1. Bio 2010 Theory meets Reality David Usher & John Pelesko University of Delaware

2.  Biology education should be interdisciplinary with a strong emphasis on developing quantitative skills.  Laboratory courses should focus on developing critical thinking skills.  Students should pursue independent research.  Teaching methods should be examined.  Resources must be adequate.  Faculty should be rewarded. Bio 2010 Recommendations

3. Bio 2010 Recommendations University of Delaware Efforts 19902000 1983 Office Undergraduate Research Established 1992 Problem Based Learning Introduced In Science Courses 2002 Required Investigative Laboratory in Biology 2006 Interdisciplinary Math and Biology 1980 2003 Bio 2010

4. Interdisciplinary Education Challenges 1)Faculty –Cultural Barriers –Disconnect between research and teaching –Resist change away from a “Comfort Zone.” “What’s in it for me” attitude 2)Department Administrative Barriers –Resource Issues Department Budgets are static & seats in courses limited Promotion and tenure 3)Curricular Issues Majors

5. Interdisciplinary Education Challenge #1 Solution (Step 1)  The Faculty : convince that knowledge of mathematical approaches to life sciences is important for the success of their own scholarship and teaching.  Core Faculty Team (identify members) –Biology faculty interested in working with mathematicians such as those doing research on networks and pattern recognition or data mining –Mathematics faculty interested in applying their skills to understanding important problems related to the life sciences

6. Interdisciplinary Education Challenge #1 Solution (Step 1 cont.)  Function of the Team –Educate faculty & administration about Grants that require a quantitative biology approach (recent examples) –NSF: Interdisciplinary Training for Undergraduates in Biological and Mathematical Sciences (UBM) –NIH: A Systems Approach to Salivary Gland Biology (R01) Different teaching resources –Simulations and modules (act a resource consultant) Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research –Identify projects

7. Interdisciplinary Education Challenge #1 Solution (Step 1 cont.)  Function of the Team –Broaden participations interdisciplinary meetings, lunches, and/or retreats. Joint seminars (Facility is important for encouraging discussion.) PBL Classroom

8. Interdisciplinary Education Challenge #2  The Department Chair –Allocates resources –Shapes faculty efforts Approves workload issues Determines who is hired Directs Promotion and Tenure process –Needed for breaking down cultural barriers Facilitates interdepartmental communications

9. Interdisciplinary Education Challenge #2 Solution (Step 2)  Interdisciplinary teaching –Joint teaching of course (workload reallocation) –Release time to develop courses  Hiring –Example: Computational or Systems Biologist –Search committees with faculty from both departments –Primary appointment in one department, but held jointly with another  Promotion and Tenure –Letter of hire has to be specific –Specifics must be discussed with faculty

10. Interdisciplinary Education Challenges #3  The Current Curriculum –Majors (defined decades or more ago) Primarily collections of courses not a curriculum –Cultural Barriers Depends on expertise of current faculty Math requirement exists as a “check off” box for medical schools –Proposed National Curricular Charges (like Bio2010) What is the agenda?

11. Bio2010 Agenda  Sponsors –National Academies (prepared report) “Undergraduate education is a crucial link in the preparation of future researchers.” Report makes it clear that the focus on education should be for future PhDs or MD/PhDs –HHMI, NIH, NSF (research focus)

12. Who are we educating?  “Bio2010 focuses on the education of future biomedical scientist with a strongly implied emphasis on the molecular and cellular levels of organization.” Donald Kennedy asks, Is Bio2010 the Right Blueprint for the Biology of the Future? Cell Biol Educ 2(4): 224-227 2003.  University of Delaware Statistics (900 biology majors) –Entering Biology freshman: 50% pre-professional, 10% graduate school, 40% not sure. –50% change their majors before graduating Migrate to majors requiring less math and chemistry Migrate to early admissions med major Migrate in from more quantitative and chemistry oriented sciences –After graduation: 30% stop at Bac, 20% grad school, 30% professional school

13.  Carry Out Educational Assessment (Bio 2010) –Department Goals –What are the important skills? Interdisciplinary Education Challenge #3 Solution (Step 3) Content? Communication? Math? Technology? Critical Thinking? Research?

14. Interdisciplinary Education Challenge #3 Solution (Step 3 cont.)  University of Delaware (Quantitative Skills) –Goal: Understand and apply mathematical approaches to analyze, interpret and model biological processes. –Objectives (one of six): Students are expected to understand mathematical formulas concerning biological concepts and draw inferences from them. –Assessment Tools: Faculty and Student surveys, Curriculum mapping; awards & publications

15. Changes at UD (as a result of assessment)  Realigned Degree Programs –BA: interdisciplinary with liberal arts All admitted freshmen –BS: interdisciplinary with physical, chemical and quantitative sciences Apply for admission during the 4 th semester Requires undergraduate research Pre-professional Grad School

16. Changes at UD Integrated Quantitative Goal  For quantitatively oriented students –Develop new minor in Bioinformatics (tool user) No new resources are required –Develop new interdisciplinary major in Quantitative Biology (tool developer) Targets non-Biology majors in the sciences Requires resource commitments from multiple departments  For traditional biology students –Require Bio-Calculus course (embed Biology examples in a standard calculus course) –Embed quantitative examples in Biology courses –Develop Modules for Bio faculty use –Create Math Fellows (Math majors assisting in laboratories)

17. Creation of a New Major: Quantitative Biology  Step One: Identify goal/audience - Quantitative background key for success in biological research - Goal: Train future researchers (Bio2010)  Step Two: Build a course structure - Need the right mix of mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics  Step Three: Build integrative features - Integrative seminars - Capstone requirement  Step Four: Assess and revise

18. Bio 2010 vs. UD 2007 Bio 2010 – Quantitative Curriculum Freshman Biology IBiology II Chemistry IProbability and Stats Math IMath II Faculty Research Seminar Sophomore Molecular BiologyCell and Dev. Biology Differential EquationsOrganic Chemistry Physics IPhysics II Junior GeneticsEvolutionary Bio/Ecology Organic Chemistry IIBiology Lab Physics IIIBiochemistry Research IResearch II Senior Physical ChemistryAdvanced Mathematics Research IIIResearch IV UD 2007 – BS Quantitative Biology Freshman Biology IBiology II Chemistry IChemistry II English IDiscrete Math Calculus ICalculus II Sophomore Organic Chemistry IOrganic Chemistry IICore Bio Calculus IIIComputer Science I Linear AlgebraDifferential Equations Integrative Seminar Junior Core BioBiochemistry ProbabilityStatistics Numerical MethodsPart. Diff. Eq. Physics IPhysics II Integrative Seminar Senior Core Bio LabResearch II Capstone Research I

19. Capstone – UD Math Approach Key Features:  Team Based  Open-ended problems  Milestones  Writing intensive  Regular presentations

20. Rethinking Calculus  Constraints: Consider local and global issues - Local: “Bio-Calc” must be open to all majors - Global: Must meet requirements of graduate and professional schools  Goals: Why revise calculus? - Ensure all biology majors have right tools - Integrate and inspire  Approach: Realign and revise - Calc sequence realigned to early transcendental - Special section created using biological examples  Details: How to revise? - Connect calculus with first year biology sequence - Slowly create new library of examples and projects

21. Bio 2010 …biological concepts and examples should be included in other science courses. Building Better Connections – Calculus to Biology  Revision led by one math faculty (L. Rossi) and one biology faculty (B. Hodson)  Re-orient class to biology examples (75%)  Integrate PBL exercises with material drawn from biology labs  Example: Osmosis and eggs

22. Math Across the Curriculum - Modules  Goal: Build quantitative thinking into wide range of biology courses, build biological thinking into wide range of mathematics courses  Approach: Build a library of instructional “modules,” loosely modeled on PBL Clearinghouse, that can be used widely  Step One: Survey existing modules and make available to our faculty, develop new modules  Step Two: Encourage collaborative development teams - Use existing efforts in math and biology (FRAP module) - Use undergraduate and graduate research students - Use educational funding opportunities (HHMI, CTE, NSF)  The Future: Build a national clearinghouse

23. SUMMARY

24. Acknowledgements  Core Faculty Group –Biological Sciences (David Usher) –Chemistry & Biochemistry (Hal White) –Chemical Engineering (Prasad Dhurjati ) –Mathematics (John Pelesko, Louis Rossi, Tobin Driscoll, & Gilberto Schleiniger)  Funding: HHMI

25. Breakout Session  Overall Goal: Identify problems that impede carrying out the Quantitative Goals of the Bio2010 report and define potential Solutions.  Process: Groups will be led by a moderator and the members will identify a recorder who will present a report summarizing the group’s deliberation at the close of the session. Breakout Session

26.  Group Objectives: How do we… –define “module?” What are the features of a useful module? How do you support module development? (Group 1) –develop research projects involving math either embedded into courses or as a part of faculty directed research? (Group 2) –initiate interdisciplinary interactions among departments? (Group 3) –foster bio-math interactions among universities? (Group 4) Breakout Session