Student Evaluation of an Integrated Natural Science Curriculum AMed R. Garafalo, Vincent C. LoPresti, and Edward F. Lasala Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences. Boston, MA 02115 Recently, we completed the implementation and evaluation of thkfirst fuli year of a coilege freshman integrated natural science curriculum ( I ) . The curriculum comprises separate courses in chemistry and biology hut uses physical principles that span disciplines to unify themes and stress qualitative concept mastery before quantitative manipulation. Each course covers standard topics for science majors and is similar in content to its uninteqated predecesior. However, topics in both courses are ordered and presented in a fashion that facilitates took inweration. As Dart of rhe implementation process, all i&ructo;s attended'all classes, a dvnamicallv coo~erativesituation that resulted in alterations in andnew additions to the points of topic integration (2).At the end of each quarter, students completed ohiective and subjective evaluations of their experiences. An evaluation implement was designed with the assistance of a fifth-year-undergraduate u;ho was familiar with our curriculum rationale. He selected specificexamples from areas around which we had originally formulated the curriculumdesign ( I ) . One variation ofthe implement wasgiven to the maioritv of the class who were first-time freshmen 180 ~~~~~~~-~ ~-~ students). objective questions which addressed specific content were of two varieties: Some asked whether students perceived the topic structuring within each course (biology or chemistrv) as helpful in understandine later tonics within the same course. 0;hers addressed the ielpfuln&s of topic integration across the two courses. These questions were designed to give us feedback about the usefulness of the topic structuring, first, in encouraging greater awareness of concepts that span hoth disciplines and, second, in providing a clearer, more logical presentation of topics within each discipline. Student responses to each question suggest that they perceived the utility of our approach in achieving these ends. A summary of those objective survey questions that dealt s~ecificallvwith course content follows in order of stroneest (84%) to weakest (59%) agreement with each premise @ = chemistw. B = biolonv). Discussion of enerw transformation in e&systems w&helpful before coverage of cellular enerm transformations (B); discussion of forces in solution formaion was helpful before quantitative solution caiculations ( C I ;close correlation of physical and chemical energy transformations rC) with energy interactions among living and nonliving ecosystem components (B)was helpful in understanding both areas; disrussions on the naturr of force and energy were helpful before coverage of chemical honding (C):discussionofcatalvstsandintermolecular forces ICI was helpful before discussion of enzymes (B); close correlation of intermolecular forces and nrooerties of liauids and solutions (C) with types and struct;resof hiomolekles (B) was helpful in understanding hoth areas: the use of stoichiometric cellular respiration &pressions (k) as exercises in equation balancing ((:I reinforced both areas; discussion of theories of star, planet, and compound formation (C) were helpful before discussions of the origin of life (B): discussion of s i m ~ l e molecular orbital theory (C) was helpful before coveragiof ~
890
Journal of Chemical Education
~
~
electron transport in photosynthesis and cell respiration fR\ ,-I.
In their subjective evaluations, students were asked to recall a short essay on the interrelationship of the natural sciences that they had written in their English sections during the first week of the academic year and to assess whether their perception of this relationship had changed over the course of the intervening six months. Although students were almost unanimous in the view that thev had acauired a greater clarity with respect to the relationship among the natural sciences, over 60% also emphasized a significant change in their perception of this relationship. Many students commented that the cross-disci~linarvcomoarisons and contrasts forced them to conce&ualize rather than memorize. For example, one student commented, "in high school, I memorized how the neuron functioned and then forgot most of it. Now that I understand electrostatic forces and concentration gradients from chrmistry, I can explain how the neuron functions.. . ."The comments of some students indicated an enhanced ability to see through artificial disciplinary boundaries. For example, "It (the integrated curriculum) put h i ~ h e vin mathematical and chemical terms and it-put chemistry to use on the body." Several students emphasized the im~ortanceof euidance in their ability to make cross-disciplinary connect&s. For instance, "With the integration, i t is easier for students to make connections between chemistry and biology, connections that normally would never have been made." In addition, some students commented on an increased awareness o f living systems as being more than the sum of their parts. Some students anticipated improvement in their preparation for more advanced courses, and expressed the hope that these courses would ultimately be integrated withone another. Finally, there were students who had previously preferred one branch of natural science over another and whoreported an improvement in attitude toward the less-favored area. These comments ~ r o v i d ean interestine contrast to unsolicited student reports of prior educational experiences. For example, these reports included prior perceptions of biology as a science dealing only with microscopic organisms in ponds or else solely with organs of the human body, and perceptions of chemistry as the science connected with the periodic chart, chemical equations, or the production of materials for human uses; former impressions of physics generally characterized this science as dealing with formulas. Most notable were the comments of several students who apparently were taught to learn the natural sciences as separate ways of thinking, and even encouraged to think of them as separate. Another student declared that "at first, my own beliefs of separahilitv caused me to close mv ears to the links."
.
~~~~
Dlscusslon These evaluations indicate that by the end of the courses. many students were quite aware of urriculum. Our findines thus mirror the situation in orecolleee - education, i.e., that traditional disciplinary science education is still the norm. Finally, we formed several common impressions from our dav-to-dav interaction with each other and with our studehts. he individual students in both classes appeared more interactive, more genuinely interested and less fearful of these challenging freihmen courses than litudents in past rears. Students seemed t o perceive chemistry as mure alive and less abstract throueh its constant relationshio to livine systems, and they alsoappeared to better appreciate th;! importance of physical principles in enriching their perspective on biological processes. Acknowledgment
We thank Edward Tersavich for his assistance in the evaluation process. Llterature Cited
Volume 65
Number 10
October 1988
89 1
