|
Themes
The following themes came up by students during their collective interview.
Theme 2: The structure of Biology 150 and the professors
Bio 150 is in a unique position, being an introductory course to the sciences and as fulfillment of the lab distribution requirement, thus it tends to be a course with a large class size and with students coming in taking it for different reasons. (Group 1, Page 9, Last ‘Diane’). Also, because everyone has ad different levels of science backgrounds, from taking college courses, to just AP bio, or to never have being exposed to science classes before, there is a divide in the levels of understanding in the class. Having smaller classes would allow for more .discussions or questioning, students would care more about what they are learning.
The structure of the material was constructed in a way where many different topics in biology were covered, but weren’t studied in depth (Group 2, Page 12, Second ‘Breanne’). It almost felt like the things that would be covered in detail would be what the professors themselves had specialized in (Group 1, Pg 2, Winnie at bottom). In group 2, the participants commented that having lectures of 50 minutes, four times a week, helped to reinforce the material. However the limited meeting time often meant there was not enough time for discussion or questions. (Lara: People had a fear to ask questions, it’s a big class, there’s so much to cover, and there’s not enough time for everyone’s questions, or we’d never get out of there.)
Bio 150 is usually being taught by two professors for the reason that each professor’s specializes in something, allowing students get two professors from two different sections of the ‘field.’ However, this complicated things for the students because there is a distinct teaching style to each professor, and because they would switch half way through the semester, the students would have to learn to adapt to the second professor’s style (Group 3, Pg 10, First ‘Shania’ also Group 3, pg 9, bottom Liliana). By having two sections, students tended to compare their experiences with one another, easily establishing/breaking the reputations of their professors (Group 3, First Kiki,Pg 10). Discrepancy between lecturers and lab instructors was evident, one student expressed how she wasn’t allowed to ask her lab instructor questions regarding the lectures, though the instructor was present at the lectures (Group 1, Pg 13, First Diane). Furthermore, one lab section was taught by a TA (a senior MHC student), which some of the students hindered their learning experience as compared to being taught by a professor or actual lab instructor (group 3, last Wendy, pg 8). Opinions on the textbook were mostly negative. The textbook didn’t correlate with subject material being taught. Many of the participants felt as if it did not complement the lectures and was not organized, however some students used to gain clarification when lectures seemed confusing (Group 1, Pg 3, Second ‘Winnie’).
|
