Chemistry Discipline Transfer Group
1. Preliminary
activities
The Chemistry Discipline Transfer Group met for the
first time along with several other disciplines at the April 19 meeting
at Cragun’s. A summary
of the meeting is attached to this report.
Three broad issues with regard to transferability of MnSCU chemistry
courses were identified at that meeting:
(1) communication; (2) variety in chemistry courses; and (3)
inconsistency in transfer. General
strategies to address these problems were also identified.
On October 10, a leadership subcommittee of the MnSCU
Chemistry Discipline Group met to review the issues identified at the
spring meeting as well as to plan the agenda for a November 22 meeting
of the entire Chemistry Discipline Group.
The group decided that the bulk of the November 22 meeting should
be devoted to reviewing and classifying courses from MnSCU community
colleges and state universities. At this time,
In preparation for the November 22 meeting, the facilitator requested syllabi from all affected institutions and made those received available on a Web site for review by all members of the Discipline Group. On the same Web site, chemistry catalogs from these institutions ware also posted. The facilitator developed forms for use at the meeting to aid in the process of evaluating and classifying courses. Because of the short time, the response to the requests for course syllabi was limited. The decision was made to attempt an limited evaluation of courses evaluation based on catalog copy alone.
2. Summary of
November 22 meeting
Thirteen representatives of MnSCU chemistry programs,
including four from state universities, attended the November 22 meeting. The issues identified at Cragun’s
were discussed along with the workplan to
address them. The group came
to a consensus on the following:
First, the second item identified as a transfer problem
at Cragun’s, that is too great a variety in chemistry curricula,
is not really a problem. In fact,
any attempt by this group to attempt to impose uniformity would be regarded
by most institutions as an unwarranted intrusion on academic freedom. Problems which are perceived to originate in
this area are probably more likely related to lack of adequate information
on the part of students and advisors regarding chemistry courses and
their transferability. If the
remaining two issues are addressed adequately, problems related variety
in curriculum should be minimized. Thus,
this issue should be dropped as a separate chemistry transfer agenda
item. Further activities should concentrate on addressing
the other two issues.
Second, there already exists a broad uniformity in
the nature of the lower-division chemistry courses taken by chemistry
and other science majors. It
should be possible to place courses at the various institutions into
categories and create master course equivalency lists for these categories.
Courses on each list should freely substitute for any of the
others on the same list. The
existence of such lists should address any existing transfer problems,
provided they are readily available (on a Web site for example) and
well-publicized, and if there is a mechanism for continuing maintenance
and updating.
Third, for courses that fall into the categories identified
by the group, issues related to course numbers, names, and number of
credits, should not present transfer problems.
For example, the sophomore-level organic chemistry sequence may
have a 300 number at some institutions and a 200 number at others. The number of credits may also vary. Nevertheless, as long as the course meets the
standards universally recognized among chemists as an organic chemistry
course, it should freely substitute for any other.
Fourth, the course categories most often used for transfer
are: (1) a one-year sequence
of general chemistry for science majors; (2) a one-year sequence of
sophomore level organic chemistry; (3) a lower-level general, organic,
biochemistry course (commonly abbreviated GOB); and (4) courses identified
as satisfying general education requirements.
There are a variety of other lower-division courses, especially
at the larger institutions, such as forensic chemistry or environmental
chemistry. However, these serve special roles in the curriculum
or as service courses for other programs and are not usually taken with
the expectation that they will transfer.
Transferability of these is best dealt with on a case-by-case
basis. There also exist preparatory
or remedial courses at many institutions.
These courses never count as part of a chemistry
major’s curriculum, nor as part of the requirements of other programs,
and so should never even be candidates for transfer.
All of these, among with upper-division major’s courses
were deemed to be outside the scope of this group’s tasks.
The group felt that the GOB courses require further
discussion. There is a wide variation
in the level and length (one or two semesters), reflecting a wide disparity
in requirements of those who use this as a service course, especially
nursing programs. Because it
is not part of a chemistry major’s curriculum, there is very little
that a committee of chemists can do to improve transferability.
What the group can do, however, is gather information on specific
chemistry requirements of the disciplines which use this course and
disseminate that information to chemistry programs within MnSCU.
Then, this group could attempt to classify these courses to improve
information available to students and advisors.
This process will probably require discussions with nursing faculty.
Regarding general education courses, the universal
opinion of the faculty present was that any chemistry course offered
at any community college or state university which satisfies that institution’s
general education requirements in science should be substitute as a
general education course at any other institution subject to laboratory
requirements. A relevant piece of information regarding any
of these courses is whether they include a laboratory component.
Finally, regarding the general chemistry and organic
chemistry sequences, the group felt that a preliminary judgment on categorizing
such courses from all MnSCU institutions could be made by examining
catalog copy. The group developed
broad definitions of these courses and spent the remainder of the meeting
in working groups classifying these courses on the basis of catalog
descriptions. As a result of this meeting, the Chemistry Discipline
Group has enough information to generate course equivalency lists for
the three categories: General
Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, and General Education Chemistry. The expectation is that any course on the first
two lists will substitute for any other throughout MnSCU institutions.
Courses on the General Education list will be designated as laboratory
or non-laboratory courses and should be regarded as such at all institutions.
Plans were made to continue collecting syllabi for all of these
courses in order that the members of the group may continue a more critical
examination of their classifications.
The Discipline Group wished to emphasize that their work would be of continuing value only if MnSCU has in place a procedure for continuous updating of the information. Considering the number of institutions, curriculum changes could make information more than a year or two old virtually useless.
3. Planned activities
Early in Spring Semester, the facilitator will compile
the information collected and make it available on a web site. He will also make follow up contacts to those
institutions which have not yet submitted syllabi. When received, these will be made available
electronically through links from the course equivalency lists. When fully developed, this web site will serve
as a resource for transferring students and their advisors.
The facilitator will commence and moderate a discussion
on the (now under-utilized) Discipline listserv.
This discussion will involve the following issues: (1) the nature of GOB and other similar service
courses; (2) ways of improving and maintaining communication among members
of the Chemistry Discipline Group and other chemists at MnSCU institutions;
and (3) a plan for continuous maintenance of the course equivalency
lists.
If it is deemed necessary, the facilitator will plan
another meeting of the Discipline Group near the end of Spring Semester. The agenda and format, electronic meeting or
in person, will be determined on the basis of the listserv discussions. The agenda may include a review of GOB courses
similar to the reviews conducted in November. Or, it may be deemed more appropriate to discuss
the nature and content of such service courses. Such a meeting may include representatives from
other disciplines, particularly nursing programs.
All of the activities together address, in a unified way, the two transfer issues which remain on our agenda. A revised workplan is attached reflecting these planned activities.
MnSCU Faculty
Discipline Meeting
Cragun’s Conference Center, April 19,
2002
Chemistry Discipline
Report Summary
Facilitators: Wayne Haag,
Transfer issue/problem one:
Communication
Strategy(s) to
address transfer issue/problem one:
·
Introduce self to transfer specialists.
·
Standardized processes and forms.
·
Compliance from all campuses regarding posting of information on the campus
website as mandated by MnSCU.
Transfer issue/problem two:
Variety in chemistry courses
Strategy(s) to
address transfer issue/problem two:
·
Need discipline meeting to come to any agreement on courses that should
be standardized and define what needs standardization – title,
content, credit, competencies.
Transfer issue/problem three:
Inconsistency in
transfer.
Strategy(s) to
address transfer issue/problem three:
·
Standardized forms from receiving institution would be a great start!
·
Update web communication of pattern or history of course transfer.
·
Occupations need to come to agreement as to what chemistry courses are
a prerequisite for their programs. Example:
Nursing.