation Medical Science for Allied Health Services Biology of Household Scientific Illustrations General Botany I General Botany II Introductory Microbiology Microbiology Survey General Microbiology Microbiology (lab) preparations Elementary physiology General Zoology I General Zoology II Introduction to Zoology LOS ANGELES PIERCE COLLEGE Introduction to Human Anatomy Fundamentals of Life Science I Fundamentals of Life Science II Introduction to Biology General Botany I Principles of Entomology Introduction to Microbiology General Microbiology General Paleontology Elementary Physiology 1- 1- to 00 00 uioji^ ^ ooUIiI^oololo oj O n Ln L o I —1 41* i n u i u i H H W f o w i o u w w m Zoology 1 Zoology 2 General Zoology General Zoology II Biology 3 Botany 1 Physiology 1 Physiology 3 Zoology 1 Anatomy 25 Biology 1AT Biology 5 Biology 13 Biology 14 Biology 51 Botany 1 Natural Science 40 Physiology 1 Physiology IE Zoology 1 Anatomy 25 Bacteriology 2 Biology 1A-1B Biology 2 Biology 3 Biology 4 Biology 5 Marine Science 1 LOS ANGELES SOUTHWEST COLLEGE Introduction to Biology General Botany I Elementary Physiology Introduction to Human Physiology General Zoology I MERCED COLLEGE General Human Anatomy Audio-Tutorial Biology Microbiology Biology lab. and Field Technique Microtechniques Introduction to Biology Principles of Botany Natural Science principles of Physiology Principles of Physiology General Zoology ORANGE COAST COLLEGE General Human Anatomy Microbiology principles of Biology Biology Field Botany Field Ecology Field Zoology Ocean Resources 5 5 4 5 3 5 5 3 4 4 3 2 3 5 1 5 3 5 3 4 5-5 4 3 3 3 3 to C O VD Marine Science 2 Marine Sciences 3 Marine Science 3 Marine Biology 3 Marine Science 4 The Marine Environment 3 Marine Science 10 Marine Life 2 Marine Science 11 Oceanography; Physiology 2 Physiology 1 Introductory Physiology PASADENA CITY COLLEGE 5 Anatomy 25 Introduction to Human Anatomy 4 Biology 1A Principles of Biology 4 Biology IB Principles of Biology 4 Biology 11A General Biology 3 Biology 11B General Biology 3 Biology 14 Field Biology 3 Biology 16 Marine Biology 3 Biology 20 Individual Study 2 Biology 21 Biology Lab. Technician 2 Biology 112 Nursery School Science 3 Biology 421 Introductory Biology 3 Botany 1 General Botany 5 Botany 421 Introductory Botany 3 Microbiology 1 General Microbiology 5 Microbiology 2 Microbiology 4 Microbiology 104 Dental Assistant Microbiology 3 Microbiology 105 Medical Assistant Microbiology 3 Physiology 1 Human Physiology 4 Physiology 2A Physiology and Anatomy 4 Physiology 2B Physiology and Anatomy 3 Physiology 120 Physiology and Anatomy 3 Physiology 122 Physiology and Anatomy 4 Physiology 421 Introductory physiology and Anatomy 3 Zoology 2 Elements of Zoology 5 to VO o SEQUOIAS. COLLEGE OF THE Anatomy 1 Human Antomy Anatomy 2 Human Anatomy (no lab) Anatomy 3 Anatomy lab Bacteriology 1 General Bacteriology Bacteriology 2 General Microbiology Biology 1A Plant Biology Biology IB Animal Biology Biology 51 Human Biology Biology 52 Human Physiology Botany 1 General Botany Physiology 1A Introductory Physiology Physiology 1C Introductory Physiology lab Zoology 1 General Zoology YUBA COLLEGE 1 Principles of Biology 2 General Zoology 3 General Botany 4 Human Anatomy 5 Introduction to Physiology 5L Introduction to Physiology Lab 6 Introduction to Bacteriology & Microbiology 7 General Entomology 10A General Biology DB General Biology 20 Field Biology N50 Life (N3) to VO ■ji.^CAjuj4s.ifi.toto4i^^ji> cnioouii|s>cou)OJ4i.uiHW*(^ 292 LOS ANGELES CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS LOS ANGELES CITY COLLEGE 855 North Vermont Ave. Los Angeles, California 90029 April 15, 1968 Mr. Arthur J. Schechter Dean of Instruction Cypress Junior College 9200 Valley View Street Cypress, California 90630 Dear Mr. Schechter: In response to your request, please consider this note as an official letter authorizing you to use the term "approved by the California Junior College Association" in submitting your questionnaire to California Junior College personnel. Although the Committee prefers to see the completed questionnaire in advance, we realize this is often impossible without causing undue delays. After reading your proposal and talking with you, I am sure you are aware of the Committee's desire to protect personnel from requests demanding an inordinate amount of their time and will incorporate this consideration in your final judgment of the instrument. Best of success in your study. Sincerely, Ben K. Gold, Chairman CJCA Research and Development Committee BKG/e C O P Y 293 CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGE ASSOCIATION 1020 Twelfth Street Sacramento, California 95814 January 26, 1968 Mr. Arthur J. Schechter Dean of Instruction Cypress Junior College 9200 Valley View Street Cypress, California 90630 Dear Art: My apologies to you for the delay in replying to your letter of January 10, I have read your proposal with interest, and feel that the study you are undertaking will prove to be of great value to all concerned. Over the years, CJCA has evolved the policy of approving or not approving those doctoral instruments which are distributed to the member institutions. While in most instances this is merely a formality, if the project has the approval of your thesis chairman, this does give us some control relative to the access of research implementation into the various institutions. The power of approval for these types of things rest with the Committee on Research and Development which is chaired by Dr. Ben Gold, Director of Institutional Research at Los Angeles City College. I would appreciate it if you would write him asking for his approval and include a copy of your proposal. The Committee on Research and Development will meet early in February and will be in a position to act on your request at that time. Thank you for thinking of CJCA as you undertake this most important endeavor. Good luck to you as you complete the doctoral degree. Sincerely yours, Lloyd E. Messersmith Executive Director LEM: skd C O P Y 294 American Association of Junior Colleges 1315 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 January 19, 1968 Mr. Arthur J. Schechter Cypress Junior College 9200 Cypress Junior College Cypress, California 90630 Dear Mr. Schechter: Your letter of January 10 directed to Dr. Gleazer has been sent to me for reply. It is not the policy of the Association to sponsor research either by providing funds or by endorsement of the subject matter of the study. However, may I indicate to you that looking over your proposal, it is my personal opinion, for what that's worth, that this would be a worthwhile addition to research on the junior college, and I can assure you certainly that I would be interested in encouraging you to continue with your idea and would hope that you would let me know from time to time how you are making out. With best wishes for your success. Sincerely, Lewis R. Fibel Specialist in Occupational Education LRF:pg COPY COORDINATING BOARD TEXAS COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY SYSTEM Sam Houston State Office Building Austin, Texas 78701 May 16, 1968 Mr. Arthur J. Schechter Dean of Instruction Cypress Junior College 9200 Valley View Street Cypress, California 90630 Dear Mr. Schechter: I apologize for the delay in answering your letter of April 12, 1968. In response to your inquiry, I have been working with the various regional groups in Texas on undergraduate biological education, and in particular, the articulation of two year and four year programs. Since the work of these regional groups is still unfinished, there is very little that I can send you. I am sending you a document adopted by our board that might be of interest. It has been the focal point of some of my discussions. I am also sending some other publications that might be of interest to you. please contact me, if I can be of additional assistance. Sincerely yours, Winston L. Cave Assistant Director for Senior Colleges and Universities Enclosures C O P Y 296 BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CURRICULUM STUDY University of Colorado P.O.Box 930 Boulder, Colorado 80302 May 1, 1968 Mr. Arthur J. Schechter Dean of Instruction Cypress Junior College 9200 Valley View Street Cypress, California 90630 Dear Art: I am fully in sympathy with the information you are trying to elicit and, of course, completely out of sympathy with the questionnaire technique. If you sat in this office and received the number of questionnaires that I get, you would understand why. As a matter of fact, I am becoming so traumatized by them that most now go unheeded. However, because you happen to be the last of the good guys, I have looked over your draft and have the following comments to make. While question 3 on page 2 comes at the matter somewhat tangentially, I am wondering if there couldn't be some more specific comments relative to the articulation of the junior college program with the secondary school programs of the State? For example, what have been the influences of new secondary programs on the junior college offerings? Do junior colleges allow waiver of courses by examination to well prepared high school students who may have had, for example, two years of high school biology? Have the new curriculum programs, such as BSCS, had a marked impact on the structure of the junior college curriculum? In short, I am wondering what the greatest influence on California junior colleges would be. I have a hunch it is the curriculum of the state colleges and university rather than the preparation of the students who come in the front door. I am wondering if too little attention is not sometimes paid to the degree of sophistication of the courses the students have had at the secondary level. In part, this results in a great deal of duplicated effort on the part of the junior college and such redundancies many times drive the student from further consideration of biology as a career. 297 - 2- Further I am wondering if the term "biological science department or division" has really been defined. Questions 1 and 2 on page 1 request information on centralization of authority and the relation of biological sciences with the physical sciences. However, is there a true biological science department that integrates the normally separate disciplines of botany, zoology, and microbiology? Does the biological science division consist of separate units of botany and zoology and microbiology, each with a different head? I think it would be advantageous to pursue this a little further so that there is a general understanding of what is meant by biological science department beyond that elicited by the three introductory questions. Question 2 on page 3, for example, seems to infer that there are separate departments of botany or zoology subsumed under the title biology. On page 3, question 6 referring to the placement test should ask what kind of placement test. Is it a College Entrance Board Examination or a locally produced one? This would seem to me make quite a difference in the interpretation of results. The wording of question 2 on page 4 is not clear although I understand that its intent is for general education and secondarily for the preparation of professional biologists. On the same page, questions 3 through 6 discuss a core. Perhaps there should be questions about what should be in the core or what is already in the core. I would be particularly interested in question 7 but the information I would want would be phrased much differently. There is a nationwide dissatisfaction with the present ACS approved chemistry sequence for biology majors. Much has been written about the futility of putting a biology student through a year of inorganic chemistry followed by qual and quant followed by organic chemistry in order to finally get him into the biochemistry and physical chemistry that he really needs for his work. Some enlightened chemists indicate that they see no reason why the introductory course could not be biochemical in nature for nothing is demonstrated by the inorganic world that can't be duplicated in the organic. I wonder if your questionnaire could not bring some of these matters to a focus in terms of sequence of recomm3ndations not for inorganic or organic chemistry but namely for the kind of chemistry that could be presented in a meaningful year to a presumptive biology major. 298 -3- The same might be true for physics where most of the physics is unuseable for the purposes of the biology major. The emphasis in physics should be in the biophysical realm but, here again, the student goes through optics, magnetism, heat, electricity, etc., while the physical principles of interest to the biologists are relegated to either an advanced course or unavailable. My question is simply do the chemistry and physics courses as now con stituted provide a reasonable background of information in a proper capsule of time for a biology major to encompass? Remember that if we put in all of the things that have been recommended for a biology major, biology automatically becomes a graduate program, for the student will have so much mathematics, chemistry, physics and other similar materials to take that he cannot get his biology before this time. In question 4 on page 5, it seems to me one of the special responsibilities of the junior college toward biological science education is missing from this list. That is, that many junior colleges feel their purpose is to provide articulation for their students to transfer to a four year college or university; thus, their biological science curriculum at the freshman-sophomore level is simply one of repeating the courses recommended by the state colleges and universities. They have no programs of their own but basically are simply pale carbon copies of the institutions! to whom they think their students will transfer. I trust | that there is data in the California system relative to the number of students entering the junior college who at the end of their sophomore year do transfer to four year schools and that this data in itself would be a guide to curriculum planning. Further, I have noticed in examining junior college catalogs that more and more tend to accumulate unto themselves not only the freshman-sophomore courses that might reasonably be their province but also to offer advanced work in a number of fields, depending primarily on the interests of the faculty, that will not be transferred for credit to four year schools. What damage does this do to the student who finds himself, for example, with a course in immunology taken at a junior college for which he can get no credit at a four year school and must then repeat it, regardless of how good the junior college course was? I think your questionnaire doesn't deal with this particular situation, perhaps there should be questions relative to what courses are offered at the junior college level that would not give 299 _4~ credit at a four year school which, nonetheless, are part of a four year's school upper division curriculum. I have no problem with items 1 through 7 on your covering letter. For your sampling area (Item 8), I think this questionnaire should be sent to administrators, as well as instructors. I think the answers will be quite reveal ing in that in the same institution you may not have congruity of results. It has been my experience that what an administrator thinks is being done is not necessarily what is happening in the classroom and the instructor many times has a quite different opinion of what is going on than do administrators. As a matter of fact, you may find it advantageous in your final correla tion to compare administrative responses versus instructor responses. The results are frequently interesting and also disheartening. This is the slip twixt cup and lip syndrome at its finest. Knowing my reaction to questionnaires as indicated in the introduction to this letter, I certainly would send them broad cast as far as possible to the individuals you feel will provide profitable returns for you because the returns are getting less and less on questionnaires. Only in those individuals in whom you strike a responsive chord will you get responses. Many end up in the wastebasket. I would like to see very much the results of your study. I think it is something that needs to be done. I am glad you are going to do it. I think the data you collect will be extremely interesting. I do hope you plan to publish it because I think it will make a contribution to our understanding of what does on at the junior college that is frequently the no man's land of higher education. Best wishes on your project. Sincerely, William V. Mayer Director WVM/jb COPY 300 COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN THE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 1717 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Suite 403 Washington, D.C. 20036 February 15, 1968 Mr. Arthur J. Schecter Cypress Junior College 9200 Valley View Street Cypress, California 90630 Dear Mr. Schecter: Dr. Schein has asked that I reply to your very interesting letter of February 8th. I congratulate you on the thoroughness with which you are attempting your study of biology in California junior colleges. Unfortunately CUEBS does not have funds to finance research, nor do we normally endorse projects. This does not mean, however, that we would not be interested in your results. As you may know, CUEBS has a Panel on Biology in the Two- Year College. Martin Brown of Fullerton Junior College is chairman of the panel and is currently preparing a position paper on the panel's findings. I’ll see that you receive a copy of the position paper as soon as it becomes available, which will probably be next summer. You may wish to contact Mr. Winston Cave, Texas College and University System, Sam Houston State Office Building, 201 East 14th Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Mr. Cave has recently completed a survey somewhat comparable to yours. I am enclosing copies of CUEBS publications 15 and 19, which are concerned with biology for the non-major. The enclosed article from the "Junior College Research Review" may also be of interest. I suspect that you will find that course titles by themselves give very little indication of what courses contain. You may also find that written descriptions show very little resemblance to courses as they are actually presented. (The enclosed CUEBS publication 18 is one attempt to find out what really happened in some courses.) It will be interesting to see if you can determine why the shift has occurred from botany and zoology to general biological sciences. 301 I urge that you use caution in your interpretations and recommendations. Increase in administrative efficiency and improvement in quality of instruction are not necessarily the same things. Please keep us informed as your study progresses. Yours truly, Thomas G. Overmire TGO:nig Enclosures COPY

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Suggested Journalism Curriculum For California Junior Colleges

PDF

The Pre-Calculus Mathematics Curriculum In California Community Colleges

PDF

A Study Of Undergraduate Education In Selected Seventh-Day Adventist Colleges

PDF

The Relationship Of Teacher Preparation And Experience To The Appraisal Of Classroom Effectiveness By The Principal

PDF

Chief administrators of community service programs in California public community colleges

PDF

A Study Of Fringe Benefits For Full-Time Faculty In Bible Colleges

PDF

A Plan For Record Classification And Retention In The California Community College Business Office

PDF

A California Community College Student Government Model Based On Defined Constituencies

PDF

The Role Of The Building-Level Administrator In The Negotiations Of The Certificated Employee Council

PDF

A History Of Public School Organization And Administration In Orange County

PDF

Talent In Art: Creative Intelligence Of Selected Senior High School Students Compared With Creative And Aesthetic Qualities Of Their Products

PDF

Bonding Versus Pay-As-You-Go In Public Junior Colleges Of California

PDF

African And Latin American Graduate Students' Assessment Of Situations Related To Their Academic Life In The United States

PDF

The Effectiveness Of Remedial Arithmetic Courses In Three Selected California Community Colleges As Measured By Improvement In Arithmetic Skills And Attitudes Toward Mathematics

PDF

A Study Of The Motivation Of Women In Administrative And Supervisory Positions In Selected Unified School Districts In Southern California

PDF

The Fullerton College Student Tutorial Assistance Program: An Evaluation

PDF

The Comparison Of Three Approaches To Teaching College Physical Educationin The Shaping Of Attitudes Toward Physical Activity

PDF

The Identification Of Accident-Proneness In Junior College Vocational Students And Industrial Employees

PDF

Higher Education Programs For American Indians At Selected Southwestern Colleges And Universities

PDF

Are Community College Students With Majors Congruent With The Holland Vocational Inventory Typologies More Persistent In Their Pursuit Of Educational Goals?

Asset Metadata

Creator Schechter, Arthur Jerome (author)

Core Title Biology In California Public Junior Colleges

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, sciences,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wilbur, Leslie (committee chair), DeSilva, Lionel (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-406626

Unique identifier UC11360903

Identifier 7016887.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-406626 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7016887.pdf

Dmrecord 406626

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Schechter, Arthur Jerome

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA