bio-sequence

[Bill Purves]

What a cool discussion!  By now it should be obvious that there is no
"right" way to handle the sequence, just as there is no "right" academic
calendar (quarters versus semesters) and, in fact, so few "right" things in
general.

What I think is the "right" sequence is the one that, in the local setting,
can be handled most comfortably by the people actually teaching the course.
(And I realize that even that is easier said than done, given that there may
well be disagreements within the team. If I were in charge of a course for
which the team was too unhappily divided in opinion, I'd reduce the number
of instructors. And if THAT meant that there was a reduction in the breadth
of coverage, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.)

I believe, strongly, that it is a mistake to force instructors to teach a
subject in a way of which they disapprove.  Different instructors have
different ideas, and different students learn differently.  Students will
learn only what THEY want to learn, and they will learn it only when THEY
want to learn it, usually in service of some other goal that interests THEM.
I think I haven't pontificated on this in this forum for over a year, so
I'll go on... :-)

In my firm opinion, the questions to be asked are not ones of sequence or of
content.  They are ones of getting the student to take an active role in
learning SOMETHING useful.  Course syllabi tend to focus on sequences of
lectures and of textbook chapters.  But lectures are very dull tools indeed,
and these bloody huge textbooks are at their least effective when read
(passively) as a series of full chapters.  Students should be using their
textbooks to look things up in (because they need the information for some
nontrivial purpose, exams being for my present argument trivial) or, with
luck, to browse in.  Erstwhile lecturers should be developing activities
that don't include lecturing.

If engaging, worthwhile activities begin to dominate the curriculum, the
sequencing of courses is not terribly important.  But what, you say, about
the need to keep prerequisites ahead of the cart?  I'll grant that this may
produce apparent inefficiencies at times, but I'll argue that the student is
going to LEARN the "missing" material a lot better when she needs it in
service of the course that had assumed she knew it already. That is, she'll
go back and learn it in a useful context.  ACTIVE learning by the student
may end up light on breadth, but it'll produce greater depth, retention, and
intellectual satisfaction.

If there is to be a sequence, let it be one that the INSTRUCTOR(s) can
believe in and work with the most effectively.  But engage the STUDENTS in
activities that they can take seriously.  Remember that WE are not the model
of the students... most of us were the docile nerds who learned something
cheerfully because we were told we should.  Happily, most students aren't
like that...

(bill)

William K. Purves              phone: 909.626.4859
2817 N. Mountain Avenue   voice mail: 909.621.8021
Claremont, CA 91711-1550         fax: 909.626.7030
USA                    e-mail: Bill_Purves at hmc.edu
       http://www2.hmc.edu/bio/purves.html
            http://www.monagroup.com
__________________________________________________