Report on the First-Year Science Course, Frontiers of Science

Accepted by the EPPC and transmitted to Dean Valentini

On April 18, 2013

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

1

Report on the first-year science course, Frontiers of Science Educational Policy and Planning Committee

On 29 June 2012 Dean Valentini asked the newly-formed Educational Policy and Planning Committee to take charge of the review of the science course, Frontiers of Science (FoS). The EPPC was asked to examine ‘the conceptualization, design, construction and execution of Frontiers’ in terms both of ‘how it functions as a foundational science course for undergraduate students and as the basis for subsequent science courses taken by those students,’ and ‘how well it functions as part of the Core Curriculum.’ Dean Valentini’s charge to the EPPC is given in Appendix 1. History, Goals, and Structure of Frontiers of Science Frontiers of Science was developed over a number of years in the early 2000s by an interdepartmental group of science faculty. These faculty were motivated to develop a course that would introduce students both to scientific ‘habits of mind’ and to important developments at the ‘frontier’ of a number of scientific fields. They also felt that, in light of Columbia’s unique core, it was important to mount a single uniform required science course within the core curriculum which would be required of all students, thus demonstrating Columbia’s commitment to science instruction. The motivations of the founders of the course are best understood through their own writings, in particular the 2012 self-study (see Appendix 2) and published articles (see Appendix 3). After extensive discussions with the college and with faculty as well as two pilot courses, the College Committee on Instruction voted in the spring of 2004 to approve the course as a mandatory part of the Core Curriculum for a trial five year period. The course was required on that basis beginning in fall 2004. It has been taught ever since by a highly committed group of faculty and science fellows every semester. The Internal Review Committee wishes at the outset to pay tribute to the ambition and originality of the Frontiers project and to the dedication and tenacity of its faculty. Teaching required science courses to non-science students is a notoriously difficult task; as the External Committee rightly noted, this is an area in which our peer institutions have also made great efforts, often choosing different models, but have also found themselves facing student apathy or discontent (see Appendix 4). There is no go-to model for how this ambitious goal can be best, or even successfully, accomplished. We thus wish to commend the FoS pioneers and the FoS faculty – which includes, we note, some of the science division’s most distinguished teachers, faculty who teach large lecture courses in their own departments to student approval and with conspicuous selfless commitment. This is one of the most creative pedagogical experiments to have been held at Columbia in decades. Whatever problems the course has confronted, FoS has changed, greatly for the better, the culture of teaching within the sciences.

Let us now explain briefly the goals and structure of FoS. According to the self-study authored by the FoS Executive Committee, the course goals must be understood within the context of the broader aim of the Core Curriculum, which is to help students develop the critical ‘habits of mind’ and intellectual capacity they will employ as engaged citizens throughout their lives. ‘Scientific

CONFIDENTIAL

2

knowledge and the ability to analyze scientific evidence are central to forming educated and effective citizens,’ FoS states. ‘Frontiers of Science approaches these goals by taking students to four great frontiers of current scientific inquiry and providing them with the scientific habits of mind that enable evaluation and interpretation of scientific evidence.’ The goals of the course are thus two-fold: ‘providing students with the skills required for analysis of data and introducing students to a set of topics drawn from current research across the physical and life sciences’ (Self-Study, pp. 5-6).

To pursue these goals, the course founders developed a complex hybrid structure consisting of weekly lectures and discussion seminars. The course is unit-based, with four units of three lectures and three discussion sections each. The subjects of the units vary, but as a rule the course attempts to offer two units drawn from the physical sciences and two from the life sciences. Weekly lectures are given to the whole body of enrolled students in the course; sections are taught to groups of about twenty by faculty instructors and ‘Science Fellows’ specifically hired on three-year contracts for that purpose. Sections review the lectures, emphasize specific (often quantitative) skills, and often do an activity designed to help students understand key concepts or master particular skills. 60% of the student’s grade is based on the course-wide midterm and final; the rest is based on work done in the seminar. The course staff has developed an array of supplementary materials and online tutorials to help students master the foundational skills needed for the course. Governance of the course rests with an FoS Executive Committee composed of current and past course heads and including representation from the Science Fellows and from the Core Office; that body also recruits faculty lecturers and seminar leaders, rather than (as in Literature Humanities (LH) and Contemporary Civilization (CC)) leaving it to departments to provide a fixed number of instructors. In 2008-9, after four years, the course was reviewed by the Committee on Science Instruction (COSI). COSI praised the dedication of the course founders and teaching staff, but pointed to the low course evaluation ratings students gave the course overall, and argued that those ratings were indicative of serious problems, less in the execution than in the foundational design of the course. Having noted that the FoS faculty had experimented extensively with many changes to the seminars, COSI argued particularly that the unit-based structure rendered the course incoherent for students and that the effort to teach ‘habits of mind’ was widely disliked. COSI argued that the course should be continued for four years, during which it should be significantly reformed. The FoS staff contested those findings and asked that the course be continued for five years at least. The Committee on Instruction agreed to continue the course for a further five-year period, but also stressed the need for a further thorough review, which was scheduled to begin in 2011-12. In the wake of the COSI review, the FoS staff introduced a number of changes aimed at meeting some of the criticisms of the course made by COSI and by students and improving the course. Efforts were made to address a perceived disconnect between lectures and seminars by devoting considerable seminar time to lecture review. Units were to a degree standardized and instructors were encouraged to make connections between units. The text written for the course, which had not won the support of students, was no longer required, and a set of optional tutorials was added as a student resource. These changes had an effect, and the ‘overall course rating’ for the course has inched slowly upwards, although it remains very considerably below the ratings given not only to other core courses (especially CC and LH) but also to the other introductory science courses, and science courses for non-scientists which students take to complete their science requirement (see Appendix 5, course evaluations are discussed more fully below).

CONFIDENTIAL

3

Despite these changes, four key aspects of FoS were retained and have remained constant

from the start. These aspects are: (1) that the course is unit-based; (2) that it combines weekly lectures and weekly seminars; (3) that it attempts to teach both scientific content and particular ‘habits’ or skills important to science, with the edge given perhaps to ‘skills’;; and (4) that work, requirements and grading are uniform across the course, with no differentiation between students with strong or weak preparation or interest in science. The current review of FoS was to begin in 2011-12. Because of the change in the leadership of the college that year, however, the review was postponed to 2012-13. In the summer of 2012, the Arts and Sciences Educational Policy and Planning Committee was formed, under the chairmanship of Susan Pedersen, Professor of History. James Valentini, Dean of the College and Vice President for Undergraduate Education asked the EPPC to take on the task of conducting the review, on behalf of the Committee on Instruction. The Review Process On the advice of the Executive Vice President and the Dean of the College, the EPPC modeled the review roughly on the process followed by the Academic Review Committee (ARC) in Arts and Sciences. In the late summer of 2012, Susan Pedersen appointed an internal review committee with the following membership: Robert Friedman (Mathematics), Matthew Jones (History), Ann McDermott (Chemistry), Dan O’Flaherty (Economics), Cathy Popkin (Slavic), Jacqueline van Gorkom (Astronomy). Pedersen and Stuart Firestein (Biology), Chair of COSI, agreed to co-chair. All members of the internal committee save McDermott are members of the EPPC. Four (Friedman, Firestein, McDermott, and Popkin) are members of the PPC as well. Two members (Firestein and van Gorkom) have taught in Frontiers, Firestein as a lecturer and van Gorkom several times as a seminar instructor. Three members (Jones, Pedersen, and Popkin) teach in other parts of the Core. Popkin has chaired Literature Humanities, and Jones is Chair of the Standing Committee on the Core Curriculum. Committee members met several times with the directors and faculty of Frontiers in order to understand the nature of the course and to outline questions the internal committee would like to have addressed in a self-study. The FoS directors engaged to write such a self-study and also generously opened the course lectures and seminars to the members of the internal review committee. The internal committee began its review by visiting the course. Most members of the internal review committee attended several lectures and at least one section; members also examined course materials. In addition, we held a series of meetings with faculty instructors, science fellows, science Directors of Undergraduate Study (DUS), and students to gather information about the course. The meetings held are enumerated here:

1. Meetings with the FoS Directors 2. Meeting with the DUS’s of the science departments and members of COSI 3. Meeting with faculty who have taught in FoS since its inception 4. Meeting with student representatives from EPPC and the Core Committee, who held a town

hall meeting for students on FoS 5. Review committee co-chairs meeting with the science department chairs

CONFIDENTIAL

4

6. Meeting with the Science Fellows

The information gathered referenced throughout the report includes:

1. The FoS Self-Study and assessment instrument 2. Course materials 3. Articles on the history, foundation and goals of science instruction by Kathryn Yatrakis, Darcy

Kelley, and Robert Pollack 4. Survey of alumni from the classes of 2008 through 2012 who were required to take FoS 5. Survey of past Science Fellows 6. Survey of current Science Fellows 7. Reports:

a. Faculty lectures by discipline/topic b. Seminar instructors by discipline c. Seminar instructors by appointment type d. Comparison of staffing with Literature Humanities and Contemporary Civilization e. Course evaluation reports including benchmarks f. Grade distribution report g. Analysis of College non-science students taking science classes pre- and post-FoS

In addition, following the ARC model, the Internal Review Committee invited a distinguished group of scientists from peer institutions to visit the course and provide feedback on its operation and functioning. That group, chosen in consultation with the FoS staff, was comprised of: Bonnie Bassler, Professor of Biological Sciences and Director of Council on Science and Technology, Princeton University; Robert Cave, Professor of Chemistry, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Harvey Mudd College; David Goodstein, Professor of Applied Physics, California Institute of Technology; and Benedict Gross, Professor of Mathematics, Harvard University. The External Committee visited Columbia on Feb. 3-6. Committee members attended the FoS Monday lecture, the FoS weekly staff meeting, and seminar sections selected as most appropriate by the FoS Executive Committee. They also met with the internal review committee, Deans Valentini and Yatrakis, the science department chairs and past instructors in FoS, current FoS instructors, the Science Fellows, the DUS’s of the science departments, and the FoS Executive Committee. They also met with a group of College students in a focus group setting. With the assistance of the FoS Executive Committee, College students from four sections were invited that were representative in terms of course evaluation ratings (two average ratings, one significantly above average, and one significantly below average) and instructor appointment types (faculty and Science Fellows). We were enormously grateful for the diligence and thoughtfulness of the External Committee. Their report is given in Appendix 4. The Internal Committee submitted a draft report to the EPPC as a whole in March 2013. That report was revised in line with the suggestions of the EPPC and then given to the FoS Executive Committee to check for accuracy. Errors of fact were corrected, and one section intended for the use of the new committee moved to the appendix, at the FoS Executive’s request. The EPPC approved the report and delivered it to Dean Valentini for distribution to the college curricular committees.

The work of the Internal Review Committee was greatly facilitated by the generous assistance of the FoS directors and Science Fellows, for which we are most grateful. We in turn made a point of

CONFIDENTIAL

5

sharing all information we gathered and minutes of all meetings with FoS, with the exception of some information and minutes from former or current science fellows who were assured anonymity. The committee also could not possibly have managed its task without advice and support of Kathryn Yatrakis, Dean of Academic Affairs, and the faultless assistance of Rose Razaghian, Director of Planning and Analysis, who devised our surveys of former science fellows and former students and who compiled and analyzed data on the course. We are in their debt.

The report that follows proceeds through four main sections, with our findings and recommendations summarized throughout and then reprinted at the end. A first section reflects on what the Faculty of Arts and Sciences wish to accomplish through the science requirement, whether a specific required science course for all first year students should be part of that requirement, and what precisely that course should accomplish. The second section then discusses Frontiers of Science in particular, summarizing its achievements, strengths, and current challenges. A third section explores some of the key characteristics of courses in the core, suggesting that we might look to this seminar-based model to address particular problems. Finally, we suggest a process for generating greater buy-in and support for a reformed Frontiers of Science across the university.

I. The Science Requirement and Frontiers of Science

It is important at the start to note that Frontiers of Science is not the sum total of Columbia College’s core requirement in science. This is a three-course requirement, of which FoS is one course. The purpose of all three courses, taken together, is – to quote from the language posted on the College website –

identical to that of its humanities and social science counterparts, namely to help students ‘to understand the civilization of their own day and to participate effectively in it.’ The science component is intended specifically to provide students with the opportunity to learn what kinds of questions are asked about nature, how hypotheses are tested against experimental or observational evidence, how results of tests are evaluated, and what knowledge has been accumulated about the working of the natural world.

We seek, in other words, to educate all students to be scientifically literate citizens. How does this requirement compare with our peers? In requiring that all students complete

three courses in the sciences (including math), Columbia is roughly on par with these institutions. Dartmouth, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and Penn all have a three-course requirement; Yale and Cornell require four courses. (Chicago requires six, but on the quarter system, which roughly translates into four semester courses.) Where Columbia differs from its peers is in not specifying closely – beyond the FoS requirement – the distribution of those three courses. Cornell, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Yale all stipulate that students must take two courses in science and one in math; Penn and Harvard further require that the two science courses include one in the physical sciences and one in the biological sciences. Dartmouth and Princeton further require that one of the science courses must include a laboratory component.

Columbia students fulfill the three course science requirement in different ways. All students

must take Frontiers of Science in their first year; after that, however, they have a considerable degree

CONFIDENTIAL

6

of choice. In the past, they were required to take two sequenced courses; now they may take two courses in a single field or in two separate fields although they cannot take both courses in Mathematics or Statistics. They may fulfill the requirement by taking science courses that count for credit towards the major in the science departments – a practice that allows students majoring in science effectively to reduce their core requirement by two courses, something science students may value given the fact that the science majors tend to require more courses than programs in the humanities or social sciences. Alternatively, they may select at least one and sometimes both their additional science courses from the list of science courses for non-science majors approved by COSI. We note that many faculty members who also teach in FoS teach highly-rated science courses for non-science majors, sometimes having developed them after teaching FoS. (A list of such science courses may be found in the Columbia College Bulletin.)

To attempt to understand how students choose to fulfill the science requirement and whether

those choices have changed over time, we looked closely at the choices of students who declared no program in the sciences. (Please see Appendix 6 for detailed reports.) We found that before FoS was required 36% of non-science students took 3 science classes, while after FoS was required 34% of non-science students took 2 science classes. While the height of either distribution remained at the minimum science requirement, 58% of non-science students pre-FoS took more than 3 science courses while 63% of non-science students post-FoS took more than the minimum 2 science courses required. We also found that before FoS was required, 28% of all the science courses non-science students took were designed for non-scientists, while that proportion increased to 33% after FoS was required. Furthermore, we found that classes offered by Earth and Environmental Sciences (EES) in particular became more popular after FoS was required. Among non-science students before FoS, 2% of classes for non-scientists were taken in EES while that rose to 7% after FoS was required.

The single most unusual aspect of the Columbia science requirement, however, is that it

includes a single required course – Frontiers – which must be taken by all students, those intending to major in science and those not, in the first year. None of our peers has such a course. That said, none of our peers has preserved the particular kind of core curriculum distinctive to Columbia, one founded on a set of bespoke courses with a fixed curriculum taken by all Columbia College undergraduates. So strong is Columbia’s identification with that core that although ‘the core’ formally includes choice-based components such as the global core, the language requirement, and the two additional science courses, when students, alumni, and indeed even faculty talk of ‘the core’ they almost invariably mean that set of fixed curriculum, small-group discussion courses that all students at Columbia take in common – that is, LH, CC, Art Humanities (AH) and Music Humanities (MH). Indeed, such is the power and appeal of that particular model of a fixed curriculum seminar course that the Global Core Committee has, in recent years, worked hard to develop courses that share these characteristics.

The existence, power, and general support given to this set of required seminar courses is the

single strongest reason to require a single science course structured in a similar way of all Columbia students. It is perfectly possible to pursue the stated aim of our three-course science requirement – to educate our students to be scientifically literate citizens – in another way: indeed Princeton, having adopted a similar goal for its non-science majors, has inaugurated a set of very attractive courses aimed precisely at helping students to better understand the present-day and policy aspects of current scientific research. Princeton does not, however, have our core curriculum: indeed, the external reviewers, including Prof. Bonnie Bassler, who has been instrumental in the creation of the Princeton

CONFIDENTIAL

7

program, unanimously felt that, in light of that core, it is important for Columbia to have such a required course. Given our core, this is how we demonstrate that the sciences have a position of equal status and prestige within the Columbia curriculum. The alumni who took the course during its first five-year trial, and more recent student critics as well, almost universally support the existence of such a requirement (See Appendix 7 for the full results of the alumni survey). The sentiment appears to be: so long as Columbia has a core, most of which is comprised of fixed-curriculum seminar courses required of every Columbia student, a science course conforming to that model should ideally be required as well.

We agree. We endorse the following as a guiding principle: So long as Columbia College preserves a distinct core curriculum of seminar courses required of all college students, we should strive to include a similarly structured science course within that core. This, however, is only a beginning. What should be the goals of such a course? How should

it best be structured? Here, we are compelled to examine the place of such a course – and, consequently, the place of Frontiers – within two separate frameworks: first, as one (usually the first) of the three science courses required at Columbia; and, second, as a course that shares a set of specific goals and structures common to all core courses. To do that, we review the various components of Frontiers.

II. The Current State of ‘Frontiers’

In the following section, we examine the various components of Frontiers of Science. These comments are based, in the first instance, on our own observations based on our attendance at lectures and sections, and secondarily on the expert commentary of the external reviewers. We then summarize what seems to us to be the most useful message to take from student comments and course evaluations. On that basis, we summarize what we believe to be the main strengths of Frontiers and the particular difficulties and tensions which it continues to experience.

We begin with a discussion of the component parts of FoS.

1. Coursewide Lectures (90 minutes, once a week, attended by the entire group of 550

students) Frontiers of Science has put a great deal of effort into recruiting excellent science faculty to give the lectures in the course and have also insisted that lecturers practice their lectures before the FoS faculty, participate in the weekly meetings for the period of their unit, and help the seminar instructors develop materials for the unit and class plans. In the past, we understand that lecturers were drawn only from the pool of those willing to teach a seminar as well, but it seems that that is no longer the case. Despite the collaborative work involved, and despite the fact that many faculty members receive teaching credit for the course only if they also teach a seminar, an impressive number of faculty have, over the years, participated in the course.

CONFIDENTIAL

8

There has, however, been a decline in the number of faculty members directly involved in teaching FoS in both the lectures and seminar sections. For example, in 2004/05 the number of unique tenured professorial faculty who taught either an FoS lecture or seminar section was 16. Over the next 7 years that number continued to decline with 11 unique faculty members teaching in FoS in 2011/12. Focusing only on the seminar sections, there were 14 unique faculty who taught in the 2004/05 academic year while that number declined to 6 in 2011/12. Accordingly, the percentage of all sections taught by professorial rank faculty has declined. In 2004/05, 30% of sections were taught by professorial rank faculty while in 2012/13 that proportion declined to 11% of all sections (See Appendix 8).

While the number of participating faculty has declined, the number of terms a faculty member participates in FoS is longer when compared to Literature Humanities (LH) and Contemporary Civilization (CC). Over the period from 2004/05 to 2011/12, on average a faculty member teaching LH taught at least one section for 4.4 years; the average for a faculty member teaching CC is 3.7 years. In contrast the average number of years a participating faculty member in FoS taught at least one section or lecture is 5.6 years. It seems that the overall commitment of the science faculty to the course has declined, but the commitment of individual participating faculty members has intensified. This confirms the impression held by the external and internal reviewers that the course relies heavily on an especially committed and self-reproducing group of faculty, for whom this is a major commitment. The fact that the FoS Executive Committee recruits faculty to the course, rather than relying on departments to supply instructors, has ensured a high quality teaching cohort but has also meant that departments qua departments do not always feel (and indeed are not) responsible for the course. The departmental commitment to FoS is thus quite uneven across the sciences, with some departments such as Earth and Environmental Sciences, Astronomy, and Biology routinely contributing both lecturers and seminar instructors and other departments such as Mathematics, Statistics, and Chemistry doing so only rarely. (See Appendix 9)

The pedagogical effort put into the lectures by FoS faculty is impressive and admirable, and the lectures themselves very fine. Most members of the Internal Review Committee tried to attend at least one lecture in each of the three units, and two members heroically either attended or viewed every one. We found, and the External Committee agreed this was also the case for the lecture they visited, that the lectures were generally very well crafted, engaging, and informative. Lectures combine introductory material on the basic science of a discipline, examples of scientific habits of mind, and discussion of current ‘frontiers’ of knowledge in that field. Visual materials were usually helpful and well chosen, and lecturers commendably sought to transmit something of the passion and curiosity that brought them to their subjects in the first place. Notable too is the fact that FoS has often included units in disciplines (e.g., Earth Sciences, Neuroscience) rarely taught in secondary schools. The lectures, as a result, are often genuinely revelatory and win enthusiastic praise from some students. They find it a great experience to hear presentations by outstanding scientists working at the forefront of their fields and to have the opportunity to interact with them. On evaluations, students frequently cite the ‘great,’ ‘engaging,’ ‘amazing,’ ‘interesting,’ ‘fantastic’ lectures (and lecturers) as the best aspect of the course, regardless of whether the respondent gives the course as a whole the highest, lowest, or most average rating. Many FoS lecturers tend to teach departmental courses in which their lectures also win high praise, but it is notable that they do so in this required course as well – a real tribute to their dedication and skill.

CONFIDENTIAL

9

We do feel obliged to raise two concerns about the lectures, however. A first concern is with the sheer amount of material presented in the lectures, a point raised by the external reviewers as well. The deluge of difficult detail raises many students’ anxiety level and sometimes confuses them about the essential points of the lectures. At 90 minutes, the lectures are also long – perhaps too long for sustained attention. (As the master schedule contains no 90-minute periods, the lectures also impinge on student schedules as much as a longer class.) This leads to a second concern. Whether for these or other reasons, the students’ attention during the lectures is anything but undivided and the open-laptop policy (laptops are allowed to enable students to follow along with the lecture slides with all other use prohibited) widely abused. Committee members who deliberately seated themselves in different places in the auditorium each time regularly observed that at least 50% of the students used their computers and cell phones to conduct every manner of business – writing papers for other courses, playing computer games, chatting with friends, reading restaurant reviews, buying movie tickets – for much of the 90 minutes. At every lecture we observed, the number of laptops open to sites other than the course site greatly exceeded the number open to the course slides. True, the lectures are filmed and can be viewed later on podcast, but even so most students clearly fail at ‘attentive listening.’ Despite the good evaluations of lecturers, only 12% of respondents to the alumni survey recall the lectures as extremely or very memorable. The issue of discontinuity between units, an issue relating to the course organization as a whole, is discussed below.

2. Seminars (once a week for almost two hours, taught in sections of 20-22 students) The seminar leaders are consistently very highly rated and have unquestionably become even more so in recent years. Even as they are often critical of the content of the seminars, students view the seminar leaders as committed, articulate and caring instructors, whether they are ladder faculty or Science Fellows. The numbers are eloquent: FoS course evaluations from 2004-2012 reveal an average of 4.04 (on a 5-point scale) for these instructors, while the rating of the course as a whole remains significantly lower averaging 2.82 but rising over time to the most recent number of 3.28 for fall 2012. The written feedback on these surveys is explicit and specific. The best aspects of the course? ‘My seminar leader!’; ‘Seminar with Dr. Hood’; ‘Professor Utas’ seminars.’; ‘Imre is a genius’; ‘Melinda!’; ‘Dr. Chow’; ‘Dr. Hughes!’; ‘Dr. Hughes!!!’; ‘Dr. Ivana Hughes. Period.’ The majority of the science fellows report that they, in turn, consider working with the students the most rewarding aspect of teaching the course. Unfortunately, the seminars and their leaders alike are underutilized in the present structure. Despite the remarkable faculty teaching within it, the current structure neither facilitates discussion nor consistently teaches the scientific habits of mind that are the heart of FoS. The intimate group meeting central to a core course has in most cases become ancillary to the lecture and largely dedicated to preparing students for exams on content, rather than serving as the focal point of the entire experience. Typically, much of the seminar is spent going over the lecture, clarifying various factual issues and distilling the essential points. More often than not, a good half of the two-hour session is literally a recitation, as students are asked essentially to recite the information given in the lecture. Although the lecture is intended to be the ‘text’ that the seminar discusses, in most seminars the lecture material is less ‘text’ than ‘script,’ and actual discussion is rare.

CONFIDENTIAL

10

In the other major components of the Core, we have opted for the transformative potential of the small seminar, not the charismatic transformative potential of the great lecturer. Nothing essential precludes our future alumni from having profound memories of the transformative experience in reflecting upon science. We fear that the potential of these seminars with their remarkable instructors is not being fully realized. Our alumni will reminisce fondly about a science core in reunions, when that core structurally reproduces the intense experience of twenty people sitting together for four hours a week and struggling together to come to terms with something, to figure something out, to participate in knowledge seeking themselves. Instead, while they praise their seminar instructors to the skies, students complain that the seminars themselves are ‘too long’ and sometimes tedious – code words that mean that they find them boring. If discussion is not facilitated within the current structure, neither are habits of mind. Within the scripted sections, ‘habits of mind’ not only take a back seat to the substance of the lecture, but also, as a number of committee members were surprised to discover, these habits of mind are often not taught in the seminar itself. Students unfamiliar with particular skills and quantitative methods are expected to educate themselves by consulting the written tutorial materials or the optional online textbook. Here, too, a pedagogical opportunity is being lost—admittedly not a simple one, as the art of introducing and explaining fundamental skills and operations is very much an art form, as challenging to cultivate as the ability to facilitate discussion, if not more so. Instead, the engagement with skills in the seminar begins directly with using them in problem sets and practicing them in activities (two point threshold, big bang via balloons). Such activities can be a fruitful way to learn but may not always be well integrated.

We would, however, like to contrast this portrait with a summary of what might happen when the potential of seminar instruction is fully used. One member of the internal review committee, visiting one faculty-led section, reported as follows.

‘I think I may have been the only one of the reviewers who went to the seminar of X. This was the best thing I have seen so far. Every week a different group of students draws up a number of discussion questions and posts them on the board. They sit in two circles, the inner circle brings up questions, introduces the concept, and gives some of their own thoughts. Then the outer circle starts contributing their thoughts and comes up with their questions. All the students get involved and say things, and unlike most of the seminars, the students actually do the reading and talk about it. They also made, in a playful way, connections between the various modules. The class is different from any science class in that the students actually have to express how they understand things.’

This, we feel, is precisely the right model for a core course in the sciences.

3. Resources for students

One of the strengths of FoS resides in the materials developed to support students as well as instructors in the course. These include (1) a full array of Study Aids for Lecture Material (Slides and Podcasts). If the students find the material difficult, it is not for lack of reinforcement. Powerpoint slides of the lecture are distributed beforehand, presented with the lecture, and reviewed during seminar. The lectures are also available on podcast, and although the FoS directors strongly

CONFIDENTIAL

11

discourage viewing them only remotely, in the personal experience of at least some members of the internal committee, this is a reasonable method for assimilating the material. There are also (2) an extensive set of Study Aids for Skills and ‘Habits’ (Tutorials and Optional Online Text). As was the case with the COSI review, the reviewers who examined the online text ‘Habits of Mind’ found it well written and informative, but as apparently the students did not like it, it is no longer used. Instead, a set of online tutorials were introduced, which are likely helpful to many as a guide to completing the problem sets, but of necessity are both strictly utilitarian and very limited. There is also a Help Room, a sign of the course’s desire to help each student master the course skills. Our main concern having to do with these supportive materials, however, was with the fact that teaching ‘skills’, ostensibly one of the two main goals of Frontiers, was relegated to this remedial and ancillary sphere. We will say more about that below.

4. Assignments and Assessments. The course has a number of assignments, guided and graded by the seminar instructors, but none carry the weight of the lectures, which are treated by Frontiers as the course ‘text.’ Although there are other reading assignments designed to illustrate and enhance the material covered in the lectures, with a very few exceptions seminars reiterate the lecture material and do not concentrate on these readings. As a result, they do not seem to be an essential part of the course, and many students seem to ignore them, at least past the first few weeks. An exception to this is, at least in some seminars, the practice of choosing and working collectively through one scientific paper, with the seminar leader and students examining the research design, research outcomes, grounds for the conclusions, and implications for a particular scientific field. In discussion, faculty instructors stated that this work was the most arduous but also the most rewarding part of Frontiers and in discussion students too commented on the value of that exercise. Homework for the course takes the form of problem sets, which, some students complain feel disconnected from the course. Now commented on but not letter graded, these assignments have been redesigned to ‘enhance content learning and preparation for exams.’ The external examiners, noting that more advanced students felt the homework beneath them, suggested offering different levels of work: we shall have more to say about that below. There is also a paper, about which students seemed largely unenthusiastic. 40% of the grade is based on such seminar work. The bulk of the students’ grade is based, however, on the midterm (20%) and the final (40%), which are coursewide. There are quizzes as well, but these are mainly diagnostic, designed to identify areas of weakness. The external reviewers felt that too high a proportion of the grade rested on the coursewide exams, commenting that ‘it restricts the focus of the course to problem solving at the expense of learning big ideas.’ We agree that the emphasis placed on coursewide exams further diminishes the centrality of the seminars.

5. Outcome Assessments Outcome assessment, aside from student evaluation comments, has been difficult in a course

of this size and diversity. However this past year FoS devised a test instrument for all incoming first year students to assess their level of scientific skill and content knowledge in areas that would be

CONFIDENTIAL

12

covered by the upcoming year’s course. This same set of questions was administered to students at the end of the semester (during the final exam, but not counting as part of the grade). The results showed a large increase in the average test score (27.7% pre-test to 76.1% post test) with gains in the high and low scores as well. It is difficult to interpret this single, though large, sample as it is expected that the students would do better after taking a course designed to instruct them in these areas and skills, especially since the test covers material which is not generally a standard part of the high school curriculum. Students did best on questions about specific content covered in the lectures. For the remaining questions, students overall showed strong gains in their mastery of a necessarily somewhat limited set of quantitative skills.

6. Taking Student Evaluations Seriously Having summarized the main components of the course, and our sense of their strengths and weaknesses, we would like to address briefly students’ own comments on the course. Here, we feel that it is necessary to comment briefly on three responses by FoS to student evaluations: that the course has changed in response to student evaluations; that lower student evaluations are a response to harsher grading; and that students evaluating the course are too influenced by negative comment from upperclassmen or the Spectator. We would like to comment on all three statements.

First, however, we feel it is important to specify precisely what we are talking about when we discuss student evaluations. It is noteworthy that neither in conversation nor in their comments are students uniformly negative about the course and still less about its component parts. As we have stated, the lectures are generally felt to be very good, and some students clearly greatly enjoy them. Students also value their seminar instructors, praising them highly. The ratings for the ‘seminar leaders’ effectiveness’ compare quite favorably with those for LH, CC, and other parts of the core. It is important to understand that the students are not saying that they don’t like, respect, and admire the knowledge and teaching of the lecturers and seminar instructors in this course. Instead, what has remained conspicuously low in Frontiers is one number – the ‘overall course rating.’ Fall semester ratings for FoS for 2012 and 2011 were 3.28 and 3.09, respectively, on a 5 point scale with 5 as the highest rating, and with 3.28 being the course’s highest rating in its history, while spring semester ratings were 2.87 and 2.90 for 2012 and 2011. (Spring term ratings have historically been lower; indeed, spring ratings have never broken 3.0). By comparison, LH’s ratings for spring 2012 and fall 2011 were 4.35 and 4.29, respectively, CC’s ratings were 4.19 and 4.08. (See Appendix 5) It has occasionally been suggested that while students may give the course low ratings as first-years, they come to appreciate it more over time. Evidence from the Alumni survey (see Appendix 7) suggests, unfortunately, that distance and time have not made students’ hearts grow fonder. FoS faculty note that they have been highly responsive to student criticism, and that the ‘overall course rating’ has inched gradually upward. That is quite true, and much to the credit of the course’s leadership. The changes made in response to such criticisms (such as dropping the ‘Habits’ text and reviewing lectures in seminar) have unquestionably made the course more manageable for students and contributed to the improved evaluations. We feel it is important to note, however, that the changes made have improved the course’s functionality within the current structure: The signature elements listed above – unit based instruction, a mixture of lectures and seminars, a focus on ‘skills’, and uniform instruction regardless of preparation – have not changed.

CONFIDENTIAL

13

FoS has repeatedly cited the relatively harsher grades given in the course compared to other core courses to explain these low ratings, and the External Reviewers repeated that explanation. We do not find that explanation well-grounded. While there is a difference in the proportion of A range grades in FoS compared to LH, with FoS awarding 45% A-range grades compared to 53% for LH, this seems too small a difference to account for the very sizable disparity in overall course rating. Academic research in this area also suggests that grades account for only a small amount of variance in course evaluations.1 Finally, FoS faculty have advanced the hypothesis that student evaluations have been unduly prejudiced by harsh criticism of the course by former students, whether in informal comments, CULPA reviews, the pages of the Spectator, or elsewhere. While we can entirely understand that FoS faculty might feel frustrated by such negative comments, we find this explanation unpersuasive, especially in light of the facts that (1) the entire undergraduate student body is now composed of students who have taken the course after the changes introduced following the COSI review, and (2) student responses are in fact varied and by no means uniformly negative.

Rather than attempting to explain the course ratings in this way, we suggest that we might listen more attentively to what our students are telling us. Remember, they often praise the content of the lectures, and they almost universally like their seminar leaders, while giving the course a comparatively low overall rating. This paradox should, we feel, be taken at face value: students are, quite simply, telling us that these smart and able people, teaching interesting material, have simply not put the course together in a way that has won the endorsement of a preponderance of students. We should listen to them, and especially should try to specify precisely what it is about the course that reviewers, faculty and students alike have tended to find admirable and compelling and also, by contrast, what they find to be points of tension or difficulty.

7. Things that work

a) Content-based instruction The lecture content clearly works. Students find the material interesting. This does not seem

to be particularly because it is at the ‘frontier’ of some field or another so much as that the content is well-taught and intrinsically interesting. (Indeed, one student rather charmingly loved the course not because it brought him/her to the ‘frontier’ but rather because it recalled the passions – dinosaurs! climate change! – of his/her childhood.) Within the four topics, students often find something that engages them. (Of course, if they had a modicum of choice, they would be doing largely what engages them.) We think it regrettable that FoS has chosen to deliver so much of this content through the lecture format, and have difficulty believing that it is impossible to find good readings in science (especially since the lecturers have written some of them), but it is absolutely true that this group of teachers are well placed to think through how to excite non-scientists about science.

b) A Structure for Pedagogical Collaboration in the Sciences

The second major achievement of FoS is to have instantiated a structure of pedagogical

1 See for example: Centra, John A. 2003. ‘Will Teachers Receive Higher Student Evaluations by Giving Higher Grades and Less Course Work?’ Research in Higher Education. Vol. 44. No. 5.

CONFIDENTIAL

14

collaboration in the sciences. We can hardly overstate how important this is. The creation of this course, as well as the ongoing efforts to improve it, are a model for interdisciplinary collaboration, one that continues to foster serious discussion of pedagogy in the sciences and is changing the culture of science instruction at Columbia. The course is being taught by, in the words of the External Review Committee, ‘heroically dedicated faculty’ at all levels who work devotedly together. The course appears to have played a role revitalizing and generating additional courses for non-scientists, and has also won new converts year to year.

The strong support system FoS has developed for seminar leaders (weekly meetings,

supervision, etc.) is also to be commended. It is essential, especially as these young scholars must routinely teach 75% of the units outside their main area of expertise. Indeed, Science Fellows expressed a wish (and we think they are right) for more of the thought-provoking pedagogically-oriented training now offered at the beginning of each term. They pointed out that some of the most productive and exhilarating moments in their seminars were when there was no right answer and were unhappy that such moments seemed an unaffordable luxury, since, as one commented, these moments are not on the test. Many of the faculty seminar leaders are eloquent, however, on exploiting just such moments, showing how one can explore the limits of knowing in order to improve understanding. Faculty like this should be a tremendous resource in any attempt to reconceptualize the role of the seminars.

c) The Science Fellows Program

Finally, FoS deserves plaudits for having thought through a model for staffing this course and for establishing the resoundingly successful Science Fellows Program. If the present cohort is any indication, these immensely talented, thoughtful, committed, imaginative post-docs who teach the majority of the seminar sessions are the course’s greatest asset—and these instructors have the potential to change the culture of science instruction far beyond the Columbia gates. Both the external and internal reviewers found their meeting with these dedicated young teacher-scientists the most inspiring part of the review. The mere fact that science is now being taught here in small seminar sections to every incoming Columbia College student is an accomplishment the importance of which cannot be overstated. The organizers of this course have demonstrated persuasively that science can and must be accommodated within Core Curriculum.

We must note, however, that both the current funding model and the current course structure

places heavy – too heavy – burdens on the Science Fellows. 30% of the fellows’ funding is to come from participation in departmental research, yet as the fellows themselves told us clearly, the teaching demands of FoS are so heavy that most found it very difficult to do research at all once classes were in session. Insofar as the Science Fellows Program recruits young scholars who hope to combine both teaching and research, this is a problem that requires resolution. The External Reviewers, noting the problems with the funding model, suggested that the university needed to be prepared to pay the entire cost: we feel, however, that this does not address the fundamental problem that the current structure of the course places unnecessarily heavy burdens on the seminar leaders. The Science Fellows have been the main victims of the decision to let the need to recruit a changing roster of lecturers determine the content and organization of the course. Because of this, they find themselves constantly scrambling to learn the material for new units and largely unable to take advantage of past experience. The fact that they were so grateful simply when a unit was repeated is a sign of the depth and

CONFIDENTIAL

15

seriousness of this problem. 8. Things that need work

We now turn to those aspects of the course that have consistently aroused concerns, criticisms

or reservations – from the earlier COSI reviewers, from this year’s external reviewers, from students, from some members of the course staff, and from us. We do not raise these matters lightly; we wish to emphasize they cannot easily be addressed through the existing course structure.

a) The part-whole question, or unit-based instruction.

The course is fraught with this tension. As noted, the course is taught in units, with four units of three lectures each. Although one or two units are sometimes repeated fall to spring (or year to year), they often vary considerably, so that the experience of FoS does not unite students either across the first year class or between years. Although instructors have increasingly tried hard to make connections to other units, and some instructors have shown a real flair for this, those threads are not strong enough to be clear to the reviewers. There has never been a single theme, and indeed when asked whether it might be possible to link the course together through a single theme, the course directors have tended not only to defend the unit-based model but, more worryingly, to misunderstand the question: we have been told more than once that such a thematic approach is not possible because a single department cannot and should not staff FoS, even though the question being asked was not about the feasibility of a course in a single field but rather of a course on a single interdisciplinary topic (climate change, water, light), which could be approached from a variety of directions. Several faculty members who have taught in Frontiers have indeed told us that they would have liked such a model better than the current one, but it seems they have not been able to win support either from the leadership of the course or from the group as a whole.

In any case, while the unit-based structure is a practical response to the complexity of staffing, this model undercuts the ability to offer a common intellectual experience, makes it difficult for instructors to learn from experience, and makes the time commitment each semester inordinately high. We have already noted the burden this places on the Science Fellows in particular.

The burden on students is not inconsiderable as well. The external reviewers felt that the

number of units should be reduced. We think the issue of unit-based instruction as a whole should be confronted. When courses are taught in modules, it is particularly important that there be a single instructor who, from the perspective of the students, is seen to be in charge of the course: here, however, the fact that the lectures ‘drive’ the course far more than do the seminars, and that much evaluation rests on course-wide exams, limits the ability of seminar instructors to ‘own’ the course. This brings us to the second issue.

b) Costs of a lecture-centered model

It may seem paradoxical that we would question the place of the lectures in FoS, especially since they are highly-rated. That they are highly-rated, however, should not surprise: these are well-regarded and capable lecturers who teach highly-rated courses often entirely devoted to the subjects on which they lecture for FoS. The cost of structuring FoS in this way has been, however, very high,

CONFIDENTIAL

16

for many of the most problematic aspects of the course – the inability to routinize the syllabus and content, the lack of attention paid to readings, the recitation-like quality of the sections, the overburdening of the seminar instructors – are a direct consequence of the decision not only to let the need to recruit lecturers determine the content of the course but also to emphasize the lectures as the main content (the ‘text’) of the course. It is worth noting that the strongest support for this lecture-centered model comes from faculty who, having taken on the considerable challenge of lecturing in Frontiers (writing lectures, practicing with colleagues), are now committed not only to the pedagogical mission of the course but also and more specifically to its ‘heroic lecturer’ model. Instructors (both faculty and Science Fellows) who have taught seminars, by contrast, have more variable views. Some have stated that the need to make sure students understand the lecture means that the seminars – which have to review the lectures, do exercises aimed at making sure the students understand the lectures, and prepare students for exams – are too tightly scripted. Some say they would like to have more freedom and more class discussion, but simply cannot fit it in, given all they have to cover. The centrality of the lectures in FoS has made teaching seminars in the course very different from teaching in CC or LH.

A brief summary of the distribution of instructional time will help to explain what we mean

when we say that the lectures are now – to too great a degree – ‘driving’ the course. Unlike CC or LH, which meet for near four hours each week, entirely in seminar, FoS meets for 3 ½ hours each week, 1½ hours in lecture and almost 2 hours in section. Normally, however, around one of the two seminar hours is devoted to lecture review – which often means the seminar leader showing the lecture slides over on an open laptop or screen and basically reiterating the material presented in lecture. In other words, of the 3 ½ hours, 2 ½ are essentially about the lecture, with only an hour available for activities, habits, and exam preparation – much less discussion. This might be a model familiar to other science courses, but it is very, very unlike teaching in other parts of the core. Perhaps this structure has arisen partly because of the difficulty of identifying texts that are an exact fit for such an unprecedented course. Some seminar instructors insisted, however, that it was indeed possible to identify appropriate readings and that students gained enormously from working collaboratively through challenging readings in the sciences. Building a set of such readings seems a particularly important and valuable thing to do in order to take full advantage of the seminar format and opportunities for discussion that FoS and the core provide.

The external reviews were also troubled by the weight given to lectures in the course. They,

like us, found the lectures excellent, but not so exceptional as to justify the heroic level of preparation required. They suggested that the number be reduced to allow more time for meaningful work and discussion in section. We agree, but would go further, suggesting that the lecture-centered model be rethought, with seminars normally replacing lectures. The lectures themselves could still be used: they are, after all, available on podcast and could, and should, be a permanent archive for use in science instruction. We also feel that it is very valuable to expose students to lectures by working scientists and would endorse the occasional lecture – for which attendance, without any laptops or devices, should be required – simply so students can hear how a working scientist got interested in a particular problem and is approaching it. But lectures should not drive a core course.

c) The problem of teaching ‘habits’. From the outset, Frontiers has made a serious and commendable effort to teach scientific

CONFIDENTIAL

17

‘habits of mind.’ We note, here, just how challenging a problem this is. Such instruction could involve three separate elements – how to frame and test scientific hypotheses, an understanding of probabilistic thinking and statistics, and quantitative reasoning/facility. The fact that FoS does not track students, and the fact that we – unlike most of our peers – have no quantitative reasoning requirement adds to the challenge. (We note that some quantitatively-inclined students, feeling FoS is too easy, feel that FoS should simply be replaced with a quantitative reasoning requirement.)

We do not support replacing FoS with a quantitative reasoning requirement, feeling (with

FoS) that that is too narrow an approach to teaching scientific habits of mind. FoS is correct to try to teach such ‘habits’ by teaching content, and thus to show both how scientists think and how a range of skills are part of the toolkit of the scientist. We feel, however, that the commitment of course time to lecture instruction, and the sheer amount of detail to which students are exposed, may make it hard to teach ‘skills,’ as it were, along the way. Normally, mastering quantitative methods requires some amount simply of drill; here, however, there is little actual instruction in the skills, no text, and no drill beyond weekly problem sets which are commented on but not letter graded. The lecturers’ own ambivalence toward this aspect of the course is clear in the way that they tend to rush past any mathematical argument involving more than multiplication, sending the message that the students will be incapable of following it (and, in the case of one lecturer this past fall, repeatedly labeling simple formulas as ‘horrible’). If a primary aim of the course is genuinely to teach ‘skills,’ the skills need to be organically motivated by the science at issue, and the skills need to be taught, perhaps in sections devoted to that alone. If the structure of the course mirrored other core courses (normally, twice weekly seminars), time for such instruction would become available.

d) The problem of teaching students with a range of ability.

Instructors report that the project of instilling and activating scientific habits of mind is made

more challenging by the range of student abilities in each section. Virtually all instructors nonetheless reject the idea of tracking students by background or aptitude. We agree that this would change the course and undermine a central plank of instruction in the core. Nevertheless, we think serious thought needs to be given to the question of how to teach students with such a range of ability. It is apparent that such range presents a very different and much tougher challenge in a science core course than in CC and LH, not only because the distance between students might be greater but also because engagement of the particularly able student in the two cases is likely to be very different. More precisely, instructors in LH or CC can count on the infectious enthusiasm of the very best humanities students in order to engage the rest: however able such students are, they do not think the course beneath them. A significant minority of especially able science students, however, simply resent FoS and feel it a waste of time.

Both the external and internal reviewers found this a vexing problem, and one that needed

more thought. We note that one faculty instructor in FoS simply allowed the most able students to skip the seminars he devoted to teaching quantitative skills: if the student could do the work, he saw no reason he or she had to attend. Especially if specific sections were devoted to such work, this seems reasonable. The external reviewers also suggested that while requirements of the course should be uniform, more able students could do more challenging homework, although admittedly it seemed to us unlikely that students who dislike having to spend time on the course will welcome a chance to spend more time on it. More thought needs to be given, however, to how the course might be

CONFIDENTIAL

18

reconfigured to engage students at all levels. If this were done well, the more quantitatively and scientifically prepared students could be a resource in class discussion for all of the students.

These four aspects of the course – the unit-based structure, the excessive focus on the lectures,

the challenges of teaching ‘habits’, and the problem of mixed abilities – all demand more thought. In the first two cases, it is not a matter simply of improving the units or the lectures: as the ratings for the lectures clearly show, they are perfectly good. What needs to be reconsidered is the structure of the course itself. One way to summarize our concerns might be to say that, for a course aspiring to become a permanent part of the core, FoS is simply not ‘core-like’ enough. In the next section, we discuss the key characteristics of the signature core courses and of the ongoing reform of the Global Core, suggesting that our long experience with this kind of instruction provides a path forward. Briefly, we would summarize our conclusions about the course as follows:

Frontiers of Science has been an enormously valuable experiment, providing a model of faculty dedication and changing the culture of teaching within the sciences at Columbia. We should all be grateful for, and build on, this effort. Key aspects of FoS have proven greatly successful and should be retained. These are: the structure of interdepartmental teaching and pedagogical collaboration; the Science Fellows Program; the practice of exposing students to inspirational lectures and teaching by talented working scientists (although we would advise that the number of lectures be sharply reduced and removed from their central role). We feel, however, that the course continues to suffer problems of coherence. The whole is less than the sum of the parts. We feel, in particular, that the combination of a unit based structure and the priority given to lectures (in themselves excellent) has diminished the seminar component, burdened the seminar instructors, pushed aside the need to identify good readings, and made it impossible to institutionalize the course properly. Those problems cannot be corrected – the curriculum standardized and authority shifted to the seminar instructors (who, after all, do the hard work of teaching and grading) – unless the course structure is rethought. The course currently has a core-like seminar, but in some sense the seminar is not central enough. It cannot be made more central unless other aspects of the course are changed. We recommend that the course be built around the seminar. This would require replacing many lecture sessions with seminar sessions, identifying relevant readings, and developing a culture of discussion based learning. Rethinking Frontiers as primarily a seminar course could begin by examining principles intrinsic to other seminar-based core courses.

In the next section we suggest how the Faculty of Arts and Sciences might think about building on the strengths of Frontiers while addressing the current problems of the model.

III. Back to the Core: Beginning from the Seminar

CONFIDENTIAL

19

What is the essence of a core course? The required seminar-based core courses (that is, CC, LH, AH, and MH), have six key characteristics: (1) they teach content that students agree is significant, challenging, and often mind-altering; (2) they teach students particular skills and habits (close reading, textual analysis, reasoned argument) through that content; (3) they are mandatory for all students; (4) they are taught entirely in seminar, with seminars normally meeting twice a week; (5) they have a uniform basic syllabus; (6) they are based on a specific pedagogical model, in which each seminar instructor has entire authority over his/her seminar, supported by a rich apparatus of collaborative discussion and support among the instructional faculty, all of whom have precisely the same role regardless of their rank or specific expertise. We applaud the attempt of the FoS faculty to create a course that is ‘core-like’ in the sense of conforming to some of the aspects laid out above. But we think it is important to specify more precisely how FoS is like, but also unlike, this core model. Of the six characteristics above, FoS fully aspired to or replicates only the first three: it teaches significant and challenging content; it attempts to instill habits and skills through that content; and it is mandatory for all students regardless of prior preparation. The other facets of the core have been significantly changed. FoS hews to the Core principles of small seminar class size for the seminar component, but that seminar component is not the unifying, driving force as with other core courses, and FoS departs substantially from the other core courses in having a lecture component as a central – probably the central – part of the course. FoS has a single syllabus, but only for students in a given semester and not across semesters; instead, unlike all other core courses, topics and hence the syllabus change greatly from term to term. Finally, while seminar instructors are supported by a structure of collaborative teaching, their role in FoS is more akin to teaching assistants in a lecture course than autonomous instructors, as is the case in the other core seminar courses.

While FoS has much in common with the other core courses, it also has much in common with other science courses taught for non-scientists. Here, it is important to remember that FoS is only one of the three courses in the sciences required of our students. Whereas CC and LH must serve as the only required courses in social thought and literature, a Science Core course does not stand alone. The courses for non-science majors that fulfill the science requirements in numerous cases achieve many of the pedagogical goals of each individual unit of FoS: they are lecture courses, often taught by particularly good and inspirational lecturers, that give students an understanding of key and often new developments in a given field of science. These courses are often taught – and very successfully taught – by precisely those faculty members who teach smaller units on similar subjects in FoS.

As faculty consider how to make the course more ‘core-like,’ they should thus bear in

mind the relationship of any specific seminar-based science core course to the science requirement as a whole, asking which aspects of the goals of the science requirement are met through lecture courses and which might be best achieved through a course taught in the seminar format central to the Columbia core experience.

If we, as a faculty, consider the science requirement as a whole, we may feel that some of the

worthy goals espoused by Frontiers may be best achieved, or even may already be achieved, through the other science courses for non-scientists (which are generally significantly more highly rated by students than FoS). We want courses that meet our science requirement to ensure that students learn some fundamental concepts, facts, and methods of at least one scientific discipline or several tightly

CONFIDENTIAL

20

allied disciplines. We agree that such courses should not serve primarily as preparation for more advanced work in a discipline, but rather should help students learn the rudiments of fields, including developing the competencies needed for becoming an informed citizen of an ever more scientific as well as global twenty-first century. We feel it would be worthwhile to begin to hold occasional meetings among the faculty teaching the science courses for non-scientists, so that precisely the kind of common purpose and shared learning that is a feature of Frontiers can also be generalized across the sciences. As we think about Frontiers or other ‘core-like’ courses, in other words, we should also be thinking about what the science requirement should achieve as a whole.

Recognizing that a Science Core course is one of three courses eases the burdens upon any

Core Science class. It permits us to envision how such a course could be more core-like and free from much of the weight of replicating the lecture-based aspects of other science courses. Thinking in this holistic way also sharpens our questions about a core course in science. Rather than duplicate the lecture model, it seems advisable instead to ask: what can be done in a seminar format that cannot be effectively done through such lecture courses? A Science Core course should be designed from the start with a focus on the distinctive qualities of small-group instruction and should be built with attention to the capabilities of our wonderful Science Fellows

It would be presumptuous of us to propose a detailed outline for a seminar style Science Core

course or courses whose design would require extensive discussion and planning over months and then refinement over years. The details of curriculum development must be left to those who will teach future science courses, including, we sincerely hope, everyone involved in Frontiers. Based on the invaluable lessons learned from FoS, we nevertheless suggest some criteria that should inform and shape future course development.

a. Transformative and unified content.

At the most basic level, the signature core courses succeed thanks to the unquestionably high

quality and significance of the course content. Even students who do not greatly like LH or CC rarely argue that it is useless to read, say, Plato, or try to understand how one might conceptualize justice or moral obligation; they likewise do not contend that the work is too basic.

Frontiers of Science is different in that it has not tried to isolate a ‘core’ of works that students

‘must know,’ but it is similar in that it has set a high standard for the kind of content to be taught in the course. No one can doubt that the many units taught in FoS are uniformly important, significant and potentially transformative for our students. Our concern is not at all with the quality of the content in FoS but with its quantity. Each unit is a rich vein that must be rapidly considered before the lectures move on to another unit. The truncated unit structure demands frequent shifts of focus that preclude a more sustained analysis of any one scientific field. The shift of topic and lecturer hampers efforts to create a more unified exploration of topics across the semester within the seminar. Amid these frequent shifts, students too often do not appear to experience the extraordinary transformative potential of the content. While the syllabi of LH and CC include a large number of texts, often of different genres and topics, their autonomous seminar format demands every instructor, in conjunction with a group of students, select narratives, question and themes that unify and bridge them.

CONFIDENTIAL

21

Students will be most engaged and interested if they are confronted with topics and questions of inherent interest and significance, and we feel that any seminar course should also begin with this approach. Explaining a ‘frontier’ is an excellent way to engage students – although we would suggest that a deeper and more sustained exploration of one ‘frontier’ rather than a series of several will likely better engage students and allow instructors better to succeed.

b. The teaching and practice of ‘habits’ All core courses teach particular ‘habits’ and skills, and we agree with FoS that a core course

in science should do this as well. Central to any general core science seminar requirement should be the introduction of standard scientific ways of thinking and sustained practice using them throughout a semester, in homework, papers, quizzes, and exams. Integral to these would be quantitative literacy, notably the use of basic statistical and probabilistic methods. Even if seminars focused on different topics, all should underscore the higher-level scientific ways of thinking at work. They should actively teach these ways of thinking and doing, and give students practice with them.

The standardization of habits across the units of FoS often made them appear external to the

scientific fields in question, rather than motivated by them. Habits provided a certain unity across units, but did not always emerge from them. The practice of habits should be fully integrated into the basic science taught, introduced not in a vacuum, but in the course of learning and doing the science in question. As the skills central to different scientific discipline vary, however, these habits of mind need not be standardized across every section of the course.

Teaching scientific habits of mind well is a profound challenge. Our pedagogical support

system must work with our faculty members, veteran and novice, to create and share teaching strategies for students, both those strong in science and those weaker in science.

What are the habits of mind in science that are different from say LH or CC? Of course

quantitative thinking is important. Terms such as ‘significance’ ‘success’ ‘correlation’ have meanings in science distinct from those of everyday speech. Understanding those differences as deriving from quantitative (not subjective) formulations is a key mental attribute. One could imagine a full seminar on the word significance, with examples drawn from across the scientific literature.

A second habit of mind is the notion of what Kant labeled ‘question propagation’ – that facts

in science are mainly for the purpose of asking better questions, that answers beget more questions, that posing a question appropriately is the key to progress in science.

A third habit of mind is observation. How do we make observations of things that are beyond

our sensory capacities and know they can be trusted? What is the role of technology in scientific knowing? The so-called METHODS section of scientific papers are regularly ignored (even by scientists unless they are interested in performing a similar experiment and need the technique), but in fact a close reading of methods sections can illuminate science for the uninitiated. How something got done is often as important as what got done.

A fourth scientific habit of mind is explanation. Science seeks to explain things in ever more

constrained ways – explanations grow in their truthiness (to borrow a word from Stephen Colbert) the

CONFIDENTIAL

22

more they are constrained, that is the more difficult they are to change. A myth is a form of explanation but it is not constrained – the specific names and powers of the gods can be (and are in different cultures) interchangeable . They may ‘explain’ the seasons, but the explanation is not sufficiently constrained to provide a true and testable perspective.

Finally, perhaps the most crucial habit of mind in science is revision. Revision is a victory in

science, as it is not in many other fields of human endeavor. Facts are revised (in science that is not an oxymoron or a political statement) because they are tested, not accepted. The crucial idea of falsifiability is in many ways uniquely scientific. Richard Feynman said that science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. No better way to put a scientific habit of mind.

This idea of habits of mind is different from that presented in David Helfand’s online text,

Scientific Habits of Mind. That excellent resource attempts to teach students (and others) a set of tools that scientists use, from expressing big numbers to understanding statistical inference. There is of course overlap, but Helfand’s text is more of a handbook and less useful for generating discussion.

c. Mandatory participation

Students with previous experience in literature or philosophy or art or music are not exempt

from LH, CC, AH and MH. Even if they have had prior formal instruction in art, music or philosophy, no students have participated in a small seminar core course focused on sustained discussion and collective interrogation of sources. Here, too, we agree with FoS that our science core should have the same requirement and offer students both scientific content and a form of instruction they will not have previously encountered. Students with greater previous experience in formal science instruction rarely, if ever, have undertaken to learn basic science and scientific habits of mind in conjunction with developing the skills of conversing and debate scientific matters—and their broader implications—with the tools and habits of mind of the sciences.

We have suggested above some possible ways to approach the very complex issue of different

levels of preparation in science. d. Seminar-based instruction.

All Columbia Core seminar courses blend basic instruction in a given subject matter and open

discussion, while minimizing direct lecture by instructors. Students need to gain some basic competence about Aristotle’s account of arête or Darwin’s account of natural selection in the course of learning how to have an informed discussion of their merits. Fruitful and meaningful discussion in a science core will likely require some knowledge of the basic scientific concepts and fundamental disciplinary habits of mind. A science core course should, in most cases, involve more direct instruction than in other components of the core. In the seminars as implemented in FoS, recitation of the basic science taught in the lecture has come to dominate too many seminars, to the exclusion of habits of mind and discussion alike. Giving seminar leaders greater autonomy in organizing the blend of direct instruction, practice, and discussion would better allow them to make the difficult choices required to facilitate informed discussion and the habits necessary for it.

e. Uniform syllabus

CONFIDENTIAL

23

This is the one area in which we question the transferability of the core model. From its

inception, Frontiers of Science instantiated an important aspect of many courses in the core curriculum: the uniformity of syllabus across all sections in a semester (though not from semester to semester). In the case of the sciences, however, this uniformity has come at the very high costs enumerated above: units cover too much material and often too quickly; seminars are more like the recitation sections of a standard lecture course; the course is very challenging to teach for new instructors.

Thus, while we feel faculty should consider the possibility of creating a genuine common syllabus that might be taught to all students every semester (and not just for a single semester), we do not feel that this ideal should be clung to at the cost of sacrificing coherence and intellectual excitement. It may be better to abandon a syllabus common to all sections, with its unit-based structure, in order better to promote a better seminar experience. The Global Core is analogous: as a faculty, we have gauged it better to provide students an intense seminar experience in some focused aspects of the globe than to mandate a common global syllabus. Likewise, eliminating the requirement of a common syllabus and attempting instead to create perhaps a limited number of alternative seminars might allow a future science core course better to fulfill the other values of the Core Curriculum, as well as greatly ameliorate problems of narrow faculty participation and the challenge to post-doctoral instructors in teaching the course.

Allowing for student choice among a small set of possible science core courses would likely

increase the sense of ‘ownership’ and engagement among students in this facet of their core education.

f. Instructional autonomy within an apparatus of pedagogical support

It is apparent that the impact of the signature core courses stems not only from their content, but also from their pedagogical structure of a small seminar with a highly autonomous instructor. Despite the common syllabi in each core course, seminar instructors teach, organize, and grade their own sections. All instructors ‘own’ their section of the course. No section is subordinate to an overarching agenda of a series of lectures. Each instructor balances the various pedagogical functions of the course and sets assignments accordingly. The rich, collective pedagogical culture around each of these courses aids new as well as veteran teachers, but offers no prescribed scripts or required activities.

FoS likewise has a substantial apparatus aimed at helping seminar instructors learn to teach:

in this case, however, because instructors are teaching so far from their fields, because the syllabus always changes, and because their time in seminar is so highly scripted, too much of that apparatus is devoted to telling them how to run each weekly seminar. They have too little control of what goes on in their own classrooms, too little authority, and insufficient help in the mechanics (and not content) of seminar instruction – matters such as how to get discussions going, how to deal with the problem student, how to encourage the silent, and so forth. The course evaluations are crystalline here: students adore their instructors, as a rule, and do not hold them responsible for anything they feel is wrong with the course – for the simple reason that they do not see the seminar instructors as being in control of the course.

CONFIDENTIAL

24

We feel, quite simply, that this is not the best use of a seminar. Seminar instruction works when seminar leaders are understood to be in charge. Students ‘buy in’ to the seminar in an entirely different way when they feel the seminar is the course. In all core courses, this is the case. It should be the case in Frontiers as well.

We thus recommend that Frontiers of Science be rethought as a seminar course, incorporating

the six principles above (or perhaps five, with the exception of a uniform syllabus across the whole class). The wonderful lectures developed for FoS, all now on podcasts, could become a permanent archive to be used by seminars on particular questions (although they may require occasional updating); those units themselves could, expanded, also be bases either for wonderful lecture courses for non-scientists (when they have not already fostered such courses) or for specific seminars. In Appendix 10, we describe some of the various models of seminar-based science instruction that were presented to us or arose in conversation over the course of this review. We are aware that not all of these suggestions fit well with our core curriculum, and offer them simply as a spur to further discussion by the faculty committee to be charged with the work of curricular development.

IV. A Question of Process

In sum, we are aware both of the many accomplishments of Frontiers and of the things that could use attention. Thoughtful commentators on the course, including the external reviewers, many students, some Science Fellows, and indeed many former instructors in Frontiers itself, have shared our admiration for this effort, articulated some of the concerns we raise here and indeed supported some of the suggested changes. No process of reform can work, however, unless there is a genuine spirit of collaboration and good will towards this project among the faculty as a whole.

It is fair to say that generating such a spirit will take will and forbearance. Indeed, our greatest

concern, in conducting this review, had been to discover the depth of polarization and the level of strong feelings the course has generated. Critics of the course have often expressed themselves intemperately – so much so that one external reviewer, leaving a meeting with members of the science faculty, was overheard to remark: ‘I didn’t know we spoke to one another like that.’ Given the level (and, still more, the tone) of criticism not only from students but also from faculty, FoS faculty understandably felt unappreciated and have at times responded defensively in turn. They have selflessly dedicated themselves to guaranteeing the survival and staffing of the course, but the institutions created – essentially, a governance structure whereby oversight and staffing of the course takes place apart from the departments and within a group that is largely self-nominating – has served also to limit participation and consideration of change.

This conflictual atmosphere is unworthy of us, damaging to our students, and at odds with the

values of deliberation and collective purpose that lie at the very heart of the core. It is important to reiterate a few basic points. First, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences as a whole is responsible for the curriculum: it thus has a right and a responsibility to participate in shaping, overseeing and approving FoS, along with all other parts of the core. Second, once the faculty has decided to support a particular curricular plan, all members of the faculty should put differences aside and loyally work to support it, appropriately sharing in the work of running and governing it. No part of the curriculum should arouse animosity. But to create a more collegial atmosphere, the sine qua non is to facilitate a

CONFIDENTIAL

25

wider conversation about the course, one that includes all instructional participants, the science departments, and in fact the full faculty. In such a discussion, the test of a proposal should be understood to be, not how well it holds to or conforms to a particular vision, but rather how well it serves our students.

It seems to us that we will only be able to approach the process of improving this course if

critics and supporters across the sciences and indeed across the faculty are willing to put their differences aside and work together. This may sound banal, but it is perfectly true. Critics of the course need to accept that a science core course is here to stay and that there is no reason why science students should (alone of College students) be exempted from a set of core requirements simply because of their choice of major. Frontiers faculty, too, need to accept that a core course has to conform better to the model of seminar instruction that is central to the core. They must accept, moreover, that the process of moving forward is one that must involve the faculty as a whole, and that in the future a required core course in science must resemble other core courses in its administrative, staffing and governance structure. The science core must become the normal and routine responsibility of the science faculty and science departments as a whole, not the mission of a ‘heroically dedicated’ band of pioneers. This may seem hard, but it is the price of success. FoS should feel proud of the fact that it has persuaded the faculty of the need for a permanent science course, structured along ‘core’ lines. It has provided the basis on which to build that course: indeed, such a project would have been impossible but for its work. But the content of that course, and indeed the future governance of the course, cannot be determined by the current Executive Committee or Directors of FoS alone.

How would we suggest moving forward? The Dean of the College, in close consultation with the EVP and the chair of EPPC, should appoint a working group charged with the task of putting in place what one might call FoS II, a seminar-centered course incorporating the strengths of FoS but better conforming to the principles of the core, to be ready for students in the 2014-15 entering class. Such a working group should include faculty who have taught in Frontiers and faculty who have not; it should include strong representation from the science departments, from the Science Fellows program, and from other parts of the core. That body should also be charged with creating an oversight and governance structure for the course more broadly representative of the faculty as a whole and with working out plans with departments to ensure regular faculty participation in the course.

CONFIDENTIAL

26

Respectfully submitted by the Internal Review Committee on behalf of the EPPC, Robert Friedman Matthew Jones Ann McDermott Brendan O’Flaherty Cathy Popkin Jacqueline van Gorkom Stuart Firestein and Susan Pedersen, co-chairs [Accepted by the EPPC and transmitted to Dean Valentini, April 18, 2013]

CONFIDENTIAL

27

Conclusions and Recommendations:

1. So long as Columbia College preserves a distinct core curriculum of seminar courses

required of all college students, we should strive to include a similarly structured science course within that core.

2. Frontiers of Science has been an enormously valuable experiment, providing a model of faculty dedication and changing the culture of teaching within the sciences at Columbia. We should all be grateful for, and build on, this effort. Key aspects of FoS have proven greatly successful and should be retained. These are: the structure of interdepartmental teaching and pedagogical collaboration; the Science Fellows Program; the practice of exposing students to inspirational lectures and teaching by talented working scientists (although we would advise that the number of lectures be sharply reduced).

3. We feel, however, that the course continues to suffer problems of coherence. The whole is less than the sum of the parts. We feel, in particular, that the combination of a unit based structure and the priority given to lectures (in themselves excellent) has diminished the seminar component, burdened the seminar instructors, pushed aside the need to identify good readings, and made it impossible to institutionalize the course properly. Those problems cannot be corrected – the curriculum standardized and authority shifted to the seminar instructors (who, after all, do the hard work of teaching and grading) – unless the course structure is rethought.

4. The course currently has a core-like seminar, but in some sense the seminar is not central enough. It cannot be made more central unless other aspects of the course are changed. We recommend that the course be built around the seminar. This would require replacing many lecture sessions with seminar sessions, identifying relevant readings, and developing a culture of discussion based learning. Rethinking Frontiers as primarily a seminar course could begin by examining principles intrinsic to other seminar based core courses. For the purposes of that discussion, we note the following six characteristics of the required seminar-based core courses: transformative and unified content;; the teaching of ‘habits’ through teaching content; mandatory participation; seminar-based instruction; a uniform syllabus (or, as is developing in the global core, a restricted menu of set syllabi); and instructor autonomy within an apparatus of pedagogical support.

5. As faculty consider how to make the course more ‘core-like,’ they should also bear in

mind the relationship of any specific seminar-based science core course to the science requirement as a whole, asking which aspects of the goals of the science requirement are met through lecture courses and which might be best achieved through a course taught in the seminar format central to the Columbia core experience.

CONFIDENTIAL

28

6. The Dean of the College, in close consultation with the EVP and the chair of EPPC, should appoint a working group charged with the task of putting in place what one might call FoS II, a seminar-centered course or set of courses incorporating the strengths of FoS but better conforming to the principles of the core, to be ready for students in the 2014-15 entering class. Such a working group should include faculty who have taught in Frontiers and faculty who have not, and should include strong representation from the science departments, from the Science Fellows program, and from other parts of the core. That body should also be charged with creating an oversight and governance structure for the course that is more broadly representative of the faculty as a whole, and with working out plans with departments to ensure regular faculty participation in seminar instruction.

CONFIDENTIAL

29

Appendices Appendix 1:

Charge from Dean Valentini to EPPC to review Frontiers of Science Appendix 2: Frontiers of Science: Self-Study Appendix 3: Darcy Kelley, “Frontiers of Science and the Core Curriculum of Columbia College” and “Science for

All in a Core Curriculum: Frontiers of Science at Columbia University.” Appendix 4: External Reviewers Report Appendix 5: Course Evaluations Appendix 6: Science Classes taken by non-science College students pre- and post-FoS Appendix 7: FoS Alumni Survey Results Appendix 8: Proportion of sections taught by ladder rank faculty Appendix 9: Faculty participation by primary departmental appointment Appendix 10: Possible Models

Appendix 1

Charge to the

Educational Planning and Policy Committee for the

Review of Frontiers of Science The Educational Planning and Policy Committee (EPPC) is being asked to conduct a review of Frontiers of Science. The purpose of this review is to determine whether Frontiers of Science should be made a permanent part of the Columbia Core Curriculum. To make this determination, the EPPC should evaluate the conceptualization, design, construction, and execution of Frontiers as to: 1. how well it functions as a foundational science course for undergraduate students and as the basis for subsequent science courses taken by those students, and 2. how well it functions as a part of the Core Curriculum. In the first instance, Frontiers might be compared with the foundational science curriculum at peer institutions. In the second, Frontiers should be evaluated in its special role as a defining course of the Columbia College curriculum, required for all College students, and should be compared with other courses that are part of the Core Curriculum. The EPPC should consider whether Frontiers of Science has succeeded in its goals of fostering understanding of and interest in science as an intellectual endeavor, and of developing the analytical and intellectual skills that are central to scientific inquiry. The review should determine whether there are additional or different educational goals necessary for a foundational science course at Columbia. EPPC should consider whether the organizational structure and the staffing system of Frontiers of Science are appropriate, and whether the course model of a large lecture section combined with small-group seminars is effective. Any recommendations EPPC makes as part of its review Frontiers of Science should follow not only from the assessment of that specific course. Those recommendations should also address the function of and need for foundational science instruction in Columbia College, and the place of that science instruction in the Core Curriculum that is unique to the College. James J. Valentini Dean of Columbia College Vice President for Undergraduate Education June 29, 2012

Appendix 2

! 1!

!!!!!!

Frontiers of Science Self Study December 2012

Frontiers of Science Executive Committee

Nicholas Christie-Blick, 'RQ0HOQLFNDon Hood, Emlyn Hughes, Ivana Hughes, Darcy Kelley, Elizabeth Leininger, Roosevelt Montas, Elina Yuffa

! 2!

Frontiers of Science Self-Study Fall 2012 A brief introduction to Frontiers of Science The history of science in the Core Curriculum Course goals and implementation Curriculum Gevelopment Course revisions Governance Faculty and staffing Evaluations Future goals Concluding thoughts Appendix Chronology for the Core Curriculum Dean Kathryn Yatrakis, Address to the senior class, Columbia College, 2005 Recent faculty reflections Sample syllabus for Fall 2012 List of Instructors and LecturersVHQLRUIDFXOW\LQ)R6 Columbia Science Fellows Current course evaluation form Assessment of Learning Gains survey Response to the 2008 COSI review; faculty reflections Budget!

! 3!

A brief introduction to Frontiers of Science What is it? Frontiers of Science (FoS) is a Core Curriculum course for all entering Columbia College students. The course is taught to half of the entire entering class (~550 students) in each semester of their first year; all students attend a weekly lecture and a small (20 to 22 student) seminar. Each iteration of FoS consists of four units, two from the physical sciences and two from the life sciences, each term. Each unit is based on a series of three lectures given by one senior faculty member. The course aims to provide students with the analytical skills necessary to evaluate scientific evidence in the context of exciting new areas of current science. The lectures provide the primary scientific content for the course and their goal is both pedagogical and inspirational. The aim of the seminars is to further develop the scientific habits of mind (hereafter referred to as “Habits”) that students need in order to make sense of evidence (e.g., graphing, statistics, distinguishing correlation from causation) and to encourage understanding of how these Habits are applied to the topics presented in lecture. The lectures are on Mondays at 11am, the seminars meet on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday and homework sets provide students with practice and feedback for the midterm and final examinations. The seminars include a review of the lecture to go over approaches and ideas that need additional explanation, as well as a variety of active learning practices and activities (case studies, debates, hands-on exercises) aimed at increasing student engagement and ownership of the material. Seminar activities outside of the classroom include trips to the American Museum of Natural History to see exhibits relevant to lecture material and to Central Park to explore evidence for past glaciations. Course materials include weekly readings, ranging from chapters in books by scientists for the educated layman, to articles in Scientific American, to occasional papers in the primary scientific literature (e.g., Science, Nature, etc.). Scientific analysis skills are covered both in written tutorials and in an online text: Scientific Habits of Mind. Finally, students choose a topic from any field of science and write an essay in which they analyze an article from the primary literature. A semester's worth of the course can be found online at http://frontiersofsci.org; this site has provided other colleges and universities (e.g. CUNY’s Macaulay Honors College, Yeshiva University's Frontiers of Science course) with sample material for developing their own general education science courses. Who teaches in FoS? Lectures are given by a roster of senior science faculty selected for their skills in communication as well as interest in conveying the frontiers of their respective fields to non-scientists and in mentoring undergraduate science majors. Senior faculty members teach seminars; some both lecture and lead a seminar. Seminar leaders also include Columbia Science Postdoctoral Fellows, a combined post-doctoral and Lecturer-in-discipline position. Fellows lead two seminars each semester and participate in developing all of the course materials described above, as well as the midterm and final examinations. Fellows receive a one-semester research sabbatical, usually taken in the first semester of their third year.

! 4!

The history of science in the Core Curriculum Science in the Core Curriculum of Columbia College: Since the founding of Columbia College in 1754, instruction in science has been a requirement for all students. In the early 1900's, Columbia established a Core Curriculum, a common set of courses ranging widely in the humanities and social sciences that are taken by all entering students. The first course in the core, Contemporary Civilization (CC), was launched in 1919 (Chronology for the Core Curriculum, Appendix). At the same time, the faculty initiated discussions aimed at introducing science into the Core (Dean Kathryn Yatrakis, Address to the senior class, Columbia College, 2005, Appendix). By the 1930's, then Columbia College Dean Hawkes had appointed a faculty committee to create a course "paralleling CC" with the goals of "meeting the need of all students for a fund of knowledge and set of intellectual tools that would be applicable in all of their thinking and that would better them as persons; and second, it sought, by means of this foundation, to equip prospective scholars with an intellectual context within which specialized study would be more profitable and more meaningful" (Annual Report of Columbia College, 1933, p.58). These goals, articulated 80 years ago, are identical to the goals of Frontiers of Science: to provide students with an overview of contemporary scientific research in both the physical and life sciences ("fund of knowledge") as well as the analytical tools used by scientists to make sense of their findings ("set of intellectual tools"). However, Dean Hawkes' goal foundered on the antipathy of the members of the science faculty. The 1934 upshot was a requirement for two courses: Science A, physics and chemistry and Science B, geology and biology. Unlike Contemporary Civilization, which was required of all men, neither Science A nor Science B could be taken by science majors. These courses ended in 1941, coincident with the outbreak of war. In 1945, a Committee again recommended that a "specially constructed and well-integrated two-year course in the natural sciences be a required course for all students...staffed by men who are prepared to give competent instruction in all of it...” In this latter incarnation, the recommendation again failed, despite the support of the faculty generally, because of the opposition of the members of the science faculty who would actually teach the course. So it was back to Science A and B, but these would be optional and offered "at the earliest opportunity", an opportunity that never appeared. Instead, the science requirement for Columbia College students was two courses in any of the natural science departments, including mathematics. A third science course was added to the existing, menu-driven science requirement in the early 1980's with the requirement that two courses be taken as a sequence within one department (for depth) and the third in another department (for breadth). The long-standing goal of an integrated science course continued to be discussed vigorously in the 1980's and 90s (see Planning below) and was achieved in the Fall of 2003 when Frontiers of Science was launched for a pilot semester, with about 300 members of the entering class of Columbia College, now including men and women both as students and instructors. Planning Frontiers of Science: Frontiers of Science was launched following a review of Columbia's three-semester general education science requirement requested by Provost Jonathan Cole and undertaken by the Committee on Science Instruction (COSI)

! 5!

beginning in 1999. The COSI reviewed the courses taken by non-science majors to fulfill the three-semester science requirement. This review revealed that exposure to science for many Columbia College students consisted of a year of mathematics and a semester of Chemistry. The COSI was concerned that these and other students had no exposure to real scientific inquiry beyond a very introductory level. This pattern perhaps reflected the large number of matriculants whose undergraduate training shifted from pre-medical courses to another field of study by the end of their first year in Columbia College. The COSI spent a year discussing what a Core science course might include (see Course goals and implementation). These discussions included reviewing the recommendations of previous reviews of the science requirements (the 1983 Helfand and 1990 Flynn Reports) as well as requirements and offerings at comparable Universities (e.g. Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford). The COSI also discussed several alternative models for a new course, described in detail under Course goals and implementation. The end result of this extensive review was a recommended new course, Frontiers of Science, to be required as part of the Core Curriculum of all entering students, whether or not intending to major in a science. Members of the COSI, together with David Helfand, Chair of Astronomy and author of a previous faculty report on the science requirement, initiated a series of consultations with science faculty members as well as the Dean of Columbia College (Austin Quigley) and the Provost (Jonathan Cole) over the 2001/2002 academic year. Some examples of concerns voiced during departmental consultations were increasing the number of required courses, especially for science and math majors (Mathematics), having faculty teach outside of their area of expertise (Biological Sciences), and the difficulty of rigorous explication of complex material without extensive preparation (Physics). From these faculty consultations, however, a group of scientists committed to teaching students beyond their own departmental boundaries and with a passion for communicating the excitement of discovery emerged and this cross-departmental group seeded the first iteration of FoS. A series of potential lectures was presented in the Miller Theater series, Theater of the Mind, during the 2002/3 academic year. At the suggestion of Professor Graham (Psychology, a member of the COSI), a pilot semester was initiated for Fall 2003. After review and revision, and following extensive faculty discussion, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted in Spring 2004, to adopt FoS into the Core Curriculum for a five-year trial and for the course to be required of all entering Columbia College students. Thus, FoS began in Fall 2004, and this trial was renewed for another five years in 2009. Frontiers of Science is currently under review by the Educational Planning and Policy Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Course goals and implementation Overview The Core Curriculum of Columbia College is "the set of common courses required of all undergraduates and considered the necessary general education for students, irrespective of their choice in major... The habits of mind developed in the Core cultivate a critical and creative intellectual capacity that students employ long after college, in the pursuit and the fulfillment of meaningful lives".! Scientific knowledge and the ability to analyze scientific evidence are central to forming educated and effective

! 6!

citizens. Frontiers of Science approaches these goals by taking students to four great frontiers of current scientific inquiry and providing them with the scientific habits of mind that enable evaluation and interpretation of scientific evidence. Thus, FoS has two goals: providing students with the skills required for analysis of data and introducing students to a set of topics drawn from current research across the physical and life sciences. The structure of the current curriculum is a result of extensive discussions with the members of the COSI who initiated FoS, as well as with Provost Cole and Dean Quigley (as described above). How are skills taught? To provide a framework for mastery of analytical skills, David Helfand, together with Columbia's Center for New Media, Teaching and Learning, constructed an online text, Scientific Habits of Mind: (http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/frontiers/index.htmlnd). This text provides multiple links allowing readers to access more basic explanations of key concepts and methods as well as more advanced topics. The chapters are:

Chapter 1: A Sense of Scale

Chapter 2: Discoveries on the Back of an Envelope

Chapter 3: Insights in Lines and Dots

Chapter 4: Expecting the Improbable

Chapter 5: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

Chapter 6: Correlation, Causation...Confusion and Clarity

Chapter 7: What is Science?

Based upon student feedback, the Habits text is now an optional resource. As an alternative for students, tutorials were created in Fall 2011 by Fellow Paul Cadden-Zimansky (now an Assistant Professor at Bard College) to cover each Habit. The level of mathematics needed for FoS is high-school level algebra. The course emphasizes using tools to understand data. For example, students learn to use graphs to evaluate correlation and they learn to do “back of the envelope” calculations to determine whether estimates are reasonable. In direct response to student feedback, Habits (bolstered by our new set of tutorials) are now tightly integrated into each unit in lecture, in seminar and in homework assignments. Because understanding Habits is critical to success on the exams, each unit includes at least one diagnostic quiz to determine which students need additional preparation and to provide it for them (either via the seminar instructor or the help room). Why seminars? The Core Curriculum of Columbia College is a set of courses taken by all undergraduates that has as its aim an introduction to the history of ideas and the great

! 7!

works of civilization, globally configured. The courses in the Core are taught in small seminar groups of no more than 22 students, each led by a faculty member or graduate student using a set of common texts. The students thus all share and can discuss with each other a common set of themes and works; the discussion contributes as much to the deepening of knowledge and the sharpening of analytical powers as the texts themselves. This feature of the Core is a great strength and was therefore adopted for teaching FoS, both to provide a common experience and because the small seminar format promotes the kinds of active learning practices shown (by Project Kaleidoscope www.pkal.org/, among others) to be particularly effective in science education. Why lectures? Because units in FoS emphasize recent scientific discoveries, and because these units may vary between semesters, the FoS lectures serve as texts for the course. The lecture slides in a note-taking format are available to all students before each presentation and an audio recording of each lecture is podcast after the lecture is presented. The choice of lecturers and the development of the lectures themselves is a deliberate and intensive process. At every meeting of the FoS Executive Committee, potential new lecturers are discussed. The committee is looking for very strong science communicators with a passion for research and the ability to communicate sometimes- challenging ideas to a general audience. Lecturers must be willing to practice the lectures and respond to multiple rounds of feedback from the entire FoS faculty before the lectures are actually presented to the students. Lecturers must also be willing to help choose the readings, to provide feedback on the seminar materials and activities, as well as exam questions. After each lecture, the entire faculty meets with the lecturer to clarify any lecture issues. Subsequent questions (often from students) are intensively discussed using the Wiki-like tool, Piazza: https://piazza.com/. How was the decision to combine lectures and seminars made? The major rationale for the structure of FoS is that each of the four units presented each semester provides a scientific context that includes new discoveries in a particular field of science; the scientific content of the lectures and readings also provides a context for teaching scientific habits of mind. This structure was arrived at during discussions within the COSI between 1999 and 2001. Given the ongoing responsibilities of a small science faculty, the COSI first considered a series of 12 lectures, each given by a different faculty member. The two advantages of this approach would have been wide coverage across the sciences and a diminished burden on individual science faculty members. A strong argument against this approach was advanced by a number of COSI members, including Brian Greene (Professor of Physics and Mathematics, see Recent Faculty Reflections, Appendix), who recommended that each faculty member deliver a series of three lectures, the minimum required to develop a coherent theme. The difficulties of coordinating a very large number of lecturers and topics for each semester also argued against a series of 12 topics. It has been suggested recently that FoS should instead include a wider series of lectures unrelated to the teaching of analytical skills. In fact, the pilot version of the course actually took this approach. The final examination bore no relation to course content but instead presented new data and asked students for analysis. The students strenuously objected to this approach and were unable to apply their skills to the material presented in lectures. This experience indicated that teaching analytical skills without

! 8!

related content is ineffectual. Subsequent iterations of the course have thus struck a closer balance between content and skills. Why not a single scientific topic? Early in its discussions, the COSI considered a thematically uniform course on a single topic (such as Light, a course then offered at Stanford by a physicist, biochemist and neurobiologist). Discussions with Stanford faculty and the Stanford Dean’s office provided a discouraging report on this course and two other courses that were developed for the Stanford science requirement. The course on Light lasted three semesters and the other two courses lasted two and one semester, respectively. The somewhat greater longevity of the course on Light may have been due in part to intensive summer workshops (supported by a generous alumnus) in which the three faculty members worked out the concepts to be covered and their respective roles in curricular implementation. The courses were not required (a key point) and were challenging; students voted with their feet and switched to less challenging alternatives. Since enrollments declined dramatically after the courses were first offered, the effort was abandoned. Columbia had also offered a course called “The Theory and Practice of Science” for several years in the early 1980s. The course was funded by an award from Exxon and was intended for acceptance into the Core Curriculum (not achieved). Dean Robert Pollack, Herbert Goldstein (SEAS) and Jonathan Gross (Mathematics) founded it, and wrote a text and several faculty members (including Darcy Kelley, David Helfand and Sammy Eilenberg) volunteered to teach for a few years. While students enrolled, faculty participation petered out, and the course was abandoned. The COSI concluded from these examples that a non-required course, taught across disciplines and focusing on a single topic, would not succeed. What about a single topic taught by faculty from the same department? During the initial COSI review, the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences (DEES) advocated for a single focus (Earth's climate) for the course. The advantage of this approach would have been greater consistency in subject matter and, perhaps, in instruction. The two disadvantages identified by the COSI were the focus on a single topic (lack of breadth) and the practicality of having a course for all 1,100 entering students staffed entirely by DEES.

The final structure adopted for FoS represented a compromise between these approaches. In its current form, each semester's lecturers are drawn from four scientific disciplines, thus spreading the instructional effort across the science departments. Another benefit of having four units from different scientific disciplines (two from the life sciences and two from the physical sciences) is that students who are not continuing in science can make better informed decisions when choosing their other two required science courses. Finally, the COSI considered how to construct a skills curriculum that would support different disciplines. The decision was to create an online text for the course "Scientific Habits of Mind" with links for more basic explanation and more in depth exploration, which is now used as an optional text, in addition to required tutorials on each topic. Why not a laboratory course? One suggestion raised by Provost Cole and discussed at some length in the COSI in 2000/2001 was laboratory-based instruction. At their best,

! 9!

discovery-based laboratories can provide both active learning and ownership, two key features of effective education, although many of our faculty question if this ideal is ever met in required lab courses. The COSI was, at the time, also reviewing the condition of Columbia's teaching laboratories for science majors. Their dismal condition, coupled with the staffing, equipment, and supply requirements for laboratories for 1,100 students annually in addition to departmental majors, was deemed to preclude labs. Instead, FoS adopted a variety of active learning strategies that include experiments in seminar (two-point threshold, smell), simulations (galaxy collisions, balloons modeling the expanding universe, nuclear proliferation) and structured, experiment-based discussions (interrupted case studies: National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science1), all examples of the "active learning approaches" developed for current science education and empirically demonstrated to be effective. Summary Having a set of three lectures delivered by a single faculty member promotes the development of scientific themes across the three-week unit. Having half the units focus on the life sciences and half on the physical sciences enables students to sample scientific disciplines (such as Earth Science, Ecology, and Astronomy) not commonly taught at the high school level and to make more informed choices about what other science courses to take. For students majoring in the sciences, exposure to the frontiers of several disciplines has the potential to promote the interdisciplinarity required by current scientific research. On a practical level, identifying effective lecturers for four units each semester appeared to be (and has been) manageable. The range of topics covered mandates participation by faculty across science departments. An unanticipated benefit of teaching across disciplines has been the very productive discussions of teaching approaches in the sciences by FoS faculty, discussions that have spread to other science faculty members via the Brown Bag lunches on teaching and the adoption of new methods (e.g., clickers2, CREATE 3, think-pair-share4). We find the four science units per semester choice an optimal balance between depth and breadth for a one-semester introductory science course. Would it be preferable to have FoS taught entirely as a (very) large lecture course or entirely in small seminar sections? A strictly lecture course would drive FoS out of the model of the Core Curriculum, and a seminar only model would have trouble developing cross-disciplinary expertise in our instructors and providing a scientific “text” for the students. Informal polling of graduating seniors in a popular course on Ignorance reveals an approximately 50% split in opinion on this issue: lectures versus seminars.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/!2!http://www.lifescied.org/content/6/1/9.full!3!http://www.teachcreate.org/p1.php?pageID=164!4!http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/interactive/tpshare.html!

! 10!

Given both the philosophy and practicality of implementing FoS, as currently constructed, removing either the lectures or the seminars would completely unravel the course. Lectures and seminars as intimately interconnected, and doing away with one would effectively be cutting the baby in half. Curriculum Development Columbia Science Fellows, along with the Chair and the Associate Director (see Governance), develop materials to support the content presented in lectures and to enhance seminar teaching. The Associate Director selects Fellows to work on materials for a specific unit and week, creating teams that work together to draft all of the files for their assigned unit. A syllabus is prepared for each of the four units. The syllabus outlines all of the course components for each of the three weeks, in the following manner. First, a brief summary of the week’s lecture is provided, followed by a list of the week’s key questions, a list of required readings (including tutorials), a list of Habits covered and where they are covered (lecture, homework and/or seminar activity), a description of the homework problems/questions, a description of the seminar activity and finally a list of optional readings. All of the files outlined in the syllabus are made available to students on the Courseworks seminar sites and are described in more detail below. All of the readings are also available on the Courseworks lecture site. A sample syllabus from Fall 2012 is included in the Appendix. Each unit team also prepares Instructor Guides for the benefit of seminar instructors. The Instructor Guides provide answers to all of the week’s key questions and other tips for running successful seminars, as appropriate. Seminar activity answer files, as well as homework answer files, are also provided to all instructors, who then share them with their students, as appropriate. Finally, the unit team also prepares a set of seminar slides that instructors can use for the purpose of running a lecture review in seminar, as well as introducing the weekly seminar activity. The key questions for each week represent the set of knowledge, terms, and outstanding issues that students are expected to understand. The Associate Director, in consultation with the unit lecturer and the Fellows working on the unit development team, writes the list of key questions. While the students may not be able to answer most of the key questions after simply listening to the lecture, they are expected to answer them after completing the readings, attending seminar, and turning in their homework sets at the end of the week. Note that we do not provide students with answers to key questions, although all instructors have access to them in the week’s Instructor Guide. Weekly required readings are chosen to support and enhance the material covered in lecture. They range from book chapters (e.g., Brian Greene’s Elegant Universe), to Scientific American articles, to articles from the primary literature. A set of Tutorials and Guidelines for introducing the Habits was prepared in Fall 2011/ Spring 2012 and revised for Fall 2012. Most notably, a set of problems (not required) was added to several Tutorials this semester (Fall 2012) in order to give students a chance to practice each skill beyond what is required in a homework assignment. The current Tutorials include (in order of introduction): Statistics, Calculating with Units, Term Paper Guidelines, Logic

! 11!

of Science, Sense of Scale, Back of the Envelope Calculations, and Probability. This order for the introduction of Habits reflects the order of the units that has proven to be most effective pedagogically: Neuroscience, Physics/Astronomy, Biodiversity/Biochemistry, and Earth Science. The students read all of the Tutorials and Guidelines during the first two units (prior to the midterm) and reinforce their comfort with the various skills across the rest of the semester (units three and four). Instruction in Habits is not confined to a unit. For example, probability is first introduced in the Quantum Mechanics week and then taught more in depth in Earth Science (estimating probabilities of rare events) and in Biochemistry/ Biodiversity (DNA, mutations, inheritance and/or the genetic code). Instruction in Habits also includes reading graphs, taught throughout the semester. The aim is to help students draw inferences from the graphical representation of data, for example the existence of dark matter implied by a plot of a star’s rotational speed as a function of its distance from the center of its galaxy. Homework assignments support and reinforce the week’s content (see section on key questions above) and the various Habits, as they are introduced. Starting in Fall 2011, homework assignments were modified to include problems from past midterm and final exams to familiarize students with the format and types of questions they are likely to encounter on those exams. While students are allowed to work with others, they are expected to turn in a homework set with questions answered in their own words. To promote individual learning and reduce copying, weekly assignments are graded only for completion. However, instructors provide written and verbal feedback on assignments. Information from performance on these assignments helps instructors differentiate between students with stronger backgrounds and those who are less well prepared and in need of additional assistance. Seminars typically begin with a lecture review in which students are asked to present arguments from the lecture. The review also allows students to ask questions about topics that were not clear to them or about which they wanted to learn more. Students submit lecture questions by email or via Discussion Boards on Courseworks seminar sites. These questions form a basis for the material reviewed in class when the instructor can also make sure that all key questions have been covered. The seminar then breaks into small groups to work on an activity. Seminar activities are designed to support and reinforce the week’s content and various habits. They differ from homework questions (which have the same goals) in that they are mainly designed to spur discussion in small groups, followed by full class discussion. Over the semester, seminars include a balance of hands-on (including simulations), presentation-type, and design-type activities. Seminars open with the Neuroscience unit. The two-point threshold activity, an in-class experiment, provides an excellent opportunity to mesh content and Habits 5. Over the remaining two Neuroscience seminars, students engage in a “What is Science" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5!The two-point threshold activity, an in-class experiment in which students explore their ability to detect two closely-spaced points on the finger or arm, links content, the ("Magnification principle"), to Habits (greater neural representation inferred from finer discrimination at the finger than on the arm).!

! 12!

activity. Students begin by reading articles from various media sources that make scientific claims. They discuss their views of those claims and whether or not they appear scientific. Students then research these claims out of class using scientific databases. In the second part of the activity, students discuss the results of their searches and evidence presented in published peer-reviewed studies, and how the data they uncovered bear on original claims made in the media articles. The “What is Science" activity at the beginning of the course prepares students for the analytical essay (term paper) that they prepare during the second half of the course. Optional readings are also provided for students interested in exploring a topic in greater depth. The readings focus on a specific aspect of the week’s lecture or provide a historical background for those discoveries (e.g., Einstein’s development of Special and General Relativity or Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of the Universe). Two Fellows each semester are selected by the Associate Director to lead the Midterm and Final exam committees, respectively. Each Fellow and the Associate Director choose the other members of those committees. The committees meet weekly over a period of 4-5 weeks to design exams that combine content and Habits testing, including data analysis and calculations. Each question aims to test: 1) absorption of material, 2) analysis of data, and 3) application of skills to novel problems. The Associate Director, the unit lecturers, and the Chair all provide feedback to the exam committee. The entire faculty comments on each exam before it is printed for the students. Course grades are based on examinations, class participation (including timely submission of homework) and the term paper. The final examination is cumulative but emphasizes material from the second half of the course. At the end of the academic year, the Associate Director meets with all the Fellows to discuss unit development for the upcoming academic year, all of the materials that were used previously, and to make decisions on changes (from minor ones, like clarifying a homework problem to major ones like re-designing a seminar activity). Curriculum development on a new unit for the course begins 6-9 months prior to those lectures, and includes careful discussions with the new lecturer on what materials would best support the unit, as well as trial seminars with other instructors to make sure that seminar activities will run smoothly. Course revisions History: The faculty of FoS have actively revised the curriculum to address feedback from instructors and student evaluations including written comments. A number of incremental changes were made to the curricular emphasis and evaluation methods between the founding of the course (2004) and the last COSI review (2008). The most notable early change, based on student feedback and performance, was a shift from exclusively testing students on Habits to testing on both Habits and the scientific content delivered in lectures. This shift necessitated greater attention to integrating weekly readings, seminar activities, and homework problems to address the scientific themes presented in lecture. Activities designed to teach data collection and analysis shifted from

! 13!

large-scale field experiments (NYC biodiversity) to active in-seminar strategies (e.g., two-point threshold, laser diffraction). Student assignments and evaluation methods, including lecture questions, homework assignments and exams, were also changed. Students submit a weekly lecture question. The format of this exercise changed from students submitting a hand-written question upon leaving lecture, to posting a question on their seminar’s discussion board or emailing it to their seminar leader. Another innovation was designed to specifically engage students in the humanities. At the beginning of the course, students completed one assignment per unit. For the final unit, students instead had the option of creating a dance, a piece of music or art or a short play (among other forms). The science-themed creations produced some interesting work and a widely viewed video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfbqFua7xLA; 38,401 hits). After a two-year trial, this effort was rolled into the Core Reflection program which encourages connections among Core works. Students direct a film, record a song or choreograph a dance, write an essay, poem, short fiction, or graphic novel or create paintings, drawings, and photography (http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/scholars; see Frontiers of Science is Just Lit Hum: an Interdisciplinary Ode to the Freshman Core Experience .) An innovation directed at prospective science majors was a monthly evening journal club on the topic of the unit led by a senior faculty member or Fellow. The journal club was not very well-attended except by students from the previous year of FoS, who may have had less intense schedules than first-year students. The two-year trial of the journal club was abandoned because it did not seem to be achieving the goal of involving that year's FoS prospective majors more deeply in the material. In Spring 2007, midterm exams were introduced to provide an intermediate assessment of student progress in mastering the materials. Homework problem sets were redesigned to resemble more closely, and thus to prepare students for, the exams (often including questions adapted from actual past exams). Originally, one lengthy homework set was assigned per unit, and students completed the homework in small groups. Unfortunately this encouraged copying and not collaborative learning. Homework sets have since been redesigned as weekly problem sets, which are commented on in detail by seminar leaders and used to measure student progress but not assigned a letter grade. The aim is to encourage completion, but not copying. In Fall 2008, we experimented with giving the lectures to each half of the class (i.e. ~225 students rather than 550) rather than the full class. No effect on student opinions of the lectures or of the course as a whole was apparent. For this reason, and because giving the same lecture twice was an additional instructional and administrative burden, we returned to the single weekly lecture format. Lectures were given in Miller Theater a venue with several disadvantages for instruction including poor acoustics. In Fall 2009, we shifted the weekly lecture from Miller Theater to the large auditorium at Teachers College (Horace Mann 147) to better support slide presentation and student questions during lecture.

! 14!

Recent changes (2009-2012) The COSI (chaired by Jim Valentini) last reviewed Frontiers of Science beginning in 2007 and released a report in December 2008. We have responded to the comments from the COSI review (see Response to 2008 COSI Review, Appendix) by revising the curriculum to improve communication of the course goals and to guide students in their approach to learn scientific concepts and Habits. In addition, we have created the position of Associate Director for FoS as a major change in the course operations. Changes to the FoS curriculum also reflect written student comments from each semester's course evaluation. A list of substantial changes since 2008 is given below, followed by some more in-depth discussion. Curriculum:

• Replaced the online text Scientific Habits of Mind with Habits Tutorials • Introduced Habits in an appropriate scientific context and a consistent order; with

the generality of each skill reinforced across different units. • Established a standard 4-unit science sequence (Neuroscience,

Physics/Astronomy, Biochemistry/Biodiversity, Earth Science). • “Key questions” from lecture emphasized to set expectations for student

knowledge of course content. • Homework assignments redesigned to enhance content learning and preparation

for exams. • Introduced a term paper assignment on a science topic of each students's choice. • “What is Science” activity introduced in the second seminar. • Increased emphasis on the AMNH visit, a highlight of the course, and integration

with the FoS curriculum. Staffing: • Reviewed and retained the most effective course lecturers over multiple (>3) semesters. • Associate Director position created to enhance consistency in curriculum and

lecture development. • Earlier and more intensive evaluation of instruction in seminars led both by

senior faculty and Columbia Science Fellows; replacement when warranted. The online text, Scientific Habits of Mind, received low ratings, relative to other items, in FoS evaluations. While, because of its conversational style, Scientific Habits of Mind is most effective when read as a whole, requiring students to read the text in its entirety before the start of the semester did not improve its ratings. Dropping Scientific Habits of Mind (Spring 2010) without substituting a replacement text diminished student mastery of analytical skills and led us first to reinstate it, and then in academic year 2011/12 to introduce an alternative text, the Habits Tutorials, which are less conversational in tone and more geared toward a diverse audience. Each Habit Tutorial corresponds approximately to a chapter in Scientific Habits of Mind. In Spring 2012, the Habits Tutorials were designated as required reading, and the Scientific Habits of Mind text as an

! 15!

optional reading. Students rate the Habits Tutorials more favorably than Scientific Habits of Mind (3.0, versus previous ratings from 2.27 - 2.65). This semester (Fall 2012), practice problems were added to several of the Habits Tutorials. Seminar instructor feedback over multiple semesters suggested an optimal order of units: Neuroscience, Physics/Astronomy, Biodiversity/Biochemistry, and Earth Science. Opening with Neuroscience engages most students due to widespread interest in the brain. Pedagogically, it allows for an immediate and effective introduction to statistics via the two-point threshold activity (see footnote, p.10), as well as to scientific literature searches and the Logic of Science Habit via the “What is Science” activity. Physics and Astronomy then introduce more intensive calculations as well as a focus on broad spatial and time scales. Biology and Earth Science units promote the teaching of probability, an important but unfamiliar topic for most students. Pairing a heavily quantitative unit with a relatively less quantiative unit (such as Astronomy and Neuroscience) allows for more balanced midterm and final exams. Lectures in FoS focus on central questions (both thought to be resolved and clearly unresolved) and breakthroughs in current science. To guide students in learning the most important lecture concepts, beginning in Fall 2011, we have highlighted key questions from the lectures in the syllabus. Students use the list of key questions as exam study guides. The focus on key questions facilitates active over passive review techniques (re-listening to lecture podcasts). Key questions also clarify expectations for exam topics. Homework problems are carefully designed to require understanding and application of Habits and the key questions from lecture. They include past exam questions and data from the primary literature. Recent course evaluations suggest that students find the homework assignments are a valuable component of the course. A help-room was instituted to provide additional assistance with assignments and review for examinations. To actively engage the specific interests of each student, in Fall 2010 we introduced a short term paper. Each student chooses a scientific topic, locates a related, recent peer-reviewed article in consultation with his or her seminar leader, reads and dissects the article, and writes a habits-based discussion and critique of the article. The term paper is a natural extension of the “What Is Science” activity encouraging in-depth exploration of a topic, increasing familiarity with scientific databases, and requiring the application and understanding of scientific habits to draw conclusions from real published data. The stipulation that articles must be recent promotes an appreciation for current scientific research and discourages copying of past papers. The term paper assignment has been reviewed favorably in course evaluations, and we continue to revise its implementation. For example, most instructors set a number of internal deadlines, review a paper draft and/or have developed pre-writing exercises to encourge student progress. Although large scale field experiments (student measurements and analysis of NYC biodiversity) were removed from the course several years ago, we have introduced a number of required and/or optional field trip components. Most seminar sections visit the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) once in the semester; distribution of

! 16!

super-vouchers allows students free access to up to four special exhibits. Many of the permanent and special exhibits at the AMNH relate directly to topics from the course lectures. From course evaluations, we have learned that many students list the AMNH trip as the highlight activity in the course. Additionally, faculty in Earth Science run “extra credit” geology field trips in Central Park; these trips typically 25 to 40 students. Governance Definition of positions: FoS Faculty: As detailed below, FoS seminars are taught by Fellows and senior tenured faculty (Senior Faculty). Core Curriculum Director: Technically called the Director of the Center for the Core Curriculum, this person (currently Roosevelt Montas) reports to the Dean of Academic Affairs and oversees the administration of the entire Core Curriculum. Assistant Core Director: Technically called the Assistant Director of the Core Curriculum, this person (currently Elina Yuffa) reports to the Core Curriculum Director. Course Chair: The ultimate authority for the ongoing day-to-day operation of all aspects of FoS is vested in that semester's Course Chair. The Course Chair, who is chosen by the FoS Executive Committee (EC) is typically different in the Fall and Spring semesters. For 2012-13, the Course Chairs are Nick Christie-Blick (Fall) and Emlyn Hughes (Spring). Associate Director of FoS: The Associate Director (currently Ivana Hughes) is chosen by the EC. The Associate Director reports to that semester’s Course Chair and to the EC. The Associate Director position does not rotate, though it is reviewed annually by the EC. Role in Goverance FoS Executive committee: The Executive Committee is the primary governing body of FoS. The FoS Executive Committee (EC) currently consists of: the Course Chair, the Associate Director for FoS, the Core Curriculum Director, the Assistant Core Curriculum Director, past FoS Chairs and one of the Fellows (chosen by the EC). The EC represents FoS in all long-range planning discussions of the course with the Columbia College and Arts & Sciences administrations and the Arts & Sciences Faculty. The EC is responsible for course planning and evaluation, as well as all FoS faculty recruitment, appointment and review of the Associate Director and retention decisions. Each semester the EC reviews the course evaluations and considers, in consultation with the FoS faculty, changes in the conduct of the course. The EC reviews all assessment instruments and consults with the Columbia College administration on long-term assessment (exit interviews, focus groups and alumni surveys). While the EC is reponsible for identifying staffing requirements for FoS, it is NOT responsible for constructing the budget for the course. The Chair and Assistant Director construct the budget annually and funding is shared by Columbia College and the office of the Vice President of Arts and Sciences.

! 17!

Chair: The Chair, with the assistance of the Assistant Director for the Core Curricullum, supervises all administrative matters that arise during a particular semester. In consultation with the EC, the Chair recruits and evaluates all faculty members teaching in FoS. The Chair supervises, together with the Associate Director, the overall teaching effort of the FoS Faculty including the preparation and presentation of lectures, the assignment of readings including the Habits Tutorials (and/or Scientific Habits of Mind online text), as well as related materials, such as homework assignments, and term papers. The Chair and the Associate Director jointly supervise the midterm and final examinations (prepared by the Fellows with feedback from the Associate Director and Semester Lecturers). The Chair and the Associate Director of FoS represent FoS within the Committee on Science Instruction (COSI), the Committee on the Core (COC), and other College or University Committees, as appropriate. Associate Directorof FoS: The Associate Director is responsible, in consultation with the Chair, Semester Lecturers and Fellows, for supervision of the preparation of all instructional materials: readings, syllabi, homework assignments, guidelines for the term paper assignment guidelines, Tutorials, and exams. Either the Chair and/or the Associate Director meets with new Fellows weekly, monitors their presentation of seminars, and tracks course evaluations of materials and faculty. In addition, every Monday afternoon, the Chair or the Associate Director run a preparation session for the FoS Faculty teaching the seminars. The Associate Director also provides advice to the EC on recruitment and evaluation of Fellows. The Associate Director, along with the Chair, represents FoS within the COSI and the COC. The existence of an Associate Director allows for continuity in the operations of the course from one term to another as the Chair typically changes from one semester to the next. The creation of this position was a major change implemented after the 2008 COSI report. Core Director and Assistant Core Director: The Director and Assistant Director of the Core Curriculum are responsible for administering the budget of Frontiers of Science, for the search process for Columbia Science Fellows and for co-ordinating offer letters to Fellows from the Chairs of the Science Departments. The Assistant Director provides administrative support including registering students into FoS, scheduling faculty and EC meeting, printing and arranging the time and place of the midterm and final examinations, providing make-up examination material and examinations for the athletic teams and arranging seminar rooms in consultation with the Registrar and ajudicating student transfers between seminar secions. Faculty and staffing Faculty composition. The faculty members of FoS include seminar leaders and lecturers. The majority of seminar leaders are Columbia Science Fellows, a three-year term, combined Lecturer-in-Discipline and post-doctoral fellow position. Each Fellow leads two seminar sections per semester. A complete listing of all instructors in FoS is included in the Appendix (List of Instructors and Lecturers). Faculty seminar leaders and lecturers hold appointments in all

! 18!

Columbia natural science departments (Table 2) with most from DEES, Astronomy, E3B and Biological Sciences. Depending on need, some seminars (7% of total seminars 2004 - 2012) are led by adjunct faculty members (Table 4). Adjuncts include former Science Fellows and Fellow candidates unable to assume full-time instructional appointments. Frontiers of Science also maintains a help room for students staffed by former students in the course. Level of appointment. Senior (tenured) faculty members at Columbia participate as lecturers and/or seminar leaders. The decision to include only tenured faculty members stems from the goal of protecting the advancement of junior faculty members to tenure within their respective departments. The Science departments provide faculty to FoS on a voluntary basis; they are under no obligation to Columbia College to staff the course. Faculty members who choose to teach in FoS are often among a department's strongest teachers. Thus, the instructional needs of a department can conflict with a faculty member's wish to lecture and/or run a seminar in FoS, a conflict that could affect a tenure decision. In addition, teaching across disciplines and teaching first-year students is a demanding combination for anyone in the early stages of a scientific research career and could impede the research progress on which tenure decisions are based. Columbia Science Fellows are appointed specifically to teach in FoS. The appointment is for three years at the level of Lecturer-in-Discipline, a non-tenure track, junior faculty position. The initial appointment is contingent on a satisfactory review based on performance in seminars (see Course evaluation), classroom visits by the Chair/Associate Director each semester and participation in developing curricular materials (readings, assignments, activities and examinations). Subsequent re-appointment is for a maximum of two years, including the research sabbatical. In Year 1 of the appointment, 100% of each Fellow's 12 month salary is funded by Columbia College. However, by Year 2, each Fellow is expected to have identified a research mentor. Salary is covered at 70% with the remainder provided by the mentor, the department, or by extramural funding obtained by the Fellow. Fellows can, after consultation with the office of the Provost, apply for research funding and salary support as Principal Investigators from Federal agencies and other sources. Each Fellow has a faculty appointment in one of the Natural Science departments that provide instruction to Columbia College students. The research mentor can be at the Medical School, the School of Engineering and Applied Science, Barnard College, or at another New York City university. In that case, a member of the Executive Committee serves as on-site mentor for the Fellow. Each Fellow is eligible for a one-semester sabbatical, typically taken at the beginning of year three and a research support stipend of $3,000 annually. The purpose of the sabbatical is to assist the Fellow in obtaining her or his next faculty appointment by providing time to complete and write up research and to apply and interview for positions. Fellows have been highly successful in obtaining faculty positions: of the 32 former Fellows, 20 are in tenure-track or tenured faculty positions (see Columbia Science Fellows: Appendix). The remainder have positions in science education, consulting, or industry.

! 19!

Faculty selection. Columbia Science Fellows are recruited via a national search that includes advertisements in professional journals across the sciences. Applications are due in January and candidates for interviews are selected by the Executive Committee. Applications include a cv, a teaching statement, and a research statement; the Ph.D. must be in hand before appointment. Interviews are conducted on campus for local applicants and via Skype for others. While consideration is given to maintaining a balance of scientific expertise across the physical and life sciences, excellence in teaching and a strong research track record are the most important criteria for selection. Potential lecturers and seminar leaders are identified from the senior faculty by the Executive Committee. If an individual faculty member expresses an interest in participating, a consultation with his or her respective Department Chair is arranged. When FoS was initiated, the course credit for instruction was set by the Dean of Columbia College as equivalent to one full undergraduate course for two seminar sections or lecturing plus a single seminar section. Senior faculty members who deliver lectures only usually do so on a voluntary basis, in addition to their normal course load. Two exceptions to date are lecturing while acting as Chair and lecturing in two successive semesters. All senior faculty salaries are covered by the budget of Arts and Sciences. Senior faculty member self-assessments of their experiences in FoS can be found in the Appendix (Senior faculty reflections). Course Chairs. Course Chairs are identified and recruited by the Executive Committee in consultation with the Chair of that faculty member's department. Chairs are typically experienced instructors who have already led seminars and delivered lectures. Chairs automatically become members of the Executive Committee. Faculty development – coursewide. Faculty who elect to teach in FoS share an interest in, and comfort with, teaching across scientific disciplines. That said, it can be a challenge for a neuroscientist to teach quantum mechanics or for an astronomer to teach biochemistry. Faculty preparation in teaching seminars across disciplines relies on familiarity with the lectures (usually achieved by providing input at multiple practice sessions), the readings, review of assignments and preparation of examination questions. Three additional resources are the weekly faculty meeting (Monday after the lectures), the weekly seminar preparation meeting (late Monday afternoon), and Piazza, an online resource used by FoS faculty members inter alia to clarify material and address student questions. All faculty members contribute potential questions for the midterm and final examinations. The respective committees generate drafts of these examinations which are reviewed first by the Associate Director, followed by unit lecturers and the Chair and finally by the entire faculty. Chairs visit the seminars of senior faculty to learn from practices that are particularly effective or ineffective, as indicated by student evaluations. As the lectures in a unit are developed, lecturers present versions to the entire FoS faculty and modify their presentations to meet concerns raised by the resulting critiques. Members of the EC work closely with lecturers to strengthen their presentations when necessary.

! 20!

Junior faculty development. Columbia Science Fellows are often teaching seminars for the first time, since many have recently completed their PhDs. Two weeks before the class begins, all new Fellows attend a series of seminars to introduce them to available instructional tools and pedagogical approaches. These include instruction in effectively leading a small seminar (Deborah Mowshowitz, Biological Sciences and Ivana Hughes, Associate Director of FoS), how to develop student skills in writing the term paper, the use of our online course resources, Courseworks and Piazza, and issues of academic integrity. Each Fellow gains practical experience in curriculum development by working with a group of other Fellows to design or refine the curricular materials associated with their assignd unit: readings, the weekly homework assignments, Tutorials, the midterm, and the final exam. This effort is carried out in consultations with the the Associate Director, the lecturer for that unit, and the Chair. Each fall semester, the cohort of new Science Fellows meets weekly with the Chair and/ or the Associate Director to discuss teaching strategies for their seminars. The Chair and the Associate Director observe seminars taught by new Science Fellows (and returning Fellows and senior faculty wishing to improve their teaching), and provide written and verbal feedback to the Fellow following the seminar. After the end of the semester, the Associate Director meets with Fellows to discuss their course evaluations, goals for the next semester, and professional development. Evaluations Students Course grades are currently calculated as follows: 40% for seminar preparation, participation, homework, quizzes, and a written analysis of a scientific article (term assignment); 20% for the midterm exam.; and 40% for the final exam. Frontiers of Science is a 4 point class. This information is available to each student both on the main FoS Courseworks site and on the Courseworks site for each seminar. Both the midterm and the final are given to all sections simultaneously, and are a common exam. However, in order to take into account the varied experiences of different seminar sections, 1) there is a choice of questions; and 2) the exams, as well as a student's overall course performance, is graded by each student’s seminar leader. A detailed guide for grading is available for all instructors and the expectations for student grades are discussed explicitly in faculty meetings before and after the examinations. Since inception, the mean grade for FoS has averaged 3.28 (a B+). As discussed below in the Grading section this is significantly lower than the average for other Core courses.. Senior faculty Lecturers are evaluated using feedback from the course evaluation and from other faculty members, as well as the Chair and Associate Director. The basis for the evaluation includes student ratings as well as faculty feedback on how pedagogically effective and engaging the lectures are. The Associate Director, the Chair and the Fellows also provide feedback on how well a lecturer participates in choosing readings, designing seminar activities and constructing the examinations. A senior faculty member may rotate out of the lecture roster due to a sabbatical leave or new responsibilities (for example, becoming Chair of a department). The decision to ask a lecturer to continue in the course (assuming this is the lecturer's wish) is made by the Executive Committee.

! 21!

Details on participation by individual faculty members as FoS lecturers are given in List of Instructors and Lecturers (Appendix). Seminar leaders are evaluated using student rankings in the course evaluation, visits to seminar sections and participation in developing instructional materials for FoS. The decision to ask a seminar leader to continue in the course (assuming this is the faculty member's wish and there is no conflict with departmental instructional needs) is made by the Executive Committee. Details on participation by individual faculty members as FoS seminar leaders are given in List of Instructors and Lecturers (Appendix). Columbia Science Fellows Columbia Science Fellows are evaluated each semester during their first year of appointment using feedback from seminar visits by a member of the Executive Committee, and from student course evaluation, as well as other information based upon their participation in the development of course materials including examinations. The decision to ask a Columbia Science Fellow to continue in the course is made by the Executive Committee. If performance is good, the Fellow is appointed for an additional two-year term. Assessment of Learning Gains during Academic Year 2012-2013 The faculty of FoS designed an assessment instrument that was administered to all incoming students in August 2012 (pre-test) and to students enrolled in FoS at the end of the fall term in December 2012 (post-test). This instrument will also be administered to a subset of students enrolled in FoS at the beginning of the Spring 2013 semester (the Wednesday morning seminar sections which meet simultaneously). The assessment instrument (Assessment of Learning Gains, Appendix) was designed to evaluate the scientific skill set of students before and after taking FoS, as well as any change in student overall content knowledge in the areas of science included in the Fall 2012 version of FoS. The assessment instrument to be administered to students at the beginning of Spring semester will serve as a control for student experiences without explicit exposure to FoS. The response rate during Orientation week on August 28, 2012 was 88.2% of the incoming freshmen class (N=966; some students did not attend the Academic Assembly during Orientation). The response rate for the post-test was 99.8%. The Habits questions included probability, back-of-the-envelope calculation, graph reading, log-log plots, estimation of mean and standard deviation from a histogram, statistical significance, correlation vs. causation and feedback mechanisms. The content questions included brain physiology, wave-particle duality of electrons and the evidence of the cause of the K/T boundary extinction (see Assessment of learning gains, Appendix). We have just administered the same questions (post-test) to all students enrolled in FoS Fall 2012. We report here only on scores for first year students in Columbia College (N=519; scores for second year students and students in the School of General studies were excluded). As there was no assembly comparable to the one in which the pre-test was administered, we chose to administer the post-test during the final examination. This had the advantage of testing all students (i.e. 100% response rate) and testing them simultaneously (the seminars, a possible alternative venue, meet across the week). We

! 22!

chose to use the same test items because of the difficulty of constructing different questions of equal difficulty on the same topic. We assume that the questions would have been largely forgotten across the span of the semester or if remembered, remembered without answers (answer keys were not distributed). To minimize variability in grading, each individual question was scored by a single faculty member. All of the pre- and post-tests are available for re-grading if someone has this interest. The mean score for the pre-test was !27.7% (S.D. 15.3%) and for the post-test was 76.1% (S.D. 11.9%). The pre-test high and low scores were 73.3% and 0% and the post-test high and low scores were 99% and 25.6%. Details on the scores of individual items are included in Assessment of Learning Gains, Appendix. We conclude that after completing FoS, the majority of students have become familiar with the analytical skills taught as well as course content. Learning gains are apparent both at the high and at the low end of test scores indicating that regardless of ability level entering the course, all students gained. Implementing feedback from course evaluations Since the inception of FoS, student evaluations inform decisions on course revisions from small changes, such as which readings to keep and which readings to change, to larger changes, such as junior faculty appointments and senior faculty teaching assignments (both lectures and seminar). Each semester, after grades are submitted and evaluations become available, the Associate Course Director sends a summary to the faculty that includes both numerical ratings for each evaluation component and comments, as well as a summary of data per section and/ or instructor (anonymously). The current course evaluation items are included in the Appendix6. Student evaluations of Frontiers of Science The three graphs below (Fig. 1 - 3) illustrate the results of three items on the course evaluation form: ‘overall value of the seminar leader (instructor)’, ‘average value of lecturer quality’ and ‘overall value of the course’ from Fall 2004 to Fall 2012.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6!For Academic year 2011-2012, we revised the scale for attending lectures (with 5 being most lectures attended), we also revised the scale for 'how much time did you spend on this class compared to your other classes') and we added 'as you yourself experienced it' to the 'overall value of the course'. In Fall 2012, we added a few questions, such as 'overall value of seminar', 'overall value of lecture' and 'overall value of the AMNH trip (only answer if you attended)' and re-ordered some items. !

! 23!

Figure 1. Average student ratings versus time for seminar leader effectiveness. Blue dots correspond to Fall terms and red dots correspond to Spring terms. Lines were determined using best-fit linear regression.

Figure 2. Average student ratings versus time for lecturer effectiveness. Conventions as in Fig. 1.

! 24!

Figure 3. Average student ratings versus time for overall course effectiveness. Conventions as in Fig. 1. We can characterize student rankings of effectiveness across time as follows. Scores for all three items gradually increased between Fall, 2004 and Fall, 2012. For overall effectiveness of the course (but not seminars or lectures), Fall scores are higher than Spring scores. Scores for the Overall Course Quality are lower than for either seminar Leader Quality or Lecturer Quality, but the slope of change is greater. In the most recent data set, the new items ‘overall value of seminars’ and ‘overall value of lectures’ both were rated 3.6, suggesting that students value both course components. Integration of lecture with seminars received a rating of 3.7, suggesting that the two components are well-integrated from the student perspective. A summary of the average responses to all evaluations items from Fall 2012 is included in the Appendix. What is our interpretation of these data? First, student ratings of FoS have increased steadily. If the current rate of change can be maintained, the overall score should break 3.5 by Fall, 2015; scores for Spring FoS should break 3.5 by 2016. The generally favorable ratings of seminar leaders are consistent with the experience of the Columbia Core Curriculum: the best learning experience arises from a small, interactive classroom environment. While seminar leader effectiveness is rated more highly than lecture effectiveness, at the current rate of change lecture scores should break the 4.0 mark by 2015. What factors influence student evaluations of their experience in FoS? In the early years, course evaluations were collected through the lecture site and were compiled across all students. More recent evaluations have been collected for each seminar and segregated according to seminar instructor. This more detailed information has revealed that students in sections taught by a sub-set of instructors rate the overall course quality significantly higher than the course average. For example, in Fall 2012 the overall course rating across instructors varied from a low of 2.6 to a high of 3.9. For the most highly rated seminar leaders, evaluation scores do not vary systematically across academic years, suggesting

! 25!

that student ratings of the course overall are strongly influenced by effective seminar instruction. Another factor that might influence student evaluations, both for overall course effectiveness and for the Fall/Spring differential, is course grades. This factor might be particularly salient for first year students taking other Core Courses. A review of grades for students in the Core Curriculum could shed some light on this issue (Fig. 4 and 5).

Fig. 4 Percent A-, A and A+ in Columbia College including the Core by discipline from 1994-2012. Fig. 4 illustrates an overall trend towards more grades in the A range over this period. The percentage of A grades in the Sciences and Social Sciences are lower than the percentage of A grades in the Arts and Humanities. For Core classes, the percentage of A's more closely resembles courses in the Arts and Humanities than those in the Sciences and Social Sciences.

! 26!

Fig. 5 Percent A-, A and A+ in Columbia College Core Courses from 1994-2012. Figure 5 examines the percent of A's across specific Core courses from 2006 to 2011. Here the disparity between FoS and the other Core courses is striking. The percent of A’s in Music and Art Humanities ranged from 65 to 75% and increased during this period. The percent of A's in Frontiers increased from 40 to 45% from 2006 to 2007 and has remained at that value. Student evaluation scores for overall course effectiveness of FoS are consistently higher in the Fall than in the Spring semester. This consistent difference is not present for either overall seminar (Fig. 2) or overall lecture (Fig. 3) effectiveness, suggesting that some factor other than course quality is at work. The difference in percent A grades between FoS and other Core courses (Fig. 5) is a candidate contributor to the difference in course evaluation scores between the Fall Semester, before students are aware of the difference, and Spring semester, when the differences in percent A’s are more apparent. We note that the percent of A's in beginning science courses ranges from 23 to 43%: the percent A's in FoS is somewhat higher at 45%. This difference may contribute to the attitude of students intending to major in the sciences that FoS is not challenging enough. However, if we assume that the highest scores on the pre-test were from students intending to major in a science, then the pre-test post-test difference suggests that these students also improved their mastery of skills and content with the FoS experience (see Assessment of Learning Gains). The course evaluation ratings for other Core courses are systematically higher than those for Frontiers, usually between 4.0 and 4.5. The structure of Frontiers may contribute to this difference. Frontiers of Science includes both a set of lectures delivered by four different instructors and a small seminar led by a single instructor. The other Core courses are taught only as seminars led by a single instructor and the overall course quality grade reflects student assessment of their experience with a single instructor. Student rankings for FoS seminar leaders are comparable to their rankings for other Core courses. It is also possible that the difference in grading policy between the courses

! 27!

contributes to differences in evaluations. However, since the average course grade in FoS has systematically been 3.28 with 40 to 45% A's, the gradual increase in student scores for overall effectiveness of the course (Fig. 3) cannot be attributed to a change in grading policy. Recommendations We strongly recommend that Frontiers of Science be adopted as a permanent course in the Columbia Core Curriculum. The combination of large lectures from top scientific researchers on current topics, intertwined with the small seminar environment that is unique to the Columbia Core, unified by a curriculum of scientific habits, is a bold experiment that has already achieved significant successes. The Assessment of Learning Gains study 2012/13 (p.20) reveals a marked improvement in the students’ understanding of fundamental scientific questions and their ability to utilize scientific habits. Students enter Columbia with a varied set of skills and information but leave FoS with significant new powers of analysis and knowledge. Student evaluations of seminar leaders are high and have increased steadily since inception. Student evaluations of lectures are high and have increased steadily since inception. Student evaluations of many components of the course, including homework assignments, clarity of expectations and integration of lectures and seminars have reached their highest levels. Student evaluations of overall course quality are improving steadily. The trajectory in terms of student response to FoS is clearly positive and is likely to accelerate if FoS ceases to be an orphan and is fully adopted into the Core Curriculum. Another strong reason for adoption is the effect that FoS has had on science education at Columbia. Frontiers of Science has attracted many top Columbia scientists as both seminars leaders and lecturers. The joint faculty experience in FoS has promoted increased awareness of effective methods for science teaching as well as increased collegiality across disciplines. The present format for FoS, lectures and seminars, was forged by its faculty and is under constant revision by a deeply engaged group. While a radically different approach might have some merits, the history of the course suggests that it would have to be formulated and implemented by a different, but equally engaged group of faculty, fully prepared to support a very challenging endeavor. It is not clear where this group would come from. The Frontiers of Science course also provides unique training for fresh PhDs to teach broadly in the sciences. While we wish to strengthen the Fellows program in several ways (see Future goals), it is worth emphasizing that former Fellow have gone on to considerable success in their careers, both academic and outside of the academy (see Columbia Science Fellows, Appendix). The experience provided by the Fellows program has, in many cases, been a very attractive feature for other colleges and universities grappling with the challenges of general education in the sciences and seeking new faculty with the same goals. Future goals Our goal is to continue to increase student appreciation of the course without altering the basic model underlying FoS: teaching skills of scientific analysis in the context of current and cutting edge scientific research using both lectures and seminars. We believe that the key to achieving both goals is to broaden and deepen the ownership of FoS by the

! 28!

administration and the faculty of the Arts and Sciences. Developing an effective science course in the context of general education has been a challenging project. There is no simple magical transformation of FoS that will instantly energize all students to learn how to think like a scientist and to love science. However, our experience in developing FoS over the past eight years reveals that careful experiments, evaluation and change can take student evaluations in a steady upwards trajectory as shown in Figs. 3-5. We will apply this same approach to the challenge of increasing ownership across FoS stakeholders. In the sections below we outline the current challenges to be met in achieving these goals and a set of approaches FoS could take. The challenges of ownership FoS is a required course designed to provide a common intellectual experience for every student. It is taught by a volunteer faculty from relatively small science departments, at a research-intensive university with a strong undergraduate educational mission to all its students. Each of these aspects is marked by competing goals that impact ownership. Students A required science course, with demands for developing a new skill set (analysis) beyond the memorization that serves dedicated students well in secondary school, diminishes student ownership in FoS. Students do not volunteer for FoS. They also do not volunteer for Contemporary Civilization or Literature Humanities, but at least most (70 - 75%) students have the expectation of an A grade in these long established and highly esteemed courses (Fig. 5). Frontiers of Science is a new course about which student opinion is, at best, mixed; most students (55%) currently do not achieve a grade in the A range. Student awareness that FoS is not yet a permanent part of the Core Curriculum gives rise to annual rumors that FoS will not exist next year, further diminishing student investment. Nonetheless, student rankings for FoS have shown a steady improvement between 2004 and 2012; the overall course effectiveness rating of this past Fall semester is the highest so far (and Spring 2011 was the highest for any Spring semester) and improvements on this metric are steady. Faculty Senior faculty Individual faculty members and individual Departments are enthusiastic contributors to the course. A review of the history of science in the Core Curriculum reveals that proposals initiated by the administration floundered on the antipathy of the science faculty. In contrast, FoS was initiated by a group of science faculty who successfully recruited other faculty members to join the enterprise. The voluntary character of faculty participation is a strength engendered by the intellectual opportunity to range widely across the sciences and the shared sense of purpose: teaching students important skills and exciting discoveries. The "buy in" of individual faculty members is clear from repeated semesters teaching in FoS (see Appendix, List of Faculty and Instructors). However, other faculty teaching introductory science courses, taken simultaneously with, or immediately following, FoS are largely unaware of the FoS curriculum. In addition, the governance structure of FoS still relies heavily on recruitment and persuasion. While this is a strength as the recruiters are knowledgeable about faculty

! 29!

talent and active in consulting with science department chairs, this effort would be bolstered by greater inclusion within the Core governance structure of the College. Further, incentives for science departments that make major contributions to FoS should be made available by the office of the Vice-President for Arts and Sciences, as is the case for Contemporary Civilization and Literature Humanities. Columbia Science Fellows While all faculty members face challenges in teaching outside of their area of expertise, this challenge is particularly acute for Columbia Science Fellows. Fellows are expected to develop familiarity rapidly within areas of science some have not encountered since high school, develop skills in leading a seminar, prepare curricular materials including examinations, and at the same time start or continue a research program and obtain the next faculty position, all within the span of 3 years. Fellows are under pressure from their faculty mentors to be research active, particularly in years 2 and 3 when the mentor is the most likely source of 30% of the Fellow's salary (see Budget, Appendix). Fellows are engaged to teach in a course that they did not create and determining the extent of their autonomy in running the seminars is not always clear; these factors diminish ownership. Nonetheless, Fellows are very highly ranked by their students and develop impressive curricular skills that contribute to their success obtaining positions post-FoS (Columbia Science Fellows, Appendix). Administration Core curriculum The Center for the Core Curriculum provides resources for all the Core Courses including administrative support and financial support for enrichment excursions. Their support for FoS has been exemplary. Nonetheless, with the possible exception of the Core Reflections Program, the interaction between FoS and other Core Courses is not substantial. In addition, there are differences, for example, in recognition for excellence in teaching (awards in other Core courses, none in FoS). These differences may simply be the result of the recent origin of FoS and its probationary status. However, given that the common education of all Columbia students is a strong priority of the Core, closer ties would strengthen the entire enterprise. Science departments While every science department has contributed senior faculty to FoS as lecturers, seminar leaders or both (see List of Faculty and Instructors, Appendix), departmental investment in FoS is entirely voluntary and varies. Some departments are strongly committed to FoS and their role as a contributor to the Core Curriculum while others are unaware of faculty participation as long as it does not impact their ability to staff their courses. Frontiers of Science pulls some of the very strongest instructors from the departments, raising the issue of conflict between department needs, for example, for large "service" courses, and the needs of the Core Curriculum. No system (additional faculty positions, for example) is in place to provide incentives for departments to collaborate in teaching and running of FoS. Dean of Columbia College and Vice-President for Arts and Sciences Faculty salaries at Columbia derive from the budget of the Vice-President for Arts and Sciences. However, for historical reasons, the salaries of the Columbia Science Fellows are covered directly by the Columbia College budget. Since these salaries comprise the largest part of the cost

! 30!

of mounting FoS (~$700,000 annually, see Budget, Appendix), they place a direct strain on the College budget. The forced "buy in" of the College contributes to its reduced ownership of the enterprise. The placement of Fellows salaries in the College budget rather than the Arts and Sciences budget distances Arts and Sciences from FoS. Approaches Based on our conversations with faculty, students, the Educational Planning and Policy Committee and the administration, we have identified a number of ways to further improve the course. Seminars in Frontiers of Science One of our highest priorities is supporting the teaching and research of our Fellows. These young faculty members currently carry an enormous workload, teaching two seminars each, developing course materials, course exams and in parallel engaging in scientific research at a level consistent with Columbia’s research program in the sciences. The burden on the Fellows to accomplish all these tasks is substantial and might be reduced in the following ways:

1. Change the schedule of the Fall and Spring lecture series to be identical: the same four sequences would be taught in Fall and in Spring, by the same Lecturers and on the same material. This change can be most easily accomplished by having alternating teams of lectures teach for both semesters of an academic year followed by a one-year break. This change would have the advantage that all entering students would have the same FoS experience over a single academic year as is the case for other Core courses. The course development workload for the Fellows would be substantially reduced. 2. Allow first year Fellows (3 to 5 annually) to teach only one seminar in the Fall semester. While the Fellow would still face the challenge of mastering new material, this change would allow additional time for developing expertise in instruction and for research. By Spring term, Fellows will be better prepared for the additional responsibilities of teaching two seminars, both in terms of subject matter and teaching skills. To accomplish this goal, we will need to recruit additional senior or junior faculty to teach seminars. 3. Provide additional support for Fellows' professional development while at Columbia for both teaching and research as well as in obtaining their next position. 4. Obtain support from the Office of the Vice President of Arts and Sciences for staffing FoS. The motivation for teaching in FoS within the Columbia Core by Science faculty should mirror incentives for Core teaching in the Humanities and Social Sciences. 5. Work towards seminar sections of 16 – 18 students (as in University Writing) as opposed to 20-21 students per seminar today. Tracking individual students is a key

! 31!

feature for teaching successfully in the Core, and the difficulty increases non-linearly with class size

Students in Frontiers of Science We have garnered a large number of suggestions from the Fellows, the senior FoS faculty, the students themselves and the EPPC about how to more rapidly increase student satisfaction with Frontiers of Science. Frontiers of Science faculty members are in wide agreement that some suggestions - such as assigning students to seminar sections based on prior science background and skills- would actually impede course goals, further distance FoS from the rest of the Core curriculum and be administratively unworkable. Others, such as expanding the kind of ownership of material now instantiated in the term paper, are under very active discussion, as are additional issues that include the balance of examination and seminar grades, the clarity of learning goals and the relative emphasis on skills and content. We intend to continue the series of careful experiments, evaluation and change used over the first 8 years of FoS to further enhance student learning and appreciation for science. Administration If FoS becomes a permanent component of the Core Curriculum, a more supportive structure that involves the science departments, the Dean of Columbia College and the Vice-President for Arts and Science should be put into place. Specifically, science departments should be supported for having their faculty participate in FoS, and the Fellows should be supported using the same mechanism as other faculty members. The administration of FoS, including the appointment of the FoS Chair, should, as for other Core courses, be the purview of the Columbia College Dean. Both changes would strengthen administrative ownership of FoS. Concluding thoughts The Columbia Core Curriculum has been described as the College’s “intellectual coat of arms”, a preparation for life as an intelligent citizen in the twenty-first century. When Contemporary Civilization was developed nearly a century ago, the Western world was shell-shocked in the aftermath of the Great War, and the pre-eminent issue of the day concerned how nation states could arrange their affairs so as to prevent another such catastrophe. A study of history, of political philosophy - of the ideas that had shaped the economic and social relations between nations and individuals - was deemed essential for an informed citizenry. Such study is equally important today. We are, however, now faced with issues of even greater import for the future of humankind than those our forbearers faced: climate change, control of the genome, a collapse of biodiversity, nuclear proliferation and a journey to the interface of mind and brain. It is, in our view, essential to the integrity of the Core Curriculum as a preparation for life in a globalized and uncertain future that science be a central pillar of the Core, and not a subject exiled to the curricular periphery. !!

Appendix Chronology for the Core Curriculum Dean Kathryn Yatrakis, Address to the senior class, Columbia College, 2005 Recent faculty reflections Sample syllabus for Fall 2012 /LVWRILQVWUXFWRUVDQGOHFWXUHUVVenior faculty in FoS Columbia Science Fellows Current course evaluation form Assessment of Learning Gains survey Response to the 2008 COSI review; faculty reflections Budget!

Chronology for the Core Curriculum 1917 Student Army Training Corp "war issues" course at Columbia College 1919

January: Faculty proposes course in Contemporary Civilization. 1919

September: Contemporary Civilization commences. 1928 April: Faculty creates two-year Contemporary Civilization course 1932

September: Colloquium on Important Books established. 1937

Humanities A (later Literature Humanities) requirement begins.

Humanities B (music and fine arts) begins as optional sequence. 1950

Oriental Civilizations course established. 1960

October: "Report of the President's Committee on the Contemporary Civilization Courses in Columbia College" issued (Truman Report).

1983

September: First women enter Columbia College. 1988 Report of the Commission on the Core Curriculum (de Bary Report). 1990

Extended Core (later Major Cultures) requirement established

1

10/2005 Kathryn Yatrakis

SCIENCE IN THE CORE: A Short History

On Monday, September 13, 2004 at 11 o’clock in the morning, some five hundred

Columbia College first-year students, half of the class of 2009, assembled in Miller

Theater to hear Professor of Astronomy, David Helfand deliver the first lecture in

“Frontiers of Science,” the very first science course that was created to be part of

Columbia’s Core Curriculum. Perhaps it wasn’t exactly at 11 a.m. Some technical

glitches put the start time closer to 11:15 a.m. But certainly “Frontiers of Science” was

first science course created to be part of Columbia’s Core. Or was it?

Over the years, Columbia’s science faculty would note with some regularity and

scholarly annoyance that Columbia’s core, the College’s intellectual signature celebrating

the humanities, never included science. A glance at the College’s 1934-1935 Bulletin,

however, suggests another story. Under the section titled “Science” the following

description appears:

:The course is designed for those students…who desire a general acquaintance with the chief fields of scientific investigation, a discussion of their dominant problems, concepts, and theories, and an introduction to the techniques of experimental methods…Its aim is to present as systematically as possible those themes of modern science that are of general interest and significance. (p.103) A general science course in 1934? Compare this description with that which proposes a

bold experiment in 2001:

The philosophy underlying this core science course is similar to the existing core in that it would seek to introduce students to the major ideas in our fields of inquiry…We intend to weave through the entire course some of the “habits of mind” which characterize the scientific approach to problems and which distinguish science from other odes of human inquiry (e.g. estimation, data,

2

models, hypothesis testing etc. (Injecting Science into Columbia’s Core 9 October 2001)

Some seventy years separate the two descriptions and the 1934 text was unknown to

those proponents of the 2001 experiment yet the one echoes the other. What could

account for the similarity in language?

The study of science has been a part of the College curriculum ever since its founding in

1754 when, in July of that year, all of the eight enrolled College students were required

to study pure sciences and mathematics. This requirement evolved over the years so that

by the beginning of the twentieth century all College students were required to complete

at least two years (four semesters) of science and/or math. This requirement remained in

place until the early 1970s when the two years were reduced to one (two semesters) and

math was dropped. It was again changed in 1989 when math was reinstated and the

two semesters were increased to three (note: actually, faculty voted to restore the science

requirement to the full two years, but agreed that in practice, only a three-semester

requirement would be feasible).

A cursory look at the curricular history would suggest that science was always

considered by the faculty to be a distribution requirement with students taking courses

offered in the various science departments. Further, that faculty were primarily, if not

exclusively, interested in debating only the number of semesters which should be

required for the study of science and whether or not mathematics should be included. A

closer look at the evidence, however, reveals quite a different account of the modern-day

3

debate which, according to Herbert Hawkes, Dean of the College 1919-1943, started in

1933. “Ever since the course in Contemporary Civilization was offered fourteen years

ago,” according to Hawkes, “ (when) the perennial question of the relation of the sciences

to this kind of course has been discussed.” (Annual Report of the President and Treasurer

to the Trustees, June 30,1933. NY: Morningside Heights) Hawkes goes on to report that

the College faculty started debating the place of science in the College curriculum---not

as a general distribution requirement but as a central part of the College’s evolving core--

-from the early years of the last century when the very concept of a core course was first

introduced.

By 1933, there was growing sentiment within faculty and administration alike that two

semesters of departmental science and math courses did not sufficiently prepare young

men for the second half of the twentieth century. So in the fall of that year Dean Hawkes

appointed a faculty committee to study the possibility of a foundational course in science

that would parallel Contemporary Civilization which, by this time was well established

within the College curriculum. The goal of ‘paralleling CC’ was described by Hawkes in

his Annual Report of that year in which he said it had a twofold purpose: first, “meeting

the need of all students for a fund of knowledge and a set of intellectual tools that would

be applicable in all of their thinking and that would better them as persons; and second, it

sought, by means of this foundation, to equip prospective scholars with an intellectual

context within which specialized study would be more profitable and more

meaningful.”(Annual Report, 1933 p.58)

4

Whenever there is a proposal for substantive curricular change, faculty deliberations are

intense and vigorous, and 1933 was no exception. Centering on such issues as the length

of a general science course, its specific content, the availability of faculty equipped to

teach it, and perhaps most important, whether or not such a course should be required of

science and non-science students alike, faculty debate proceeded apace. The Committee

completed its work by the end of the academic year and described the proposed new

course as one which would afford students

… a wider view of scientific subject-matter than is possible by a study of only one or two sciences, and should produce a broader outlook in the student not only upon the several sciences but upon those problems and ideas which the sciences share with each other and with the other domains of contemporary thought. (Annual Report of the Dean 1933 pp 75-76)

A “wider view of scientific subject matter” a “broader outlook…not only upon the

several sciences but upon those problems and ideas which the sciences share with each

other…” language very similar to that defining “Frontiers of Science” as it speaks of

introducing students to such topics as neuroscience and human language, life cycles of

the stars, brain and behavior, quantum and nano worlds, biodiversity and rapid global

change, in short, providing students a ‘broader outlook’ while at the same time

familiarizing them with scientific “habits of the mind.” (Frontiers of Science Program

Description, 20 August 2004)

The similarity of the disciplinary issues, academic debates, and curricular

concerns in 1933 with those of the early 2000, bespeaks the intellectual continuity which

defines a strong and evolving curriculum. Yet as remarkably similar as the faculty

debates and concerns seemed to be over the span of years, there were two substantive and

5

important ways in which the faculty in 2001 parted company with their long-gone

colleagues of 1933.

While the faculty proponents in 2001 were insistent that “Frontiers of Science” be

required of all Columbia College students:

”both those students who intend to study science and those whose aspirations lie elsewhere… (such a course will)…go a long way toward breaking down distinctions between the ‘two cultures’ (Frontiers of Science Program Description 20 August 2004)

The 1933 Committee proposed that a general science course be optional and designed for

those who were not students studying science:

…the students for whom the course should be designed primarily are those whose chief interest lies outside the field of these sciences and who presumably take no further courses in them. Hence the course must be primarily not a prerequisite for advanced work in science, but an adequate presentation of a subject-matter that has intrinsic significance and general education value for the layman.” (pp 11-12)

As a result of the Committee’s recommendations, a two-year requirement, Science A and

Science B, was first offered in 1934 as an option for students not intending to pursue a

study of science. Since the faculty committee could not agree on what might be included

in one general course in science and did not have confidence that individual faculty could

teach such a general course, the requirement was designed not as one, but as four general

and interdisciplinary courses:

Science A1 Matter, energy, and radiation

Science A2 Chemical changes in matter

Science B1 The earth, its origin and physical history

Science B2 Living Organisms

6

This set of courses continued to be offered until 1941 when the College Bulletin starkly

announces that the two-year science sequence is not being offered during the war period

and refers students to other offerings in appropriate science departments.

After the war’s end with the ushering in of the atomic age, the faculty turned once again

to the consideration of a general course in science. This time, a subcommittee of the

standing Committee on College Plans was charged with making recommendations to the

faculty on the feasibility of an interdisciplinary course in science, and once again,

vigorous faculty debate followed but this time the committee’s conclusions were very

different from those of the 1933 Report. The 1946 committee makes clear that the faculty

did not agree with the 1933 report neither on the assumptions underlying the design of

Science A and B nor on those students for whom the course should be required. In the

words of the Committee:

“…a specially constructed and well-integrated two-year course in the natural sciences be a required course for all students who are candidates for a degree from Columbia College, quite irrespective of whether such students plan to enter one of the scientific professions or not”; and in addition, “that such a course be staffed by men who are prepared to give competent instruction in all of it, and not simply in some fragmentary portion of it”. (A College Program in Action (New York, 1946), p.127) The 1945 Committee was in fact quite emphatic about this general science course being

required of all students saying that if it were to restrict the course to non-science students,

it would amount to lowering the general standard of interest, enthusiasm, and

inquisitiveness, and hence to exclude those who would supply the chief stimulus to both

teachers and students. (A College Program in Action, p. 127)

7

So it was in 1945, some sixty years ago, that Columbia faculty agreed there should be

created a general and interdisciplinary course in science taught by faculty committed to

the entire course and that this course should be required of all students---scientists and

non-scientists alike. Why then was it then that such a general and interdisciplinary

course in science did not appear in the College Bulletin until 2004?

As reported in A History of Columbia College on Morningside (NY: Columbia

University Press, 1954; Buchler, Justus, Reconstruction in Liberal Arts, pp: 48-135) the

1945 Committee knew that it would be very difficult to have the general faculty adopt

such a general science course in part because of the skepticism they thought professional

schools would have toward such a course as well as the difficulty of identifying

appropriate faculty to teach it. After a number of informal faculty meetings called to

discuss the Committee’s recommendations, it became clear to then-College Dean, Harry

Carman that even though the course would be approved by the majority of faculty, most

of the science faculty strongly opposed it. Dean Carman well understood that a general

course in science, no matter how well conceived and necessary to the curriculum, could

not be mounted without the full and strong support of at least the majority of the

scientists on the faculty. He therefore appointed yet another faculty committee to

consider the issue in its entirety taking into consideration the ideas and objections raised

in the in several faculty discussions.

Reporting in 1948, this new committee agreed with those principles articulated by the

previous committee and reported that an introductory course in the natural sciences

8

should “stress inclusive organizing principles of the sciences rather than special

techniques for mastering specialized subject matters… and it should also provide students

with sound conceptions concerning the nature and broad significance of modern natural

science” (A History of Columbia College on Morningside, p.60) It did not however

recommend that the course be required by all Columbia College students nor did it agree

that one faculty member should be responsible for the course in its entirety. In fact, the

1948 Committee believed that the reality of pre-professional requirements, combined

with the power of departments as well as the dearth of instructors willing and able to

teach such a course made it impossible to recommend anything other than what amounted

to a new version of Science A and B with disciplinary courses in astronomy and physics

offered in the first two semesters, a third semester in chemistry, and the final semester in

biology. When the faculty approved the committee’s recommendation to establish this

new version of Science A and B, the University was facing significant economic

challenges which led to the committee to recommend that even this slightly-altered

version of Science A and Science B be optional, and moreover, that it not be introduced

immediately, but “at the earliest opportunity…”

It is clear that faculty deliberations about the place of science in the core did not begin at

the turn of the 21st century with discussions over “Frontiers of Science.” The roots of

this debate can be traced back at least seventy years if not to the earliest days of the core

itself. The questions that shaped faculty discussions about such a course in 1933 were

remarkably similar to those expressed in 1945, 1948, and again in 2004. What should be

the content and structure of such a course? How could science possibly be taught in an

9

interdisciplinary way? Who could teach such a course? Who should be required to take

such a course? In the 1940s and again sixty years later, the strongest faculty opposition

came from science faculty and science departments. There were also differences among

generations of faculty as to the feasibility of such a core science course and the

desirability of it being required of all College students, and this is as it should be as the

core continues to invent and reinvent itself. The questions which defined the debate over

“Frontiers” were not only necessary to the serious consideration of such an important and

radical curricular initiative, but also reflective of those questions posed years ago. It is to

the importance of these questions that successive generations of faculty have struggled to

fashion responses. Today, the conclusions are not yet clear, and the faculty have given

themselves five years to determine if “Frontiers of Science will be successful. What is

clear, however, is that the “earliest opportunity” for a general and interdisciplinary course

in science to be offered which would be required of all students and taught by faculty

with responsibility for the entire course as debated in 1933, and envisioned in 1946 came

on September 13, 2004, at about 11:15 am when Professor David Helfand started

speaking.

Recent Faculty Reflections Brian Greene - Departments of Physics and Mathematics, Author and Co-Founder, The World Science Festival Although this semester was my first direct encounter with Frontiers of Science, I sat on a committee years ago that helped plan for this addition to the core curriculum. Naturally, many on that committee had differing views regarding how best to bring an overview of science each year to Columbia's Freshman class. But a central point of agreement was that the course should give students a concrete sense of how scientists engage the world--how through the rational evaluation of data and the careful construction of theory, science can take great strides toward unravelling the mysteries of life, the world and the cosmos. My experience this semester with Frontiers has convinced me that the course is well on its way toward achieving this lofty objective. By striking a delicate but fruitful balance between principles and details, students engage with some of the core insights of modern scientific investigation (in my own module, this included the basics of special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics) while learning the broader lesson that science provides a potent pathway toward truth. The senior management does a spectacular job of ensuring that all elements of the course--lectures, seminars, homeworks, exams-- work together seamlessly toward this goal. My understanding is that FoS is now being considered for permanent inclusion in the Core Curriculum. While the course is still evolving, and learning to deal with unique challenges (primary among these is the difficulty--surmountable--of enlisting a group of young teaching fellows capable of handling such a broad range of science), it is surely ready to shift into permanent status. A scientifically literate populace is vital to the future of the world, and FoS can serve as a model for how universities nationwide can help ignite broad scientific engagement.” David Helfand - Department of Astronomy (on leave), President, Quest University, President, American Astronomical Society When I arrived at Columbia in the 1970s, the College Course Catalog described the Core Curriculum as the "intellectual coat of arms" of the College experience. While I was delighted to see that Columbia's faculty had the temerity to state that there were ideas, texts, and works of human creativity worthy of all students' time and attention, irrespective of their individual interests and foci, I was simultaneously appalled to find that that these ideas, texts, and works of creativity excluded mathematics and science. After two abortive attempts to create a science component of the Core (Bob Pollack's multidisciplinary course in the early 80's and my Universal Timekeeper course taught jointly between Astronomy and DEES in the late 80s), Frontiers of Science was designed to address this intellectually inexcusable lacuna. The Core homepage now asserts that: "The communal learning--with all students encountering the same texts and issues at the

same time--and the critical dialogue experienced in small seminars are the distinctive features of the Core." I agree. That is precisely why I regard a Core science course -- as distinct from lecture courses mounted by individual departments -- as essential. The webpage also states that: "The habits of mind developed in the Core cultivate a critical and creative intellectual capacity that students employ long after college, in the pursuit and the fulfillment of meaningful lives." Given that scientific habits of mind include distinctive features not common to the habits of mind employed by the humanistic disciplines, and that we live in a world saturated by the products of those habits, and confront global problems that will only find solutions by employing such habits (in conjunction with those cultivated by the rest of the Core), I believe it would be irresponsible in the opening years of this millennium to offer a Core curriculum that excluded science. Concern has been expressed that College students don't "like" Frontiers of Science. Leaving aside the fact that popularity is a dubious criterion for thoughtful curriculum design -- and the fact that, as the course is refined (through the constant experimentation that is one of the habits it cultivates), student ratings have improved -- it is worth considering the historical context of the course's adoption. First, as has been shown elsewhere, the College admissions process a decade ago biased its acceptances toward students oriented away from the sciences; coupled with the long-standing "branding" of the College by the exclusively humanities-oriented Core, it is unsurprising that the target audience was initially unreceptive. It should also be recalled that the Frontiers of Science requirement was adopted in January 2004, after roughly half the next September's class had been accepted and after all had completed their applications to a school which they chose, at least in part, for its humanities-centric curriculum. Given the initial imperfections in the course itself (expected in any novel enterprise of this scope), the reception in the course's first year was quite negative (although certainly not exclusively so). That reputation, once established, had a significant half-life as Orientation scuttlebutt for each incoming class is passed down based on the previous class's experience. Tracking the tone of Spectator Editorials on the subject of Frontiers of Science from 2004 to today is but one measure of the significant cultural shift in attitudes that including science in the Core has undergone. I expect this trend to continue. In summary, I would assert that the creation of Frontiers of Science as part of the Core Curriculum is a significant institutional achievement. Having dozens of senior science faculty working together across departmental boundaries to create a common intellectual experience for College students is extraordinary. Involving a cadre of young scientists in a program which prepares them for faculty careers using effective science pedagogy is a

national service. And equipping our undergraduates with the habits of mind to distinguish sense from nonsense in this Disinformation Age, and to think critically about the daunting global issues which science must be used to address in their lifetimes, is, and should remain, a central feature of our educational mission. Paul Olsen - Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Member, National Academy of Sciences I am relatively new to Frontiers of Science (FoS), having lectured for only the last two fall semesters (2011, 2012), although I have been a professor at Columbia since 1984. During that time I watched from the sidelines as extremely dedicated and talented professors and FoS staff develop the course. When I was asked, I joined in the effort despite the fact that it was my impression that it is a challenging course to teach, and that those that did teach it had to dedicate a great amount of time and effort to teach it well. My impression was correct; it is the hardest course I have ever taught. Unique, in my Columbia teaching experience, months in advance of the actual lectures, I gave them multiple times to the FoS team, and because of their very candid and insightful criticisms, those lectures were immensely improved. Because of the investment in my effort I chose to postpone my sabbatical (among other reasons) to provide continuity in my teaching the course. I have been well rewarded, not only by having some measure of success with the students, but my own teaching skill being substantially enhanced in the process in a way no other course has done. We live in a time when a citizen has to make decisions as an individual and in aggregate on problems that have a basis in Science and within a world-view that is, if not formed by Science, certainly strongly influenced by Science. Our students have been and promise to be among the most influential of citizens in the US and on the global stage, and hence in a time like no other before, our students need to have Science demystified and made familiar, and they need to be exposed to the modes of thought that have proved so globally potent, even though they themselves will likely not continue in a Science-based field. I teach FoS because I feel a deep responsibility to help be part of that mission, a mission for which there is substantial evidence, based on tests and evaluations, of mounting success. I profoundly enjoy teaching FoS for the same reasons. My own three lectures each semester are titled: 1) Global Warming and Paleoclimate; 2) Mass Extinctions; and 3) Birds and Dinosaurs. These translate to: understanding the context of global change; the reality of past and present biodiversity crises; and how we come to understand our evolutionary roots in deep past. Each of the lectures focuses on a relevant, popular issue, for which the students already have some context and prejudice, and engages them in seeing how Science provides answers and insights even as it remains incomplete. The tools for this are part of the general course habits of mind, such as “back of the envelope calculations”, and “everyday hypothesis construction and testing” – tools that are of general use in solving real problems all the time. I am proud and humbled to be part of this venture at Columbia. I know specific students who have chosen Columbia because of the Core – including, and sometimes especially because of FoS – and I am confident that the overall quality of the Columbia experience has been enhanced because of our efforts. I already see it in the other classes I

teach, which are largely high-enrollment by Science standards. I do think it should be part of the freshman experience and hope it will become a permanent part of the Core, which I plan to remain involved with. Terry Plank - Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 2012 McArthur Fellow I have been teaching three Earth Science lectures in FoS for the past four years (2009-2012): the Birth of the Earth, Magmas & Volcanoes, and Global Volcanic Catastrophe. In these lectures, I develop themes on deep time, how data inspire models, and the tensions that exist between communicating science and risk. I help to develop some of the Scientific Habits: proxies, back of the envelope calculations, and probability. These lectures have been well-evaluated by the students, and they are a source of pride for me. The feedback from FoS faculty that I received during multiple practice sessions are unique in my career and in their value. I like to say that these lectures are the best that these students will experience at Columbia, and I think this is true. Students generally don't recognize this as freshmen, but based on my conversations, many do as upperclassmen. In my opinion, the main goal of FoS should be to inspire students to want to become scientifically literate. This should not be difficult given the challenges presented by the natural world going into this next century. In Earth Science alone, this involves greater risk from natural disasters, global climate change, and the limits of energy resources. Students are naturally interested in these topics - most of them were likely wondering like everyone else this fall how much Hurricane Sandy had to do with climate change. Columbia students naturally want to be better informed than the average blogger. This inherent interest is what FoS exploits, while also running against the anti-science currents of our culture. The current content and structure of FoS work well. The lectures are generally successful; the seminars depend more on the individual talents of the seminar instructors. The best ones manage to walk the tightrope between insulting students and losing them. This is somehow a greater challenge in this course than others. Every student knows what a graph is, and is easily insulted by an insinuation that they don't. And yet, graphs can lie and are hard to make compelling, and yet are one of the greatest tools we have in displaying and communicating information. So the material has to be presented in a way that acknowledges the student's incoming intelligence, but also engages them in a knowing way, to develop better scientific habits. I think the original Habits text was brilliant, and describes exactly what we do as scientists. It has remained a challenge to get the students to see this. I don't think FoS should be a freshman course. Students need more maturity and confidence to embrace this unique course and its challenging goals. FoS is critically needed to inspire students to take ownership of the important science topics of the day, and to help them develop the tools they need to make rational decisions as intelligent citizens. We need to continue to accept the challenge of this course. No other course at Columbia College has this potential impact on its entire student body. I

strongly support the continued success of the Frontiers of Science in reaching these goals, and will continue to dedicate my efforts to making it successful. Robert Pollack - Department of Biological Sciences, Dean of Columbia College (1982-89) The Frontiers of Science program should be accepted as a permanent part of the Columbia College Core Curriculum. It has proven its capacity to engage senior faculty from a wide variety of disciplines; it has shown its ability to engage College students with a novel mixture of lectures and seminars; it has generated a new community of scientists, many from many disciplines and at many stages of careers, drawn together by the shared obligation to provide every College student with a good understanding of the processes by which science uncovers workings of the natural world. As these processes include a study of the science that one day may explain mental states as well as human choices, there is no question that the major frontier this program has entered is the linking of current scientific facts and their origins, to the philosophical and historical matters at the center of the College's historic Core. Finally, the course is becoming more popular. Student surveys confirm that it has slowly but continually been adapted in response to student criticism, so that it now enjoys a student rating not too far from the ratings of the other components of the Core. I am pleased to be able to teach in it both semesters of the upcoming calendar year.

Fall 2012 Brain & Behavior Unit Syllabus

Lecturer: Professor Don Hood

Lecture 1: The Basics, or What does your brain look like, and how does it work? Here we address the general questions: What do we know about the relationship between different parts of the brain and your behavior? How do we know it? The Astonishing Hypothesis asserts that you, your joys, your sorrows, your feelings, etc. are no more than the activity of a vast assembly of nerve cells! To understand what this means, we first review the basic anatomy (structure) and physiology (function or how neurons communicate) of the brain. Any explanation or hypothesis that addresses this question, including the Astonishing Hypothesis, includes assumptions. Lecture 1 explores the measurement techniques used to study the brain, as well as the assumptions that underlie both measurements and explanations.

Key questions addressed in the lecture:

1. What are the ABCs of brain anatomy? 2. What are the ABCs of brain physiology? 3. What does it mean that brain location is a code for function? 4. What is the Astonishing Hypothesis? 5. What is the role of assumptions in explanations/ models/ theories and in measurements?

Why was phrenology not a science? Reading assignment:

1. Ramachandran, V. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1998). Phantoms in the brain. New York: HarperCollins Publ. Inc., Ch. 1 & 2. This book, written for a general audience, describes a neurologist’s insights into the relationship between the human brain and behavior obtained from patients with unusual problems. The first chapter reviews some basic information. The second, about amputees who can feel their missing limbs, should get you thinking about what the Astonishing Hypothesis means.

2. Statistics tutorial (up to statistical significance, confidence intervals and p-values). 3. Calculating with units tutorial.

Habits covered:

1. Proxies and assumptions (lecture, homework). 2. Back of the envelope (BOE) calculations (homework). 3. Calculating with units (homework). 4. Histograms, mean, standard deviation, random and systematic errors (activity).

2

Homework questions: 1. BOE exercises related to lecture. 2. Ramachandran & Blakeslee reading and key aspects of lecture.

Seminar activity:

In seminar, we will perform an experiment to measure your ability to discriminate 1 vs. 2 tactile stimuli to your thumb and forearm. The results will be discussed in the context of some of the basic concepts from the lecture. The data will also be used next week to review experimental design, measurement error and some elementary statistics.

Optional reading:

1. Petersen, R. S., & Diamond, M. E. (2002). Topographic maps in the brain. In Encyclopedia of life sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3

Lecture 2: Studying the live human brain Here we address the general questions: How can we study the live human brain? What is the relationship between your visual perception of the world and your brain? The techniques for studying (measuring) the structure (anatomy) and function (physiology) of the live human brain are described and illustrated with examples involving visual perception.

Key questions addressed in the lecture:

1. What techniques are used to study brain anatomy? How do they work (what is being measured vs. what do we wish to know)?

2. What techniques are used to study brain physiology? How do they work (what is being measured vs. what do we wish to know)?

3. In addition to scanning techniques, name two other approaches discussed in lecture that can be used to understand the workings of a human brain?

4. What is the current view of the relationship between visual perception and your brain? What is the binding problem?

Reading assignment:

1. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2003). Hearing colors, tasting shapes. Scientific American, May issue, 53-59. This Scientific American article deals with synesthetes who see written numbers printed in black and white as if they were printed in different colors. While illustrating the power of simple experiments, it should also make you think about the implications of the Astonishing Hypothesis.

2. Statistics tutorial (up to estimating statistical significance from graphs). 3. Logic of science tutorial.

Habits covered:

1. Proxies and assumptions (lecture, homework, activity). 2. Histograms, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, confidence intervals

(homework). 3. Random and systematic errors, precision and accuracy (homework). 4. Correlation vs. causation (activity). 5. Experimental design, controls, sample size, sampling bias (activity). 6. What is science? (activity).

Homework questions:

1. Two-point threshold data and review of statistics. 2. Review of aspects of lecture and related Habits. 3. Ramachandran & Hubbard article.

Seminar activity:

The activity is designed to help you evaluate articles about science in the popular press. Optional reading:

1. Gregory, R. L. (1970). The intelligent eye. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Ch. 4 (67-78).

4

Lecture 3: Do the left and right halves of your brain differ? or Do you have one brain or two?

How different is the left half of your brain from the right half? Wild claims about right- and left-brained individuals can be found in thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of newspaper/magazine articles. In fact, it is commonly held that people differ in how much of the left or right halves of their brain they use. This lecture explores the scientific evidence behind this view. The general questions addressed are: “Do the left and right halves of the cortex differ?” and “Are there right-brain and left-brain individuals?”

Key questions addressed in the lecture: 1. Describe the four techniques discussed in lecture used to study the differences between

the hemispheres. Why is it important to use multiple techniques to address this problem? 2. Is language located in the left hemisphere? How do we know? 3. Describe the evidence for differences between hemispheres for one of the following:

a) local vs. global perception; b) facial recognition; and c) musical ability. 4. What is the role of the ‘interpreter’ in consciousness as described by Gazzaniga? Where

is the ‘interpreter’ located? 5. Is the combined evidence convincing that the two hemispheres differ in function? How

does this ‘scientific’ view differ from popular claims? Reading assignment:

1. Turk, D. J., et al. (2002). Mike or me? Self recognition in a split-brain patient. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 841-842. Read with “Notes on Turk et al.” Although both hemispheres are involved in self-recognition, the left hemisphere has a special role. This is interesting given the superiority of the right hemisphere in face recognition.

2. Notes on Turk et al. 3. Statistics tutorial (through estimating statistical significance from graphs). 4. Term paper guidelines.

Habits covered:

1. Reading graphs (lecture, homework, activity). 2. What is Science? (lecture, activity). 3. Statistical significance (homework). 4. Correlation vs. causation (activity). 5. Experimental design, controls, sample size, sampling bias (activity).

Homework questions:

1. Turk et al. article and a review of various habits, as well as the logic of split-brain experiments.

2. Review of aspects of lectures, statistical significance, data interpretation etc. Seminar activity:

We will continue the activity from the last seminar involving evaluation of articles about science in the popular press. Following at-home research by the students, we will look at scientific articles on the relevant topics.

5

Optional reading:

1. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). Forty-five years of split–brain research and still going strong. Nature Reviews/Neuroscience, 6, 653-659. This is a review by the person in the field.

Appointment Type (adjunts/lecturers, fellows, faculty, director) faculty

Count of Sectio Column LabelsRow Labels 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Grand TotalBroecker 1 1 1 1 1 5Christie-Blick 1 1 1 1 4Cornish 2 2deMenocal 1 1 1 2 1 1 7Eisenberger 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Fernandez 2 2 4Firestein 1 1 1 1 4Goldstein 1 1 1 3Green 1 1Helfand 3 3 3 3 2 2 16Hemming 2 2 2 6Hirsch 1 1 1 1 1 1 6Hood 2 2 2 2 2 3 13Hughes 2 3 1 6Johnston 1 2 2 2 1 8Kelley 2 1 2 2 1 8Kelsey 1 2 3Krantz 1 1 2McManus 1 1 1 3Melnick 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 15Menke 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Mutter 1 1 1 3Nuckolls 1 2 1 4Olsen 1 1 2Paerels 2 2 2 6Plank 1 1 1 1 1 5Pollack 2 3 3 3 2 1 14Rabinowitz 2 1 3Schiminovich 1 1 2Simpson Jr 1 1 2Stormer 2 2 2 2 8van Gorkom 2 2 2 1 7Grand Total 26 24 25 24 20 21 17 15 14 186Unique Count 17 16 16 14 14 14 12 11 11

List of all tenured faculty who have taught in FOS either as a lecturer or seminar leader, 2004/05-2012/13

Appointment Type (adjunts/ faculty

Count of Instructor_Last_lumn LabelsRow Labels 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Grand Total

BroeckerLecture 1 1 1 1 1 5

Christie-BlickSeminar 1 1 1 1 4

CornishLecture 1 1Seminar 1 1

deMenocalLecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 6Seminar 1 1

EisenbergerSeminar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

FernandezLecture 1 1 2Seminar 1 1 2

FiresteinLecture 1 1 1 1 4

GoldsteinSeminar 1 1 1 3

GreenLecture 1 1

HelfandLecture 2 2 2 2 2 1 11Seminar 1 1 1 1 1 5

HemmingLecture 1 1 1 3Seminar 1 1 1 3

HirschLecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

HoodLecture 1 1 1 1 1 2 7Seminar 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

HughesLecture 1 1 1 3Seminar 1 2 3

JohnstonLecture 1 1 1 1 4Seminar 1 1 1 1 4

KelleyLecture 1 1 1 1 1 5Seminar 1 1 1 3

KelseySeminar 1 2 3

KrantzSeminar 1 1 2

McManusSeminar 1 1 1 3

MelnickLecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 9Seminar 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

MenkeSeminar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

MutterSeminar 1 1 1 3

NuckollsLecture 1 1 1 3Seminar 1 1

OlsenLecture 1 1 2

PaerelsSeminar 2 2 2 6

PlankLecture 1 1 1 1 1 5

PollackLecture 1 1 1 1 1 5Seminar 1 2 2 2 1 1 9

RabinowitzSeminar 2 1 3

SchiminovichSeminar 1 1 2

Simpson JrSeminar 1 1 2

StormerLecture 1 1 1 1 4Seminar 1 1 1 1 4

Stormer & FernandezLecture 1 1 2

van GorkomSeminar 2 2 2 1 7

Grand Total 27 25 25 24 20 21 17 15 14 188

Former&Columbia&Science&Fellows&!(years!appointed):!!&Summer&Ash!(Fellow!200862011;!Adjunct!201162012)!Assistant!Director,!Bridge!to!PhD!Program!in!Natural!Sciences,!Columbia!University.!Outreach!Director,!Astronomy!Department,!Columbia!University.!!summer@astro.columbia.edu!&Fabiola&Barrios5Landeros!(Fellow!200862010)!Assistant!Professor!of!Chemistry!at!Yeshiva!University!http://home.yu.edu/faculty/new/default.aspx?id=barriosl!barriosl@yu.edu!&Nicolas&Biais!(Fellow!200662009)!Assistant!Professor,!Biology!Department,!Brooklyn!College!(as!of!1/1/13)!nb2200@columbia.edu!https://sites.google.com/site/nicolasbiais/!nb2200@columbia.edu!&Jennifer&Blanck&(Fellow!2004!6!2006)!!Science!teacher,!The!Collegiate!School,!NYC!jenblanck@gmail.com!!Kerry&Brown!(Fellow!20046!2008)!Lecturer,!Geography,!Geology!and!Environment,!Kingston!University,!London!U.K.!http://sec.kingston.ac.uk/about6SEC/people/academic/view_profile.php?id=29!!K.Brown@kingston.ac.uk!&Michelle&Buxton!(Fellow!200562007)!Associate!Research!Scientist!Department!of!Astronomy!Yale!University!http://www.astro.yale.edu/people/michelle6buxton!!michelle.buxton@yale.edu!!Paul&Cadden5Zimansky!(Fellow!201062012)!Assistant!Professor,!Bard!Collge!!http://www.bard.edu/academics/faculty/faculty.php?action=details&id=3205!pzimansk@bard.edu!paulcz@bard.edu!!&Yue&(Merry)&Cai&(Fellow!200862012)!Postdoctoral!Research!Scientist,!LDEO,!Columbia!University.!!yc2036@columbia.edu!&Damon&Chaky!(Fellow!200462006)!Assoc.!Prof.!of!Mathematics!and!Science,!The!Pratt!Institute.!http://pratt.edu/~dchaky/!!dchaky@pratt.edu!!Tzu5Chien&(Clara)&Chiu!(Fellow!200562006)!Assistant!Research!Fellow,!Institute!of!Earth!Sciences,!Academia!Sinica,!Taipei,!Taiwan.!tcchiu@ntu.edu.tw!&Jenna&Cole!(200562007)!Visiting!Professor!Western!Kentucky!University!http://people.wku.edu/jennifer.cole1/research.html!!jennacole13@gmail.com!

Matt&Collinge!(200662010)!John!Hopkins!University;!Advanced!Academic!Programs,!Zanvyl!Krieger!Scholl!of!Arts!and!Sciences.!!http://advanced.jhu.edu/faculty/view/?id=1314!

mattcollinge1@gmail.com!

Alenka&Copic&(Fellow!200862012)!Biology!research,!France,!Institute!TBD!(currently!on!maternity!leave)!alenka.copic@gmail.com!&Elizabeth&Cottrell!(Fellow!200462005)!Curator/Research!Geologist!–!Dept.!of!Mineral!Sciences,!Smithsonian!Institution!http://mineralsciences.si.edu/staff/pages/cottrell.htm!!cottrell@si.edu!&Hugh&Crowl&(Fellows!201062011)!Assistant!Professor,!Science!and!Mathematics,!Bennington!College!http://www.bennington.edu/Academics/Faculty.aspx?FacultyM=Y&MID=1027010356!HCrowl@bennington.edu!!Kate&Detwiler&(Fellow!200962010;!Adjunct!201062011)!Asst.!Prof.!Antropology,!Florida!Atlantic!University!http://fau.edu/anthro/K.%20Detwiler%202012.php!kdetwile@fau.edu!&Angela&Gee!(Fellow!200862009)!Assistant!Professor!of!Biology,!Science!Department,!!Los!Angeles6Trade!Technical!College!www.linkedin.com/pub/angela6gee/43/a75/37a!angelagee@gmail.com!!&Stuart&Gill!(Fellow!200562009)!Project!coordinator!of!the!Global!Facility!for!Disaster!Reduction!and!Recovery!Labs!initiative!(GFDRR!Labs).,!The!World!Bank,!Washington,!D.C.!blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/team/stuart6gill!!!spdgill@gmail.com!&Robin&Herrnstein!(Fellow!200462005)!Science!education!consultant!http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~herrnstein/!herrnstein@astro.columbia.edu!!Andrea&Holmes&(Adjunct!2005)!!Assoc.!!Prof.!of!Chemsitry,!Doane!College!http://www.doane.edu/Academics/Departments/Chemistry/Faculty/AndreaHolmes/8637!andrea.holmes@doane.edu!!David&Kagan!(Fellow!200862011;!Adjunct!201162012)!Lecturer,!College!of!Engineering,!University!of!Massachusetts,!Dartmouth!dkagan@umassd.edu!!Sharmila&Kamat!(Fellow!200462008)!!Research!adjunct;!Columbia!University;!Teaching!in!India!http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sharmila6kamat/0/b97/258!shami71@yahoo.com!&Alison&Keimowitz!(Fellow!200662009)!Assistant!Professor,!Chemistry!Department,!Vassar!College.!http://chemistry.vassar.edu/bios/alkeimowitz.html!!

alkeimowitz@vassar.edu!&Atanasios&(Tom&)&Koutavas&(Fellow!200462005)!Assoc.!Prof.,!Dept.!of!Engineering!Science!and!Physics,!CUNY!College!of!Staten!Island!Island!http://www.csi.cuny.edu/faculty/KOUTAVAS_ANTHANASIOS.html!athanasios.koutavas@csi.cuny.edu!&Josef&Lazar!(Fellow!200662007)!Head:!Laboratory!of!Cell!Biology!at!!the!Institute!of!Systems!Biology!&!Ecology,!Academy!of!Sciences!of!the!Czech!!Republic.!http://kmb.prf.jcu.cz/en/people/people6at6dep/labhead/josef6lazar6ph6d.html!lazar@nh.cas.cz!&Claire&LePichon!(Fellow!2007)!Senior!Research!Associate!Genetech!San!Francisco!http://www.linkedin.com/pub/claire6le6pichon/5/9a0/b40!clairelepichon@gmail.com&&P.&Timon&McPhearson!(Fellow!200562008)!Assistant!Professor!of!Ecology,!Eugene!Lang!College,!The!New!School!for!Social!Research!http://www.newschool.edu/public6engagement/faculty.aspx?id=78445!Mcphearp@newschool.edu!&Elnaz&Menhaji&(Fellow!2009)!Senior!Scientist,!Pfizer,!Groton!CT.!www.linkedin.com/in/elnazmenhajiklotz!elnazie@hotmail.com!

Eleni&Nikitopoulos!(Fellow!200562006;!200862011)!Assistant!Professor,!Life!Science!Department!at!New!York!Institute!of!Technology!http://www.nyit.edu/life_sciences!

enikitop@nyit.edu!

Beth&O'Shea!(Fellow!200762010)!Assistant!Professor,!Marine!Science!&!Environmental!Studies!at!University!of!San!Diego!http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/about_the_college/faculty/biography.php?ID=817!!bethoshea@sandiego.edu!&Maulik&Parikh!(Fellow!200462006)!Assoc.!Professor!of!Physics,!Arizona!State!University,!Tempe,!AZ!http://physics.asu.edu/home/people/faculty/maulik6parikh!!Maulik.Parikh@asu.edu!!Patricia&Persaud!(Fellow!2004)!Visiting!associate!in!Geophysics;!Caltech,!Instructor!Pasadena!City!College!http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ppersaud/!!ppersaud@gps.caltech.edu!&Ana&Petrovic!(Fellow!200762009)!Assistant!Professor,!Life!Science!Department!at!New!York!Institute!of!Technology!http://www.nyit.edu/life_sciences/!apetro01@nyit.edu!&

Rachna&Kaushik&Rangan!(Fellow!200662008)!Program!Director!EPARG!(Emotions,!Personality,!and!Altruism!Research!Group)!!Berkeley!CA!http://www.eparg.org/people.html!rachna.rangan@gmail.com!&Bruno&Tremblay!(Fellow!200462005)!!Assoc.!Prof.,!Atmospheric!and!Oceanic!Sciences,!McGill!University!http://www.mcgill.ca/meteo/keyword/Bruno%20Tremblay!bruno.tremblay@mcgill.ca!!Justin&Wright!(Fellow!200364)!!!Asst.!Prof.,!Department!of!Biology,!Duke!http://www.biology.duke.edu/wrightlab/!!justin.wright@duke.edu!&Eliza&Woo!(200862011)!Editor!in!a!Publishing!Company!publishing!science!education!books!elizawoo@gmail.com!!

Dashboard Gradebook control lookupFrontiers of Science Fall 2012

Date: Dec-05-2012 Current Time: 4:13:27 PM

Excellent Very Good

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5

Seminar Leader Effectiveness

1. Please select your seminar leader

2. Clear presentation of subject matter3. Seminar Leader's ability to help clarify course material4. Seminar Leader's ability to encourage student participation effectively5. Seminar Leader's responsiveness to student questions6. Seminar Leader's ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity7. Seminar Leader's feedback8. Seminar Leader's availability for assistance outside of class9. Overall effectiveness of Seminar Leader10.Comments on Seminar Leader Effectiveness

5 4

3 2

1

1 2 3 4 5

Lecture Attendance

1. Number of lectures attended (5 = 12 lectures; 4 = 10-11; 3 = 8-9; 2 = 6-7; 1 = less than 6. )

Excellent Very Good

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5

Lecturer Evaluation

1. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Hood (Brain and Behavior)2. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Greene (Physics)3. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Olsen (Earth Science)4. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Melnick (Biodiversity)5. Clarity of common approaches to scientific problems across lectures6. What were the best aspects of lecture?

7. What aspects of lecture could be improved?

Not Applicable Excellent

Very Good

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...

1 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Readings, Materials, Assignments, and Exams

1. Overall value of homework assignments2. Overall value of the Tutorials3. Overall value of the other reading assignments4. Overall value of the term paper assignment5. Overall value of the AMNH trip (answer only if you attended)6. Fairness of grading7. Clarity of expectations for student learning8. Relevance of assignments and exams to course objectives9. Comments on readings, materials, assignments, and examinations

Excellent Very Good

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5

General

1. Compared to other Columbia courses you have taken this semester, how much time have you spenton this course? (1. much less, 2. somewhat less, 3. about the same, 4. somewhat more, 5. muchmore)

2. Contribution to your knowledge of the subject matter3. Contribution to your capacity for critical evaluation of the subject matter4. Contribution to your interest in science5. Contribution to the development of your analytical and reasoning skills in general6. Clarity of expectations for student learning7. Overall value of the seminar8. Overall value of the lectures9. Integration of lectures with seminars10.Overall quality of the course as you yourself experienced it11.What were the best aspects of this course

12.Please comment on ways to improve the course

13.If you have used the help-room, please comment on its effectiveness

14.General comments

Excellent Very Good

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...

2 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM

Classroom Information

1. Condition and function of the lecture hall

School Affiliation

1.

5 4

3 2

1

1 2 3 4 5

Expected Grade

1. Please select expected grade 1=F, 2=D, 3=C, 4=B, 5=A

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...

3 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM

Dashboard Gradebook control lookupFrontiers of Science Fall 2012

Date: Dec-05-2012 Current Time: 4:13:27 PM

Excellent Very Good

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5

Seminar Leader Effectiveness

1. Please select your seminar leader

2. Clear presentation of subject matter3. Seminar Leader's ability to help clarify course material4. Seminar Leader's ability to encourage student participation effectively5. Seminar Leader's responsiveness to student questions6. Seminar Leader's ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity7. Seminar Leader's feedback8. Seminar Leader's availability for assistance outside of class9. Overall effectiveness of Seminar Leader10.Comments on Seminar Leader Effectiveness

5 4

3 2

1

1 2 3 4 5

Lecture Attendance

1. Number of lectures attended (5 = 12 lectures; 4 = 10-11; 3 = 8-9; 2 = 6-7; 1 = less than 6. )

Excellent Very Good

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5

Lecturer Evaluation

1. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Hood (Brain and Behavior)2. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Greene (Physics)3. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Olsen (Earth Science)4. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Melnick (Biodiversity)5. Clarity of common approaches to scientific problems across lectures6. What were the best aspects of lecture?

7. What aspects of lecture could be improved?

Not Applicable Excellent

Very Good

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...

1 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Readings, Materials, Assignments, and Exams

1. Overall value of homework assignments2. Overall value of the Tutorials3. Overall value of the other reading assignments4. Overall value of the term paper assignment5. Overall value of the AMNH trip (answer only if you attended)6. Fairness of grading7. Clarity of expectations for student learning8. Relevance of assignments and exams to course objectives9. Comments on readings, materials, assignments, and examinations

Excellent Very Good

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5

General

1. Compared to other Columbia courses you have taken this semester, how much time have you spenton this course? (1. much less, 2. somewhat less, 3. about the same, 4. somewhat more, 5. muchmore)

2. Contribution to your knowledge of the subject matter3. Contribution to your capacity for critical evaluation of the subject matter4. Contribution to your interest in science5. Contribution to the development of your analytical and reasoning skills in general6. Clarity of expectations for student learning7. Overall value of the seminar8. Overall value of the lectures9. Integration of lectures with seminars10.Overall quality of the course as you yourself experienced it11.What were the best aspects of this course

12.Please comment on ways to improve the course

13.If you have used the help-room, please comment on its effectiveness

14.General comments

Excellent Very Good

Good Fair

Poor

1 2 3 4 5

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...

2 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM

Classroom Information

1. Condition and function of the lecture hall

School Affiliation

1.

5 4

3 2

1

1 2 3 4 5

Expected Grade

1. Please select expected grade 1=F, 2=D, 3=C, 4=B, 5=A

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...

3 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM

1

11/15/09

To: COSI

From: Course Directors, Frontiers of Science

We write to respond to the report produced by the Committee on Science Instruction

(COSI) as its evaluation of Frontiers of Science (FoS). Our apologies for the delay in

responding. In the spring, we were in the middle of teaching FoS, a frantic time, and this

summer we suffered research-induced amnesia for other topics. We appreciate the time

and effort spent by COSI in examining FoS. Since the report was released, we have

undertaken a review of changes in student enrollments in 1000-level courses pre- and

post-FoS, and we include those data here.

We respond to the individual comments and recommendations of the report below, but

would also like to respond to the assumptions that seem to have guided its preparation.

These assumptions are very different from those that guided the establishment and

running of FoS, and it would be helpful as we continue discussions if these were spelled

out.

The first of our assumptions is that the Core Curriculum must include a science course

that is real, i.e. that reflects the way in which scientists think about and analyze the set of

problems that make up current research. One reason for this approach lies within the

concept of a Core Curriculum: a set of challenging courses taken by all students. We are

admonished by COSI that we must "ensure the students can meet or exceed their own

expectations"(p6), and not to trouble them with ambiguities because "it is probably

easier, and therefore more effective for first-year students..." (p12) to use only well-

established facts, and to provide a textbook because "Students are often most comfortable

with a textbook that includes the whole content of the course..." (p16). If we were to

present students as suggested with "only well-established facts" we would insult those

with a strong science background (who know that well-established facts have a way of

unravelling) and mislead students trained via the usual high school curriculum, the very

group that it is most important that we reach. In designing FoS, we made a conscious

decision to aim higher than the kind of course advocated by COSI. It is safe to say that

none of the 30 talented faculty who have contributed to FoS to date would have any

interest in constructing such a course.

The second assumption that guides the construction and continuing revision of FoS is

that, as pointed out in the COSI report, there is no accepted, effective way to teach

science in the context of a general education. Thus for the actual teaching of FoS we have

conducted a series of experiments over successive iterations and are tracking outcomes.

It is a shame that COSI did not consult with FoS faculty during the writing of the report

because many of their suggestions relate to experiments that we have already tried and

the outcomes of which are known. For example, COSI suggests that the lectures might

be more effective if given to a smaller group. We entertained this quite reasonable

hypothesis as well and ran an experiment using two sections last Fall with no observable

increase in student satisfaction (the lectures are usually ranked quite highly and values

2

did not differ from previous years with one large lecture). The lack of ongoing

communication between COSI and FoS faculty contributed to the perception that we are

pig-headedly determined to run the course our own way when in fact we are experimental

and data driven.

Finally, there appears to be an underlying assumption in the COSI report that it would be

better to have FoS tackle a single topic or a single discipline. Aside from student

comments (and remembering that these are strongly colored by high-school science, not

the model we are aiming for) we do not know why this approach, a priori, should be

superior to the multidisciplinary one currently in use. A course on a single topic with a

standard textbook with multiple-choice exams requiring rote regurgitation -- in short, a

high school science course -- might well be more popular with students who got into

Columbia because they perform well on such tasks. In designing FoS, we made a

conscious decision to instead provide Columbia students with the analytical tools needed

to reach decisions on difficult issues using available data. To do otherwise, we believe, is

a disservice to our students' education.

Response to specific comments in the report:

1. "In setting these ambitions and characteristics FoS faced two major sets of challenges: recruiting and organizing faculty to teach enthusiastically and co-operatively with appropriate administrative support, and actually improving science education of students. . . . We now have some relevant data to evaluate the progress of FoS in meeting these challenges. FoS has met the first challenge remarkably well, recruiting outstanding and dedicated faculty, and developing an exceptionally functional administration and course infrastructure for maintaining and improving standards." We agree with COSI re faculty recruitment. Participating FOS faculty have included every Natural Science Department (except Mathematics; Dan Rabinowitz from Statistics

just joined the faculty). One goal for FoS was to modify the Columbia science culture to

expand the concept of excellence to include introductory level teaching to all students (as

opposed to potential majors). Convincing senior faculty members to adopt new

educational approaches can be difficult. However, the collaborative nature of the course

development process and the very high quality of both the Fellows and full-time faculty

have proven to be an attractive combination both for recruiting new faculty to the

enterprise (for some this is a voluntary effort, often carried out in addition to teaching a

regular course load) and for introducing new pedagogical approaches. Senior faculty

members in FoS are among the most distinguished researchers and teachers in their

Departments as evinced by international and national awards for research (e.g., Nobel,

NAS) and Columbia awards for teaching (e.g., Mark van Doren Awards for Outstanding

Teaching in the College, Presidential Awards for Outstanding Teaching, Great Teacher

Awards from Society of Columbia Graduates, the Lenfest and Distinguished Teaching

award, and departmental teaching awards). A list of participating faculty members is

included in Table 1.

With respect to junior faculty development, new Columbia Science Fellows (a hybrid

lecturer and post-doctoral researcher position) are mentored in curriculum development

3

both by more senior faculty and by other Fellows. The Fellows work in teams with

senior faculty members to create seminar materials for each unit, weekly assignments,

and the midterm and final examinations. These teams include scientists both from within

the discipline of the unit (earth science, for example) and from other disciplines (ecology

and chemistry). The Fellows also lead a weekly seminar in how one might teach that

week's seminar, going through the suggested class exercises and discussing issues that

were raised in the Monday lectures.

We have 11 current Columbia Science Fellows and 23 former Fellows. Of the latter, 13

now hold tenure-track Assistant Professor positions or their equivalent, five hold non-

tenure track research positions, one is a high school science teacher, two work in

industry, one in policy and one in educational consulting. Some former Fellows (e.g.,

Damon Chaky) have launched FoS-like efforts at their new institutions. Details on

former Fellows are also included in Table 1.

Looking at the history of previous attempts to bring a science course into the Core

Curriculum (see Kathryn Yatrakis' paper, attached), the stumbling block was always the

initial opposition of the faculty. To have changed the course of our history, we believe, is

a substantial accomplishment and any approach to general science education at Columbia

will benefit from the positive experiences of members of the FoS faculty. A collection of

their reflections on FoS of Science is also appended.

2. "However, it is hard to imagine that FoS will have a positive impact on attitudes towards science and facility with scientific thought if students are not enthusiastic about FoS immediately after taking the course. Currently, student course evaluations and personal conversations with students reveal that few have been inspired by FoS or warmly applaud the course, while many have been frustrated, confused, and disappointed with FoS to a greater degree than with the majority of other Columbia courses, including required courses. The strikingly negative evaluations of FoS must be reversed substantially for there to be a strong likelihood of long-term benefits and to maintain the necessary, exceptionally high level of commitment from FoS faculty that is essential to maintain the course."

FoS aims to provide all entering students with the scientific tools required to produce and

evaluate scientific evidence, and to provide students intent on majoring in a specific

scientific discipline with an introduction to the power of interdisciplinary approaches.

The entering class of Columbia College varies widely with respect to preparation in

science and mathematics; regardless of prior training, all first year students are taught

together both in seminar and in lecture. This approach, which parallels the rest of the

Core, poses especial challenges in teaching science, although the range of preparation for

other core course tends to be underestimated.

To develop an effective strategy for teaching students with diverse preparations, we have

used formative evaluation tools that include a course evaluation (>90% response), focus

group meetings with student groups each spring, tracking individual faculty curricular

innovations for seminars and their effectiveness and - for the pilot year 2003/4, in which

only a portion of entering students took FoS - a survey of scientific knowledge and

attitudes. In addition, we prepare a weekly report on student concerns revealed through

4

visits to the Help Room, a twice-weekly evening of support run by faculty and

undergraduates who have excelled in FoS. To follow the attitudes of science majors

towards their FoS experiences and towards interdisciplinary approaches, students taking

Stuart Firestein's course on Ignorance are surveyed each year (~60 seniors, 90% science

majors).

While the curriculum of FoS is established in broad outline, devising the most effective

teaching strategies is still “a work in progress”. Assessment is carried out on sequential

course iterations that have used different combinations of approaches. We continue to

work actively on how best to teach FoS. The approach is experimental (two or three

features of the course are changed each year) and is guided by the tools described above.

This semester, we have abolished the weekly letter grading of problems sets (a source of

great student anxiety) and have instituted short weekly quizzes (the effects of which we

will assess at semester's end). Student issues are tracked via a weekly Help Room report

that includes recommendations for solutions to student confusion for seminar leaders.

This semester’s help room reports are appended.

3. "COSI’s analysis of the reasons for poor evaluations of FoS suggest five major categories: “• concentration, interaction, and scheduling deficits associated with a long weekly lecture at one time slot with 500 attendees in a room designed for purposes other than teaching(Miller Theater)” We agree about Miller Theater and have changed venue. We are now using a much more suitable auditorium at Teacher's College for Fall semester; student participation in the lectures is facilitated. 4. "• too many sharp transitions between topics (and lecturers), too much material per topic, insufficient time per topic to understand the material or to generate a satisfying understanding of major issues, debates, or strategies for enquiry" First, of course, like many of the concerns, this is an opinion (or hypothesis) based upon the extensive experience of members of CoSI. But it is an hypothesis without, as far as we know, substantiating data on learning outcomes. As noted in the report, these

concerns follow from the structure of the course. Our aim (teaching methods of scientific

analysis across disciplines) is addressed by including topics across four scientific fields

(two in the physical sciences and two in the life sciences) each semester (presented as 12

weekly lectures) and by an intensive program of active learning in the small (22 student)

faculty-led seminars that are the heart of the course. The change in topics may be

difficult for some entering first-year students who are accustomed to a more leisurely

immersion in one particular discipline, the comfort of a textbook and the possibility of

simply memorizing enough material to get a good grade. The transition from high school

to college (coupled with student performance anxieties) adds to the challenges of

teaching FoS. Continuing experience with College helps. Stuart Firestein (who surveys

seniors in his Ignorance class) points out that attitudes of students towards FoS are

considerably warmer by the time they graduate. Deans Yatrakis and Quigley have

consistently cautioned us that the Core is best evaluated by alums years after they

graduate.

5

So while one may argue that it is better to teach FoS to seniors, one of the reasons for

including different disciplines in FoS is to inform choices that students make in

completing the other two courses for the science requirement. Before FoS, the typical

pattern for the three-course requirement was two courses in mathematics and one in

Chemistry (for former premeds) or courses in Psychology or Physical Anthropology (for

non premeds). At present, FoS fulfills one course requirement and the remaining two can

be from any Department. Figure 1 presents the change in enrollments in 1000-level

courses (directed at “non-science” majors) before and after FoS. The data for Pre-FoS are

averages are based on the 3 years (classes entering 2000 - 2003) before FoS and 2004/5

(the one year for which data are available following the introduction of FoS). The

available results suggest that, after FoS was introduced, enrollments in 1000-level

courses in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences (EES), in Ecology,

Evolution and Environmental Biology (E3B), and in Psychology (Psy: the Mind, Brain

and Behavior course) all increased; there was little effect on other Departments.

(Astronomy, Biology, Computer Science, Physics and Statistics; Chemistry does not

offer 1000-level courses directed at non-science majors), The three courses with the

largest shift are in subjects taught in FoS each year since inception and are new to most

students (few high schools offer neuroscience, biodiversity or earth science).

Figure 1: Change in enrollment of nonscience majors in science classes at CU pre- and

post FoS implementation; change in percent actual versus expected percentage

enrollments

Another goal of FoS was to increase awareness of multidisciplinary approaches to

science for majors. One possible outcome might be an increase in cross-departmental

majors and we are examining the number of seniors graduating in astrophysics,

biochemistry, and neuroscience and behavior (biophysics is excluded as major numbers

are at most 2/yr). The five-year pre-FoS percentages in cross-departmental majors

average 20% of all science majors (but vary from 14 to 24%); we are now collecting

data for graduating seniors from 2009 on as well as numbers of science majors within the

Departments (given the variability we will need an additional 4 years worth of data).

Approximately 30% of graduating seniors (300 students) majored in any science over

this period.

6

5. "• lack of clarity in defining the content, that is, established scientific knowledge, that students are expected to absorb" FoS is not about "established scientific knowledge" (whatever that is, given the paradigm shifts that occur from time to time), but rather about how scientific information is acquired and analyzed. FoS is just that: breaking news. The misperception that science is about settled facts is a myth that we wish to dispel for our students. 6. "• lack of a sufficiently supportive text" The text for FoS is "Scientific Habits of Mind", together with the weekly lectures. FoS changes from semester to semester and evolves across years. There is no available textbook that could support the course. 7. "• incomplete integration of lecture, seminar, assignment, and exam components."

We agree that this is something on which we must continue to work. Students often do

not understand relations between the lecture, the readings and the seminar activities. In

the current year, we created separate syllabi for each week in which these relations are

made explicit for the students. Syllabi for this semester are attached. Integration was the focus of an intensive effort this past summer and we will see if it pays off. 8. "There is no clear consensus or precedent concerning the best way to teach science to college students. Nor indeed is there a simple way to assess the success of such endeavors. FoS has, from the start, been considered an experiment and a work in progress. While it will take longer to measure its impact accurately, COSI has used current indicators to assess whether FoS is likely to provide the basis for an outstanding science education at Columbia. We are not convinced that this point has been established. However, we do find that FoS has made several achievements and has established a strong organizational structure, which may allow it to develop into the cornerstone of an outstanding science education. At present we therefore neither recommend that FoS immediately be made a permanent part of the Core, nor do we recommend that FoS be discontinued at the earliest opportunity. Instead, we recommend an extension of the trial period for FoS of four years.”

We do not agree with the recommendation for a four-year extension. Students will

conclude that there is little confidence in this effort and that it is to be wound down. This

conclusion will make our task much more difficult. At a minimum, the course should be

extended for five years with the endorsement of the CoI for our efforts and in the

expectation that the course will long be a part of the Core Curriculum. With anything

less, we believe that the faculty will be shooting down the only ongoing effort of this sort

without having provided any more effective alternative. 9. This section continues: “However, COSI has a strong opinion that the basic design of FoS must be re-evaluated as soon as possible, taking into account misgivings expressed by COSI and by students, in order to realize the significant gains in its impact that will be required to establish the course as a permanent part of the Core. This opinion is motivated by the idea that FoS organizers are not currently inclined to alter two basic features of the course—big lectures and four topics—that COSI believes are significant impediments to greater success, and by the perception that several other features of the course have been adjusted more slowly or less drastically than COSI would have recommended. Of course, the success of this recommended path will continue to depend largely on the skills and

7

energy of FoS organizers and faculty, as well as on their willingness to respond to outside opinions.” It is not only true that " FoS organizers are not currently inclined to alter two basic features of the course—big lectures and four topics”; this opinion is shared by most FoS faculty and is a major attraction of this course. We strongly disagree that the structure is "an impediment to greater success"; a challenge perhaps, but science as it is now practiced has a strong interdisciplinary cast and we aim at science now and future science rather than an historical approach. It might be instructive for COSI to consider the logistical challenges of, for example, teaching a core course in Chemistry to all entering students. There would be greater unity of theme, a possible textbook and so forth, but finding 18 faculty members to teach seminars and running 28 sections within a single Department (each semester!) would presents an enormous burden to Chemistry which, as is the case for most Science Departments, has substantial service obligations across majors. 10. Finally this point concludes with: “We do not prescribe any specific numerical objectives for FoS as it approaches the end of an extended trial period. However, it would be reasonable to require a change in the overall sentiment of student appreciation that reflects satisfaction about what is learned and a substantial degree of excitement and newly kindled interest in science. This can be evaluated in much the same way as COSI has evaluated FoS to produce this report. Additionally, new data that reflect changes in enrolments, competence, and attitudes in science, plus longer-term student feedback." The recently revised evaluation form will enable us to track these issue in the context of formative development. We are also in active discussion about the best way to assess the development of analytical skills in our students. We agree that student appreciation needs to be increased, although we should be careful not to let a popular vote decide what is pedagogically best. A. Recommendations of COSI: 1. Lectures—Physical Changes "a. Offer the lectures at multiple times in a smaller lecture hall." We tried this last Fall; it led to no improvement in student evaluations. The lecture room at TC we are currently using may be an improvement; we will see. b. Enhance the audio-visual capabilities in whatever lecture hall is used, to facilitate closer engagement of students with the lecturer. The acoustics of the Teacher's lecture hall are such that we do not need microphones for the student questions, even when they are at the back of the balcony! In addition, slides are projected onto auxilliary screens on the balcony. Why we do not have an equivalently equipped auditorium for our own students is worth exploring. 2. Lectures—Content Changes "a. Within the current structure of the lectures, diminish the sharp transitions in topic, substance, and presentation style between lecture units and between lecturers." Short of having lectures on a single topic delivered by a single person; or on multiple topics by a robot, this is not a feasible option. In any case, the lectures, by and large, are well received.

8

"b. Change the structure of the lectures to implement a thematic organization around a single broad topic each semester." Another interesting hypothesis, but again one without empirical support. Imagine for a moment that we chose the theme of light. Would it really help as a theme if there were 3 lectures by a physicist, 3 by an astronomer, 3 by an ecologist and 3 by a neuroscientist (assuming you could get 4 superb lecturers interested in the same topic)? This approach was attempted at Stanford (courses centered on light and water, respectively) and fizzled (or dribbled away) after 3 and 1 semesters, respectively. FoS was initially planned by the 2002 COSI and we did quite substantial research into what similar approaches might have been tried at other institutions; hence the data for Stanford. "c. In whatever lecture structure, reduce the emphasis on topics at the forefront of current scientific research, and add coverage of foundational areas of science." The excitement of science is forefront, not foundations. Having said this, a careful examination of the lectures will reveal considerable material that is “foundational”. "3. Seminars—Structural Changes a. Structure seminars with greater emphasis on lecture content and closer connection to the lectures." We agree and this has been a guiding principle of course revisions for two years now. We have introduced a seminar for the seminar leaders on each week's topic. Seminars do cover the main points of the lecture. We append one sample “Instructors Guide” that illustrates this approach. A complete set is available upon request.” 4. Seminars—Content Changes "a. Reduce the emphasis on isolated methodological exercises and testing." We are not entirely clear what is meant here. There are no methods that we can use in common across topics. The two-point threshold is extremely informative in terms of brain organization but useless for astronomy. The faculty of FoS are in strong agreement on the necessity of emphasizing scientific reasoning and the seminar exercises are designed to meet this aim. "b. Implement a more varied use of mathematics and statistics." It is not clear what "more varied" means here but we have recruited Dan Rabinowitz to bring some coherence to the statistical approaches. 5. Course Materials "a. Adopt and use a text, or an organized set of course materials, with a more conventional format that can provide continuity through different lecture components and that will extend the lecture material to a wider scope of science." We cover our concerns about this point above. It is not clear to us how coverage of “a wider scope of science” in a text (topics on topics not covered in FoS?) would help student understanding. FoS does appear effective in increasing student exploration of specific scientific topics (see Fig. 1). “b. Limit the use of assigned readings in the primary literature, and select for such readings only seminal papers that are also intellectually accessible to students.”

9

We agree in principle and tried this approach in the pilot version of the coure and in the first year. However, given the pervasive jargon in use in the primary literature, each paper needed an extensive set of notes and a glossary, and it was difficult to convince students that the papers were directly accessible to them. To increase the engagement of students planning to major in a science, for several years we also ran a journal club each week in which a senior faculty member or Fellow discussed papers from the primary literature. However, attendance was generally low (though often included students from previous years of FoS ) and we concluded that this approach was not effective in reaching its target audience. Again, it is regrettable that COSI was not in contact with FoS faculty. This was a reasonable experiment and we tried it. “6. Examinations a. Develop and use exams that test knowledge and understanding of lecture content as well as testing methodological skills.” Our own experience jibes with this suggestion. Material from the lectures has been much more strongly emphasized for the past three years. C. From COSI: “Criteria for Evaluation of the Frontiers of Science Course COSI strongly recommends identification now of criteria on which FoS will be judged at the full evaluation three years hence.” We strongly disagree with the recommendation on the time frame of evaluation (see preamble). “COSI recommends these criteria: 1. Improvement in the course evaluations of FoS such that: a. On the most important questions on these evaluations, "overall course quality" and "overall course content," the Frontiers course receives scores at least comparable to those that introductory science courses in biological sciences, chemistry, mathematics, physics, and psychology receive.” We have been working towards improved student evaluations (see above). Using our original evaluation form, scores were improving gradually (changes were statistically significant for the last year we could use the original form). Working with Lois Putnam on behalf of COSI, the new, College mandated, evaluation form has been revised and will be a useful tool for this purpose. It would also be useful to have a complete set of data for introductory science courses for comparison using the revised FoS evaluation form. One major difference, however, is that unlike FoS which is required, students choose to take these courses (or choose the major which requires this course) and the context of evaluation will thus inevitably differ. “2. Substantiation in course evaluations or through other evidence that: a. The integration of the lectures and seminars is effective.” This is an explicit item on the revised evaluation form. “b. If the current lecture structure is retained, that continuity through the lecture units is being provided.” As described above, for the FoS faculty the most important goal is developing the students’ ability to analyze scientific data. These analystical approaches are emphasized throughout the lectures and in the seminars. We will be able to track success in students’

10

perception of analytical approaches across units using the revised evaluation form. “c. Both development of methodological skills and acquisition of scientific knowledge are being achieved by students.” See response to item B6 above. “d. A textbook, or an organized set of course materials, has been adopted and is being effectively utilized to unify the content of the lectures.” See response to item B5 above. “e. Clear expectations for student learning and achievement, clearly explained to students, are being established and used.” We agree; see the appended syllabi. f. Assignments focus on, and examinations fairly test, student progress and achievement in meeting these expectations. We agree and an item in the revised evaluation form will track this goal. “3. Demonstration of a positive effect of the Frontiers course on: a. The number of students interested in science.” There are two ways of tracking student interest in science. One is a direct questionnaire. for example, one adminsitered before matriculation, just before graduation and 5 and 10 years post-graduation. We devised such an instrument for the pilot year of Frontiers (2003/4) to compare the 350 students who took the course with the remaining students that did not, and there was a preliminary suggestion one year out that FoS increased student confidence in mathematical ability (this generally pluumets during the first year in college). Given the many changes in FoS since the pilot year, it would be very valuable to construct a new survey instrument and use it systematically and we strongly encourage the College to undertake this, rather considerable, effort. “b. The number of students interested in science courses aimed at non-scientists.” The other way to address this issue is to look at the number of non-science majors taking more than the required number of science courses. These data are currently available for graduating seniors only through 2008 (without some idea of variability from year to year we cannot yet assess any potential effects of FoS) but we intend to follow them annually. We do see a pre- vs post-FoS shift in choice of 1000 level courses by non-science majors (see Fig. 1) into subjects included in FoS since inception but not generally included in high school curricula. “c. The scientific knowledge and skills of students pursuing non-science majors.” This is a very important goal and we are working on measuring these skills explicitly. It is worth pointing out that this kind of evaluation would be valuable for all 1000 level courses in the science departments and suggest that the effort should be collaborative. “d. The preparation of students for subsequent science courses.”

11

We agree and welcome suggestions from the faculty teaching introductory courses in the sciences about how this might be accomplished. “e. Students' perception of the value, importance, and utility of science in their lives.” See response to C. 3a above.

Our general response to the third portion of the COSI report (III. Evaluation

Considerations and Findings, p 4 to 18 of the COSI report) is included in the preamble to

this response; we’d be happy to discuss specific comments as required.

Many thanks for your input; we look forward to continuing this conversation. David Helfand Don Hood Darcy Kelley Nicholas Christie-Blick

12

Table 1

Former Columbia Science Fellows 2003 - 2009 (# of years appointed Fellow):

Robin Herrnstein (2) Science education consultant

http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~herrnstein/

Justin Wright (1) Asst. Prof., Department of Biology, Duke

http://www.biology.duke.edu/wrightlab/research.htm

Patricia Persaud (0.5) Research position Caltech, Instructor Pasadena City College

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ppersaud/ ppersaud@gps.caltech.edu

Elizabeth Cottrell (1) ·Curator/Research Geologist – Dept. of Mineral Sciences,

Smithsonian Institution http://mineralsciences.si.edu/staff/pages/cottrell.htm

Damon Chaky (2) Asst. Prof. of Mathematics and Science, The Pratt Institute

http://pratt.edu/~dchaky/ dchaky@pratt.edu

Tom Koutavas (1) Asst. Prof., Dept. of Eng Science and Physics, CUNY

http://www.csi.cuny.edu/faculty/KOUTAVAS_ANTHANASIOS.html

Andrea Holmes (0.5) Asst. Prof. of Chemsitry, Doane College

http://www.doane.edu/Academics/Departments/Chemistry/Faculty/AndreaHolmes/8637/

Maulik Parikh (3) Assistant Professor, Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics

(IUCAA), Pune, India

http://iucaa.ernet.in:8080/iucaa/jsp/People.jsp

Kerry Brown (3) Lecturer, School of Science & Technology, Nottingham Trent

University http://www.ntu.ac.uk/research/about/index.html

Jennifer Blanck (2) Science teacher, The Collegiate School, NYC

Sharmila Kamat (3) Research adjunct; Columbia University; Teaching in India

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sharmila-kamat/0/b97/258

Bruno Tremblay (1) Asst. Prof., McGill University

http://www.mcgill.ca/meteo/staff/tremblay/

Michelle Buxton (2) Associate Research Scientist Yale University

http://www.astro.yale.edu/people/michelle-buxton

Stuart Gill (3.5) Disaster Risk Management, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

spdgill@gmail.com

Clara Chui (1) Research Assistant Professor at the Earth Dynamic System Research

Center, National Cheng Kung University

P. Timon McPhearson (3.0) Assistant Professor of Ecology, Eugene Lang College, The

New School for Social Research

http://www.newschool.edu/lang/faculty.aspx?id=24954

Claire LePichon (0.5) Senior Research Associate Genetech San Francisco

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/claire-le-pichon/5/9a0/b40

Jenna Cole (3.0) Adjunct Ass't Professor Western Kentucky University

Rachna Kaushik Rangan (2.0) Clinical Research Scientist, Avon Company

Nicolas Biais (3.0) Associate Research Scientist, Department of Biological Sciences,

Columbia University

Josef Lazar (1.0) Head: Laboratory of Cell Biology at the Institute of Systems Biology

& Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

http://www.usbe.cas.cz/index.php?node=230

13

Alison Keimowitz (3.0) Assistant Professor, Chemistry Department, Vassar College.

http://chemistry.vassar.edu/research/faculty/index.html

Angela Gee (1.0) Assistant Professor in the Biology Department at LaGuardia

Community College.

Senior Faculty in Frontiers and their Departments

Wallace S. Broecker Earth and Environmental Sciences

Julio M. Fernandez Biological Sciences

David J. Helfand Astronomy

Donald C. Hood Psychology

Darcy B. Kelley Biological Sciences

David H. Krantz Psychology and Statistics

Don J. Melnick Ecology Evolution and Environmental Biology

William H. Menke Earth and Environmental Sciences

Harry James Simpson Jr Earth and Environmental Sciences

Horst Stormer Physics

Jacqueline. Van Gorkom Astronomy

Peter B deMenocal Earth and Environmental Sciences

Steven L. Goldstein Earth and Environmental Sciences

John Colin Mutter Earth and Environmental Sciences

Robert E. Pollack Biological Sciences

Nicholas Christie-Blick Earth and Environmental Sciences

Peter Eisenberger Earth and Environmental Sciences

Frederik B Paerels Astronomy

Sidney R. Hemming Earth and Environmental Sciences

Joy Hirsch Psychology

Kathryn V Johnston Astronomy

Stuart J. Firestein Biological Sciences

Terry A Plank Earth and Environmental Sciences

Daniel Rabinowitz Statistics

Frontiers of Science Faculty on Frontiers of Science

Frontiers of Science was o!ered as a pilot course to ! 260 first-year students in the fallof 2003, and has been a required part of the Core Curriculum in Columbia College (andopen to GS students) since the Fall of 2004. Over the past four years 22 senior faculty and26 Columbia Science Fellows have taught in Frontiers (as have several senior researchersfrom Lamont). The faculty have come from all seven of the natural sciences departments:eight from DEES, four each from Astronomy and Biology, two from Psychology, and oneeach from E3B, Physics, and Chemistry, plus one from CUMC. The Fellows come froma wide variety of backgrounds; their creativity and energy have added immeasurably tothe development of the course, and many have now gone on to faculty positions wherethey are utilizing the experiences in, and materials developed for, in Frontiers in their newinstitutions (see Appendix 1).

The faculty teaching Frontiers in any given semester meet for a total of 2.5 hours perweek to discuss the course; in addition, they meet several times per semester for two-hourpractice sessions for upcoming lectures. An Executive Committee consisting of five facultymembers and one Science Fellow meet at irregular intervals to review and update coursepolicies, to conduct the Science Fellows selection process, etc. Finally, the course Directorshave had more than three dozen meetings with students – from organized committees ofstudent government, ad hoc groups, and individuals –in which their perspectives on thecourse were recorded; some of these students comments have served as the impetus forimplemented changes in the course. The most notable example was a report prepared bythe Academic A!airs Committee of the Columbia College Student Council.

This intensive set of faculty interactions provides a venue for constant self-assessment ofthe course and a lively forum for considering changes in policies and practices. In additionto standard course evaluations, we have conducted two student surveys, one during thepilot year and one in 06-07; the results of the latter are being analyzed in the Departmentof Psychology and a separate report will be forthcoming describing the results. Meanwhile,in response to a request from Dean Quigley, the current course Director solicited personalassessments of the course from the senior faculty who have taught in it (as well as from acouple of “graduated” Fellows). Their unedited responses are provided

Prof. Robert Pollack (Biological Sciences)

I will assess my own experience and my sense of the utility and success of the course inthe eyes of its students, in that order.

My experience: I have taught for two successive fall-semesters, under the directorships ofDavid Helfand and Don Hood, respectively. The course has enabled me to learn a hostof modern teaching tools, a bundle of new results in sciences distant from my own, anda raft of unrecognized soft-spots in my own knowledge of how best to make a point to awholly naive group of new arrivals. FOS has delivered these benefits to me through the

1

unexpected elegance and humbling cooperativeness of its teaching faculty. This past fall Ispent all day Monday and all day Tuesday on the lectures, the faculty lunches, the facultyseminars to prepare ourselves for our seminar sections, and then my two sections. I didnot ever have the sense of wasting a moment. The student assessment of me as a lecturerand as a seminar leader went up by a statistically significant amount from the first to thesecond time I taught and I have every hope of further improvement on my part in the nextyear; that is the gift of my colleagues to me, and through me, to my students. If there isa faculty-level meaning to a curricular novelty deserving to be considered as a core course,that would be my best example of it. It would also be the faculty-level reason to continueFOS as a core course.

The experiences of my students: We provide students with the opportunity to acquirestrategies of inference and deductive thought, appreciation for the creative fertility of theapplication of the scientific method to a question, respect if not awe for the complexityand possible instability of the global systems on which life itself depends, and a chance tohave their own opinions on all these matters. We also oblige them to learn the languagesof science: statistical significance, graph-reading and the like. This makes FOS a corecourse, but unlike the others, it is taught not in translation but in the original language.The faculty of FOS, as the agent of the evolution of this course, probably can diminish thenumber of examples and texts without losing the essence of the course, and in so doingmake the course even more a member of the core curriculum.

Summary: this is a great experiment still in progress, very exciting and complex. I suspectCC was like this in the early 1920s. FOS should receive continued support, funding, andrecognition as an essential part of the College’s core curriculum. I would be very glad toparticipate in its growth and stabilization in coming years.

Prof. Don Hood (Psychology)

For most of my 38+ years at Columbia, I taught a large lecture course that fulfilled thescience requirement. While this course was rated more favorably by students than FOShas been thus far, FOS does a better job of teaching them about the nature of science,as well as about how scientists think. Here is one of four emails I received this year frommy seminar of 20 students, the other three were similar in theme. “I just wanted to thankyou for a great semester. It really helped me in terms of my transition from high schoolto college academics. Not only that, but I also learned some great things in Frontiers. Infact, just the other day, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation in Rockerfeller center tofigure out how much money (in pennies) was stored in a giant shallow pool. It turned outto be $2 million!”

Prof. Wally Broecker (DEES)

Because I currently give only one fall term lecture in Frontiers, I really don’t have my fingeron the course’s pulse. I do however retain an extremely high regard for this e!ort. Whether

2

or not our Freshmen like it, they need it. An enormous e!ort by many gifted people goesinto making it a success. Last term Don Hood did an incredible job of cranking up bothfaculty and students. I hope that David Helfand will take to heart Don’s suggestions forimprovement.

Prof. H. James Simpson (DEES)

Impressions as a teacher in Frontiers of Science

My experience with the course consists of my having been a seminar leader of one sec-tion during each of three fall semesters (2003, 2004, 2005), a member of the ExecutiveCommittee during those years, and a recruiter of DEES postdocs.

Impacts on CU Science Faculty and Departments

There are very few activities at CU that integrate science faculty members from a number ofdepartments in a sustained e!ort involving direct contact with Columbia College students.Frontiers exposes a number of science faculty to some of the best lecturers at the university,on material that is intrinsically interesting but far beyond the range of expertise thatindividual faculty are likely to have. Thus participating in the course should be helpful toadding breadth of general science knowledge to faculty, and in exposure to the “culture ofa number of other science departments. The professional lives of faculty at CU seem torevolve, by necessity, around their own home departments (as well as research colleaguesat other universities), almost to the exclusion of interactions with faculty and studentsfrom other science departments.

The structure of Frontiers, relying on a significant number of postdocs from di!erent sciencefields to lead seminar sections, provides intensive undergraduate teaching opportunitiesthat should be helpful to the postdocs in gaining experience that helps them decide if theywant a career involving teaching. This experience should also be helpful in competing foracademic jobs after leaving Frontiers. The latter definitely seems to have been an asset fora number of Earth & Environmental Science postdocs.

Leading seminars in Frontiers was one of the most di"cult teaching situations Ive experi-enced at Columbia, especially on topics for which I have very little professional expertise.I dont know any obvious solutions which would have made a major improvement for me,other than continuing to stay involved with the course long enough to have more depth ofknowledge in these outside fields.

Frontiers appears to have had a substantial positive impact on undergraduate interestin earth and environmental sciences. We have significantly higher enrollments in ourundergraduate courses now than prior to the introduction of Frontiers in Fall 2003, sofrom the view of DEES, Frontiers has been one of the most important innovations atColumbia College in a number of decades.

3

Impacts on Columbia College students

I think the logic for the value of some kind of core requirement in science for CC studentsis sound, especially when it exposes all of the 1st year students to some of the very bestcommunicators on the science faculty at Columbia. I think exposure to a broad range ofscience is probably more valuable to non-science majors at CC than more depth withina single science discipline. Science and technology are at the heart of many of the mostdi!cult issues concerning the future of our civilization. Our citizens in the US are notprepared to understand most of those issues, and as a result tend to make very poorchoices of leaders at many levels of government. If every graduate from Columbia Collegehas some comfort with a broad range of scientific and technical issues, they are more likelyto help raise the level of the dialogue in their future professional lives. And some of ourcurrent graduates will probably have very influential positions in the future, where betterunderstanding of science could make a major di"erence.

The design of Frontiers is very di"erent than most scientist faculty would be likely tobe comfortable with, in the abstract. My respect for the basic structure of Frontiers issubstantially higher now than prior to having been involved with the course. Some ofthe most rewarding episodes for me were when students who had initially approachedthe course like a visit to the dentist for root canal surgery volunteered that they hadactually learned some important and valuable things in the course (long after the gradesfor the semester had been submitted). They were able to assimilate critical insights fromtechnically complicated material that previously would not have been accessible to them.

Suggestions and concerns

As currently structured, Frontiers depends very heavily on the energy and lecturing skillsfrom a small number of science faculty who are unusually gifted in communicating to largeaudiences. It is not obvious that we will be able to keep recruiting to the course that levelof talent indefinitely. The course takes a great deal of e"ort, especially for the lecturers.I dont think well really know how successful the model will be until weve gone throughseveral generations of lecturers. This probably means continuing with the current structurefor at least another five years, in my view.

I dont think we have figured out how to engage science major students in Frontiers inthe most e"ective way. It may be that subsequent summer and academic year researchexperiences provide the best improvement alternative. From the viewpoint of our depart-ment, I hope that Frontiers will be o"ered long into the future, with whatever evolutionin structure and content seems attractive.

Prof. Jacqueline van Gorkom (Astronomy)

I think I have taught more seminars than any other faculty member.

4

Negative: This is the least glamorous teaching assignment you can get. Going back tobeing a TA at 60 is not that easy; besides you are competing with a bunch of good-looking, young, smart Science Fellows, who seem to do this FULL time, not an optionfor professors. After a while it gets hard to put up with the way other people give theirlectures.

Positive: You learn a ton of new things, good for old brains. It may be a cliche, but ithas made me think di!erently about some things in astronomy. The team work is AMAZ-ING.. who could imagine that at a so-called ”research” university, faculty and fellows fromdi!erent departments would get together in weekly meetings to discuss TEACHING.

The net result must be positive. I always teach this in fall and every January I havewithdrawal symptoms: what, these guys are doing Frontiers again and I am not in it! Thisyear is worse, I won’t even teach it next year.

This year for the first time, I heard from five di!erent students that THEY were missingFrontiers. We must have had a good time.

How are we doing?

I think by now I know how to engage the great majority of students in seminar. It worksbest if they do things, read, discuss, present, select articles. I think we should not belecturing in seminar. We should let the students talk about what they learned, what theydid not understand and what else they want to learn. The lecture questions from last yearwas a great way to get them started. This class has to be DIFFERENT and much moreinteresting than your regular science class. Getting an opportunity to talk about what youlearn IS di!erent.

I think homework assignments should be reading, preparing a debate, making your ownplanet and so on, it should not be making calculations without them realizing what theimplications are of the numbers that they get. I would much prefer to try to make habitsan integral part of activities in seminar than to give these endless homework sets.

We have perfected the mechanics of giving problems, midterm and final, and spending waytoo much time and e!ort on it. I would be happy to get rid of it all. This course shouldbe about inspiring, not about evaluating.

I think this semester we finally got everything so well organized and prepared that thestudents had nothing to complain about.. a major achievement, yet the students were notthrilled by the course overall. I don’t think that continuing to make small improvementswill ever make this a favorite class. We will have to change it drastically.

Lectures.. maybe we could do 13 di!erent topics.. and only recruit the best and mostinspiring lecturers from Columbia and other places. Make seminars more geared towardscience and society.. we could do bigger things that go over several seminars and evaluatestudents on their participation in seminar only.

we should not give up, but I think we should change. I do value student opinion. This year

5

we got many thoughtful remarks in the evaluations on how this course could be improved.Several students remarked that we were trying to do something very di!cult. That’sprobably true. In a sense I think it is pretty amazing how many good things have beenput in place, now we just need to make it even better.

Prof. Peter Eisenberger (DEES)

Teaching FOS for three years has been a great learning experience for me both as ascientist and as a teacher. First and foremost it is clear FOS is providing for our Columbiaundergraduates a previously lacking and greatly needed scientific literacy component intheir education. So in my opinion FOS is essential for Columbia and the only issue shouldbe how it can be improved and whether we should not require a two semester version of itfor each student. I will not discuss the second issue here other than to assert that the needfor scientific literacy is great and it deserves more time than it is currently being givenwithin the Columbia core curriculum.

I have to admit at being very surprised, even shocked, at how desperately lacking all toomany entering Columbia students are in the basic skills to even analyze scientific results yetalone explain anything using its principles. This raises a very important issue that we needto clarify: What is the primary educational objective of FOS? Are we trying to increasethe interest of students in science in which case increasing numbers of science majors wouldbe a useful metric for success? Are we trying to provide basic scientific literacy skills inwhich case the metric might be the ability for our students to be an informed citizen thatis able to evaluate the claims of di"ering views,(e.g., Is global warming a threat or not?)and form an independent view themselves based upon knowledge rather than their biases?In FOS there is a large gap between the scientifically literate (less than 1/3) to which thefirst objective makes sense and the larger (more than 2/3) essentially scientifically illiterategroup for which increasing scientific literacy is the only realistic objective to have. It isvery di!cult if not impossible for one course to meet both objectives simultaneously. Anexample of the problem is the di!culty many students have to understand the di"erencebetween causality and correlations and therefore the conclusions one can come to from newinformation.

When I was at Princeton we faced a similar challenge with the same frustrations on boththe faculty and students as in FOS when one attempted to provide one format to a verylarge and diverse class in terms of their scientific capabilities. We decided to divide thecourse into two groups with di"ering levels of depth on the same subjects which improvedthe students evaluations and the faculties satisfaction with the course.

I am aware that having two tracts goes against the tradition of the Core but unless weaddress the consequences of the great diversity in the capabilities of the class we will be veryconstrained in the progress we can make and the frustrations will persist. I believe that thedemand for scientific literacy in modern society is growing and the social consequences offailing to provide it are becoming increasingly serious. One could justify this perspectivein many ways but I will assume for this comment that there is a broad consensus about

6

it. Thus I conclude scientific literacy is an essential need for our students and consistentwith the general objectives and traditions of the Core curriculum. So I strongly encouragethat we focus on the scientific literacy objective but still enable the scientifically literateto have a challenging learning experience. Besides the two curricular approach one mightconsider separating the sections of FOS into those with scientific literacy and those whoneed the skill to be strengthened. One could have a common lecture but the class work andassignments could di!er. Alternatively one might consider focusing on scientific literacy inmixed sections but providing some independent projects that challenged the scientificallyliterate student and could stimulate interest for them in a given area of science.

Thus in my opinion there is a great need for the course and that we need to be careful andnot confuse the reasons for di"culties it has experienced. In my view those di"culties willpersist until we find a way to address the great gap that exists in the scientific literacy ofour students, which of course is itself a clear indication for the critical need for the FOScourse to be required for all undergraduates. I would be remiss if I did not comment on thegreat debt we owe Darcy and David for their pioneering and arduous e!orts in developingthis course. I am glad to contribute in a small way to this important e!ort.

Prof. Damon Chaky (former Science Fellow, now on the faculty at the Pratt Institute)

I am proud to say that Frontiers has had a profound e!ect on me both as an educator andas a researcher. As an Assistant Professor at another institution, I am teaching a courseI which have directly modeled on Frontiers, and two others which have been inspired bycomponents of it. The fluency which I gained through Frontiers on subjects outside myown field has opened up new research opportunities that allow me to break new ground inmy discipline and in my institution.

While Columbia students have a basic familiarity with science from their high school sciencecourses – and for some students, a more thorough grounding from Advanced Placementcourses – this education has not included exposure to the most compelling ideas at theforefront of science today. The Frontiers unit on Nanotechnology, for example, presentedeven the most science-inclined students with ideas not covered in a high school classroom.The fact that these ideas were presented in a compelling way by a Nobel laureate and ateam of active postdoctoral researchers is something that only Columbia can o!er to aclass of freshman students. Several students made the connection that Frontiers topicswould often receive coverage in the New York Times or other media; FoS provided thegrounding necessary to fully engage in these topics of our 21st century existence.

Although my own background is environmental chemistry – a discipline most aligned withthe Climate Change material in the course – my favorite students in Frontiers were oftenat Columbia for study in the fine arts I believe that Frontiers provided these students withan opportunity to discover that many of the concepts motivating state-of-the-art scientificresearch are surprisingly understandable, if not inherently interesting. Undergraduateswho were “not that into science” had meaningful discussion on the potential of nanotech,the insights provided by fMRI study of the living brain, and the confidence of climate

7

change predictions. Even for the science majors, the exposure to the big questions – andthe process of how we address them – was largely new.

While the content of Frontiers was often fascinating, what truly sets Frontiers apart frommost non-major undergraduate science courses was the emphasis on science as a ”pro-cess” far more nuanced than the stepwise ”Scientific Method” rote-learned in high school.Frontiers helped illustrate the real complicated, big-issue research, where well-justified as-sumptions and an understanding of the limits of data are necessary, and it did so withreal-world, ripped-from-the-headlines examples. For many students – science majors in-cluded – I believe that Frontiers was the first time that they were forced to consider these“Scientific Habits” which are so crucial to research and general scientific understandingof some of the more complicated science issues facing society today. Our science majorsleave Frontiers with a better understanding of commonalities with other disciplines, a morethorough understanding of the power (and limits) of quantitative arguments, and examplesof what a scientist can possibly achieve – at Columbia and in the larger world.

A common feeling among the faculty of the Frontiers program – first-year postdocs andNobel laureates alike – was that participating in the course opened our eyes to incredi-ble research in other scientific disciplines. All of us became more fluent in the researchquestions motivating other faculty, research groups, and departments at Columbia. Theexistence of Frontiers has strengthened the sciences at Columbia by mere virtue of forcingdiverse faculty to share ideas for a common educational purpose.

In two years of teaching Frontiers, I wrote close to a dozen letters of recommendationfor students applying for internships, pre-med studies and law school admission. Thisis a testament to the quality of the course: To perhaps a greater extent than other largefreshman-level science courses, students in Frontiers are expected to reason – and to defendtheir reasoning in a public forum. Students who have asked a Frontiers instructor to providea letter of recommendation for law school recognize the value of this educational model.Although I am an earth scientist, I’ve written two letters on behalf of students going intobiology. This is personally flattering – I interpret this as evidence that I was able todemonstrate my genuine enthusiasm for another field just as strongly as for my own –but also points to the fact that students recognize that science disciplines really do havecommonalities. (An insight that may have been lost by senior faculty not involved in thecourse).

The course itself benefits from the participation of all students, with all of their diverseperspectives, in seminars. The largest science issues of today are broad by nature, andrequire multiple perspectives to help identify the most promising avenues of research.The study of climate change, for example, benefits from the perspectives of atmosphericchemists, oceanographers, geologists, biologists, ecologists, physicists, and astronomers (atthe very least). Furthermore, science such as this is carried out in a public forum, and hassocietal implications. Frontiers provides the writing majors, the economists, the dancers –as well as the quantum physics majors – to find their own voice and join the discussion.

I strongly believe that FoS serves a valuable role at Columbia and in the Core Curriculum,

8

specifically. With continued support from the administration, the course will continue toimprove and evolve. In its current incarnation, however, Frontiers presents topics whichresonate with the imagination and demand critical thinking. If the program continues toattract participation of quality faculty with the ability to reach majors and non-majorsalike, the course will become a touchstone for a Columbia education. I feel fortunateto have been associated with Frontiers in its introductory years, and look forward to itscontinuing development within Columbia’s Core Curriculum.

Prof. Sidney Hemming (DEES)

Frontiers of Science is a great concept. Although my self esteem has su!ered from theevaluations, I would continue to participate in the course in the future. I am not sure howto fix the negative reactions as it would be di"cult to imagine more energy going towardsthe goal of excellence in instruction.

Prof. Kathryn Johnston (Astronomy)

Frankly, my feelings about Frontiers are mixed.

Personally, I relished the opportunity to learn more about frontiers in other science fields,and to get to know some of my colleagues in other departments. I think this type of courseshould have a not-inconsequential impact on the cohesiveness of the science departmentsacross Columbia

Professionally, I was challenged to do things I have never done before (lecture in front of 500students, and lead discussions of 20 students) - which was both exciting and overwhelming.Again, the support of colleagues across the departments to help develop the material madethe experience unique and particularly useful for my growth as a teacher.

For these reasons alone - I am already signed up to teach Frontiers again.

The “mixed” part comes from not really being certain that I made a di!erence to thestudents, that I fulfilled the aims of the course in: (i) getting the students comfortablewith quantitative reasoning; and (ii) inspiring them to take more science courses. I amhoping that I will get better at this with practice.

Prof. Frits Paerels (Astronomy)

Yes, the course should stay. I think the basic premise: contemporary science as it isbeing discovered, so to say, taught by the people who are doing it, is brilliant. I amprepared to argue with anyone who thinks it should be based on famous science fromthe past, either through reading of famous works or through study of examples (i.e., thelist of counterarguments is too long to insert here). I also like the peripatetic format ofthe seminars, and the possibility of conducting experiments. Paper studies and worked

9

examples worked much less e!ectively, in my experience. As far as reading papers fromthe ’real’ literature is concerned, I think that doesn’t work either; but I suspect it wouldwork very well if based on the Concept Mapping idea.

This has been the hardest class to teach, so far, solely for the reason that it turns out tobe di"cult to engage 20 (40) students. Every time, and in nearly all groups, a certainfatigue appears to be setting in after a few weeks of genuine enthusiasm. This could beme; but I think this would improve a lot if the focus of the class is kept more strictly on asmaller set of topics and ideas. Most objections I got all seem to be related to a perceived’shallowness’ of the class.

Prof. Darcy Kelley (Biological Sciences)

As a University, we must provide all of our students with the intellectual tools that theyneed to understand how we learn about the natural world. Science is hard both to do andto teach but to abrogate this responsibility would be a wretched failure.

Frontiers has been developed by a team of talented Columbia scientists who are dedicatedto making this di"cult enterprise work. The course is an important new approach forhigher education and has attracted strong interest from our peer institutions. I intend tocontribute to Frontiers as long as I am at Columbia. The creation of Frontiers of Scienceand the research contributions of my laboratory are the most important achievements ofmy academic life.

Prof. Horst Stormer (Physics)

I believe Frontiers of Science is the most important class I am teaching. At the freshmenlevel we can do so many things right and so many things wrong. I believe we are moreon the right than on the wrong side. There certainly is no lack of critical self-inspectionamong the group, with the goal of becoming better yet.

Prof. Steve Goldstein (DEES)

I think it is an important course that gives Columbia students a proper perspective onscience (if not an appreciation of science) that will do them well in the future technologicalworld they will have to live in. Many don’t realize it, but they are very lucky. Yes, I wouldbe willing to be involved again in the future.

Prof. Don Melnick (E3B)

For the students, Frontiers is an experience beyond what any other first-year students getat any peer institution. That is, access to the most senior scientists in the University,

10

subjects at the cutting edge of basic science and its application to real life, and a chanceto really understand science as a “way of knowing,” rather than a list of facts.

For the faculty, Frontiers has developed into an extraordinary scientific community withall of the internal commitments, relationships and information exchange that exist inany community. What makes it unique is that it is comprised of people from a culture,academic science, that rewards a monastic existence of specialization, narrowness of focus,and little regard for communication outside one’s specialty. That a group of scientists frompost-doctoral teaching fellows, who are risking a lot to be a part of this community, tosenior faculty, who should be too rigid, too cranky, and too tired to try something new,should form in this way, spend the hours they do together on a weekly basis, and delightin learning each other’s science is the kind of workplace miracle we should all experienceonce in our careers.

Two additional comments:

We should be proud of what we’ve done - it is unique, it is timely, and it is a service tothe students who attend the College.

If I were to change anything, I would make Frontiers a year long and double the numberof lectures we each give. In that way we would preserve the dynamic of the course, buto!er more substance in each area of inquiry and continuity in each semester.

Having said this, It would be my pleasure to continue to teach in this course in its currentform.

Conclusions

These remarks summarize the assessment of Frontiers of Science by those who have beenteaching in the course for the last four years. They suggest strong support among thefaculty most intimately involved with Frontiers for its continued inclusion in the ColumbiaCore Curriculum. Most recognize the need for improvement...and are committed to work-ing toward that end.

Attribution: Faculty comments were solicited and the report was compiled by thissemester’s course Director, Prof. David J. Helfand, and was edited and approved bythe two previous course Directors, Profs. Darcy Kelley and Don Hood.

11

Budget The current budget for Frontiers of Science includes operating expenses (e.g., rental of the Teacher's College Auditorium, instructional materials), salary support for the Columbia Science Fellows and staff support from the Center for the Core Curriculum, as well as funds to recruit new Columbia Science Fellows. At present, the funding for these components resides in Columbia College. Salary support for senior faculty participants resides in the Arts and Sciences, as is the case for all other Columbia faculty, junior or senior. The Columbia Science Fellows salaries constitute the major portion of expenses associated with Frontiers of Science. There are currently 12 Fellows with salaries in the range of 50k annually (not including fringe benefits). The Fellows positions were originally conceived of as teaching post-docs, a hybrid post-doctoral researcher/lecturer position. Until Fall 2011, each Fellow's annual salary was supported at 70% from Columbia College and 30% from research funds. However, a review by the Provost's office based on the teaching efforts of the Fellows (4 seminars annually), resulted in the recommendation that the position be shifted to "Lecturer-in-discipline". Affirmative action requirements mandated that searches for Fellows be conducted without explicit identification of a specific faculty research mentor and this in turn required 100% support of the Fellow for the initial year of appointment. By the end of Year 1 (end of June) each Fellow must identify a research mentor and a source of support for the 30% annual salary in years two and three. Detailed Buget information may be found in the Appendix. Other funding for Frontiers of Science The pilot course for Frontiers of Science (Fall 2003) was supported by funding from the Provost's Academic Quality Find: $25,000 for the Miller Theater lectures and ~$200,000 for the Columbia Science Fellows, the use of the SIA auditorium and other costs. The Course Directors provided all administrative support except for registration. About 10 applications and inquiries have been submitted since 2003 for additional Frontiers funding resulting in two gifts from individual donors, two awards from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and funding from the Dreyfus and Arthur Vining Davis Foundations. Most of this funding has been used to support the 30% salary portion of Columbia Science Fellows, which has turned out to be the most difficult part of the funding equation. The difficulty arises from several sources. The first is that some scientific research areas covered in Frontiers receive relatively little extramural funding to cover post-doctoral research. The second is that, especially in the first year, Fellows typically have very little time to devote to research, creating a conflict with research sponsors. Finally, the research interests of Fellows that are superb candidates for the position may not match to a Columbia faculty member, or that faculty member may not have funding for that particular project. This set of issues has been partly alleviated by the current provision of 100% salary for new Fellows. Website Frontiers of Science received funding to create its website, Frontiers of Science Online, from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. This site provides an entire semester's worth of content including lectures, exams, instructor guides, seminar activities and readings to educators or anyone; the site is free and freely available. While we do not explicitly track users, the website appears to have been influential in the development of Frontiers-like courses at other colleges and universities. Perhaps even more influential has been the radiation of former Frontiers of Science Fellows to academic posts throughout the United States and abroad (See Columbia Science Fellows, Appendix).

Appendix 3

Successful Transitionsto College Through

First-Year Programs

SUMMER 2006 VOL. 8, NO. 3

Emerging trends and key debates in undergraduate education

A publication of the Association of American Colleges and UniversitiesA publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities

Successful Transitionsto College Through

First-Year Programs

TThe usual approach to undergraduate science educa-

tion is to segregate “science” from “non-science” stu-

dents. Actual and potential science majors are pushed

into departmental programs to fulfill major require-

ments; non-science students make do with distribution

requirements. Recently, however, science educators

have envisaged courses that transcend traditional disci-

plinary boundaries. For example, the National

Research Council’s report Bio2010 (2003) imagines “a

truly interdisciplinary course used as an introductory

first-year seminar with relatively few details and no

prerequisites.” This course is designed to “introduce

students to many disciplines in their first year, and to

hold the interest of first-year students who are taking

disciplinary prerequisites.” Similarly, the National

Research Council’s 1999 Transforming Undergraduate

Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and

Technology promotes introductory courses that explore

fundamental and unifying concepts and emphasize

evolving processes of scientific thought and inquiry.

Most students (“science” and “non-science” alike)

enter college having written essays and poems, solved

equations, and analyzed historical issues. Very few have

actually planned, carried out, and analyzed an actual

scientific experiment, in part because what scientists

really do is not included in most secondary school cur-

ricula. Students view science as a collage of facts to be

regurgitated on demand. In reality, however, science is

a way of thinking about and making sense of the world.

Real science is not what is known but what is to be

known. In addition, while the push to interdisciplinary

science courses is usually focused on students already

within a science trajectory, This perspective is equally

important for new students who do not see themselves

as connected to science. Frontiers of Science—

Columbia’s new core curriculum science course—is

designed to address both of these issues.

The Challenges of Connecting All Students

to Science

Founded in 1754 as King’s College, Columbia College

is an undergraduate liberal arts college of Columbia

University. In 1919, the college began the development

of a set of courses that introduces students to essential

ideas of music, art, literature, philosophy, and political

thought. To foster active intellectual engagement,

courses in the core curriculum are taught as small sem-

inars beginning in the first year. As of 2003, the core

(specific courses taken by all students) included

Contemporary Civilization, Literature Humanities, Art

Humanities, Music Humanities, and University

Writing. The core curriculum is the hallmark of a

Columbia College education.

From the inception of the core, the omission of a

science course in the curriculum evoked comment. In

1933, Herbert Hawkes, then dean of the college,

Frontiers of Science and the CoreCurriculum of Columbia College

By Darcy Kelley, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor of Biological Sciences, codirector of Frontiersof Science, Columbia University

14 AAC&U Summer 2006 peerReview

Summer 2006 peerReview AAC&U 15

stated, “Ever since the course in

Contemporary Civilization was offered

fourteen years ago, the perennial question

of the relation of the sciences to this kind

of course has been discussed.” It took

close to ninety years, however, for those

debates to bear fruit. Frontiers of Science

entered the core curriculum as a five-year

experiment in fall 2004.

Why did it take so long? Dean Hawkes

outlined several goals for a core science

course in the 1933 annual report: “Meeting

the need of all students for a fund of

knowledge and a set of intellectual tools

that would be applicable in all of their

thinking and that would better them as

persons” (58). Faculty fights over the new

science course erupted right away.

Content was a major issue:

What constitutes a real core

of knowledge in the sci-

ences? Which areas should

be included? What about

mathematics? Should “sci-

ence” students be educated

together with “non-science” students?

Since agreement on content could not be

reached, the faculty put together a roster

of four courses, half from the physical sci-

ences and half from the life sciences. All

were intended for non-science students,

none were required, and all courses

abruptly ended in 1941 as the war began.

The dormant issue of science in the

core arose again after the war ended. From

discussions, it became clear to then-

College Dean Harry Carman that even

though the course would be approved,

most of the science faculty strongly

opposed it and, since they would be

responsible, the original vision could not

work. The recommendation reverted to a

version—remarkably similar to the 1930s

sequence—to be offered at “the earliest

opportunity”; that opportunity never arose

(127). The science requirement eventually

returned to a distributional form: two sci-

ence courses in one department (for

depth) and one in another (for breadth).

Since that time, Columbia’s small, distin-

guished science departments have focused

on teaching large service courses and

smaller courses to their own majors. Many

departments did not even attempt to

mount a third, stand-alone course that

could fulfill the distribution requirement.

Breaking the Science Pyramid

If there is any place where adding science

to a general education requirement

should be feasible, it is Columbia, home

of the much-vaunted core curriculum.

Why was science left out? Why was (and

is) teaching a broad course in science so

hard? One factor was the general consen-

sus among the faculty about what a proper

science education should be, a consensus

adopted and reinforced by the profes-

sional schools, particularly medical

schools. This consensus has been most

vividly described by Princeton University

President Shirley Tilghman’s metaphor

comparing traditional training in science

to a pyramid. In this model, students must

complete a foundation of introductory

science courses before they can progress

to more specialized courses and more

engaging scientific questions.

Let’s say, for example, that a student

is interested in the way the brain han-

dles language. What must she do to take

a course on that subject? If she pursues

her interest via a biology perspective,

she must first take a year of chemistry,

then a year of introductory biology, an

introductory sequence in neuroscience,

and then, finally, she is allowed to enroll

in the course that interested

her in the first place.

However, that first year of

chemistry often discourages

all but the most determined,

which means our hypotheti-

cal student might never make

it to her original goal.

Suppose that we could break the

pyramid. Suppose that it were possible to

present the neurobiology of language in a

rigorous and insightful way along with

other topics at the frontiers of science:

global climate change, the origins of the

universe, quantum mechanics, molecular

motors. This attempt to “break the pyra-

mid” is a defining characteristic of

Frontiers of Science. It is at the heart of

faculty excitement about the course, but it

is also the aspect of the course that arouses

the strongest opposition from members of

the science faculty.

Steeped in the guild-like tradition of

the sequence of courses required to

become a physicist or a chemist or a biolo-

gist, many science faculty members think

that it is impossible to be both interesting

and rigorous in presenting difficult subjects

to entering students. Further, many view

the prospect of teaching outside of their

own disciplines (having a biologist teach

quantum mechanics or an astronomer

teach neuroscience) as either pointless or

extraordinarily difficult from the point of

view of faculty expertise. As a scientist

advances in training, his or her expertise

tends to become narrower and narrower.

For example, many astronomers, though

well versed in mathematics and physics,

have not taken a biology course since high

school.

What has changed recently is the

acceptance of the idea that, to be opti-

mally effective, scientists must acquire

cross-disciplinary skills. Nanoscience, the

realm of 10-9 m (which is on the scale of

atomic diameters), is a superb example of

a cross-disciplinary forum: at this scale,

physics, biology, and chemistry meet and

scientific interactions can produce truly

novel insights. Most scientists would agree

on the importance of educating their

replacements; such an education will have

to be cross-disciplinary. Students at

Columbia can begin to be trained that

way through Frontiers of Science. This

kind of scientific collaboration, moreover,

can be tremendous fun for the faculty,

and teaching Frontiers provides a built-in

collaborative forum for some of

Columbia’s best scientists.

A second impetus for the creation of

Frontiers was provided by the realization

that all students should learn about the

analytical tools that scientists use. We all

need the ability to critically examine scien-

tific evidence if we are to make wise

choices about today’s most pressing

issues—climate change, stem cells, nuclear

technology, transplants—and the problems

that we cannot now imagine but that we

will have to solve in the future. This set of

tools is outlined in Frontiers codirector

David Helfand’s Web-based text, Scientific

Habits of Mind. This text provides a unify-

ing theme across the physical sciences and

life sciences components of the course.

The students meet in seminars to use these

analytical skills to tackle scientific problems

from the current literature. Their summer

reading list before matriculation now

includes Bill Bryson’s A Short History of

Nearly Everything.

The high school curriculum typically

focuses on the recognized pillars of science:

biology, chemistry, physics and mathemat-

ics. The college curriculum follows these

precepts for science students by requiring

courses in each discipline for its majors.

Modern science, however, is not limited to

these subjects and is now strongly cross-dis-

ciplinary. Understanding this synergistic

approach is as important for students who

pursue majors outside of science as it is for

the budding acolytes. By introducing stu-

dents to different areas of science together

with the analytical tools used by all disci-

plines, Frontiers of Science deals head-on

with the real challenges of understanding

science today. Students gain an appreciation

of areas outside of the traditional curricu-

lum (earth sciences, neuroscience) as well

as the way in which knowledge from one

desicipline can inspire another.

A running joke in Frontiers is that we

must have a New York Times spy; it is

uncanny how the paper’s weekly Science

Times section tracks Frontiers topics and

themes. This coincidence demonstrates that

it is possible to enrich faculty members’

interdisciplinary knowledge while teaching

cutting-edge science to eighteen- and nine-

teen-year-olds. We acknowledge that the

caution of generations of Columbia science

faculty was well placed: teaching Frontiers

is probably the biggest educational chal-

lenge that any faculty member has ever

faced. A seminar that includes an Intel sci-

ence winner and a student who is afraid of

math is difficult to get right; it is worth

attempting, though, and is tremendous fun. !

Editor’s Note—This article is based on a

plenary presentation given at the pre-con-

ference symposium at the 2006 AAC&U

annual meeting.

References

Columbia University. 1933. Annual report of thepresident and treasurer to the trustees,June 30, 1933. New York: ColumbiaUniversity.

——. 1946. A college program in action. NewYork: Columbia University.

National Research Council. 2003. BIO2010:Transforming undergraduate education forfuture research biologists. Washington,DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. 1999. Transformingundergraduate education in science, math-ematics, engineering, and technology.Washington, DC: National AcademiesPress.

16 AAC&U Summer 2006 peerReview

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCESAMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCES

SCIE

NC

E A

ND

TH

E E

DU

CAT

ED

AM

ER

ICA

N A

ME

RIC

AN

AC

AD

EM

Y OF A

RT

S & SC

IEN

CE

S

Edited by Jerrold Meinwald and John G. Hildebrand

Science and the Educated American: A Core Component of Liberal Education

SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN218

THE PROBLEM

Practicing scientists have strong views about what constitutes good preparationin a particular discipline. While these views shift as science evolves, every mo-lecular biologist would agree that a student needs to understand the geneticcode and the way in which proteins are assembled, and every neuroscientistwould agree that a student needs to understand how an action potential isgenerated and how information is transmitted at the synapse. When it comesto preparing science majors outside their particular scientific discipline, we findfew areas of agreement; even more contentious is what constitutes scienceeducation for non-science majors.

For the future parent, social worker, businessperson, senator, poet, oreconomist, what should completion of a science requirement confer? Is it im-portant to know facts (the distance to the sun) or to be able to assess whetherthe facts averred (in the media, on the Internet) are plausible? Should all col-lege graduates be expected to be able to read and understand a scientific arti-cle (Watson and Crick’sNature paper on the structure of DNA) as they areexpected to read a piece of literature (Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick)? That is,should they be able to explain the question the paper addresses, how the au-thors address the question, as well as explain what the findings mean?

I believe that the most important skill a science requirement can developis the capacity for critical analysis. In episode twelve of the seventh season ofWest Wing, a runaway nuclear reactor in California is producing radioactive gasthat has to be pumped into a building inadequate for containment. The gas isvented, and the reading just above the smokestack is at first 569 millirems; itthen “stabilizes” (two readings) at 561 millirems. The “safe” level of exposureis 500 millirems, so the American people are informed of the exact levels re-

Science for All in a Core Curriculum: Frontiers of Scienceat Columbia University

Darcy B. Kelley

CHAPTER 10

219SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM

corded. Millions take to the highways. Is this a plausible scenario? Why is 500millirems considered safe and anything greater not safe? What does exposuremean? How great is the risk that the building will explode (said to occur at 50psi)? As I watch this episode, I think, “If I were there, should I stay home orset sail? Which way will the Santa Ana winds blow?”

Life has a way of turning hypotheticals into actuals. Your mother has abreast lump; it is biopsied and found to be estrogen-receptor negative. Herdoctor prescribes a drug that antagonizes the effects of that hormone. Shouldyou look for a new doctor? The effects of exercise and eating a diet rich invegetables, fruit, and fish are independently beneficial for warding off Alz-heimer’s disease. Does this mean you should choose one strategy or adopt both?What is the probability of a meteor hitting Earth in your lifetime? If one wereto hit, where should you be? The ability to analyze data and understand scien-tific knowledge is essential for an informed citizenry and thus for effectivegovernment. How can we achieve this goal within the context of a universityeducation?

AN APPROACH

In 2001, a group of Columbia University faculty members began to develop aone-semester course, Frontiers of Science, that is now taken by every enteringColumbia College student. The immediate impetus for developing the coursewas a survey, undertaken by the University’s Committee on Science Instruction,of the courses students were choosing to satisfy the University’s three-coursescience requirement. The survey found, for example, that although more thanfive hundred entering students each year expressed some interest in preparingfor a career in medicine, only seventy to eighty graduated having fulfilled thenecessary requirements. For the rest, the typical science experience consistedof one introductory chemistry course and a year of calculus. Thus, the major-ity received a science education that did not even remotely expose them to thedriving forces of modern science, such as exciting new discoveries about theway the physical universe and biological worlds work and interact.

The survey found that even for science majors the kind of training typical-ly offered within a given department bore little resemblance to the multidisci-plinary flavor of current research. The guild-like mentality of science trainingpresumes that students need to reach the top of the disciplinary pyramid be-fore they can grapple with anything “real.” To ascend the pyramid, they mustmaster a long series of preparatory courses. Because only a handful of majorsever reach the top, only a small percentage of students get to experience howscience is really done in a given field and what problems the field is currentlyinvestigating. What if we could break the pyramid for students both with andwithout a professed interest in science? Introducing science across disciplinesat the level at which it is actually practiced could set the nascent scientist onan interdisciplinary trajectory and bring the excitement of science to students

SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN220

whose major impression is that it involves simply memorizing a great manyfacts and equations.

An introductory, multidisciplinary science course for all students is usu-ally considered impossible. That Frontiers of Science was launched in its cur-rent form is largely attributable to an existing curricular structure at ColumbiaCollege called the Core Curriculum, a series of seminars aimed at critical eval-uation of important ideas in philosophy, literature, society, art, and music. Allentering students take the Core: the poet takes Literature Humanities, theconcert pianist Music Humanities, the accomplished historian ContemporaryCivilization, the nascent cosmologist Frontiers of Science. The Core providesthe required prescription for Frontiers: the early stages of a university educa-tion should include a common learning experience for a cohort of studentswith wildly different preparations, gifts, and interests.

WHAT IS FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE?

Like other elements of the Core Curriculum, Frontiers of Science is taught insmall seminars of twenty-two students. However, Frontiers of Science is mul-tidisciplinary, with half the subject matter taken from the physical sciences andhalf from the life sciences. Thus, a number of faculty members are involved inteaching Frontiers over the course of the semester. Which sciences are taught—from among physics, chemistry, astronomy, earth science, molecular andevolutionary biology, biodiversity, and neuroscience—changes from semesterto semester and from year to year depending on the faculty involved. In addi-tion to teaching science and non-science majors together, Frontiers faces thechallenge of faculty teaching across disciplines; a cosmologist might teachabout molecular evolution.

Each unit of Frontiers of Science runs for three weeks; in addition to week-ly seminars, a senior faculty member presents a lecture series on exciting dis-coveries in a particular field. No attempt is made to develop a single themeacross the semester. The analytical skills that cut across disciplines are present-ed in the online text, Scientific Habits of Mind (http://www.fos-online.org/habitsofmind/index.html). Seminar sections are led by either a senior facultymember or a Columbia Science Fellow, a combined lecturer/postdoctoralposition established specifically to meet the teaching needs of Frontiers of Sci-ence. The development of the curriculum is a joint faculty effort spearheadedby the Science Fellows.

THE CHALLENGES OF FRONTIERS: TEACHING AND LEARNING

Frontiers of Science comprises twenty-eight seminar sections taught to 550students each semester by (usually) sixteen members of the faculty. A coursedirector and an assistant director of the Center for the Core Curriculum man-

221SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM

age the logistics and organizational challenges. Teaching Frontiers of Sciencemeans mastering current research in at least three disciplines beyond a facultymember’s area of expertise. For example, most astronomers have not had sig-nificant exposure to biology since high school, and many neuroscientists havenever taken a geology course. In the tradition of the Core Curriculum, Colum-bia does not segregate science majors from non-science majors within Frontiersof Science. Teaching a small seminar with a diverse group of students (chemists-,poets-, and economists-to-be) is a significant challenge. The future chemist ischomping at the bit to get into preparative chemistry, and the future poet thinksshe has escaped science by choosing Columbia. The Core Curriculum, however,mandates as an educational philosophy that entering students have a commonexperience in critical analysis.

The two cultures of C. P. Snow are forged in kindergarten. That they areso evident in college students is thus no surprise. Frontiers of Science is taughtfrom the perspective of the ways in which scientists carry out their explora-tions, experiments, observations, and mathematical models; many studentsare stunned to discover that the memorization skills they so carefully masteredin high school—skills that were instrumental in their gaining admission toColumbia—do not serve them in the course. Frontiers of Science emphasizesanalysis and problem-solving. Many units rely on mathematical skills (algebraand statistics), and most students are not used to viewing math as a tool tosolve problems rather than as a self-contained subject matter. While university-level scientific research is increasingly multidisciplinary, few high school coursesreflect this change. Students feel they have barely come to terms with onetopic (for example, volcanoes) before they must switch to another (for exam-ple, the brain). Aspiring astronomers find three lectures too brief an introduc-tion to the most important subject on the planet, and the assignments maynot seem challenging enough—while their classmates may not even knowwhere to begin. Students do not enter college with well-honed skills in grouplearning, and the day when their classmate from the Frontiers seminar is presi-dent of the United States and is responsible for deciding whether to vent thatcontainment building described above seems impossibly distant.

COLUMBIA FACULTY AND CORE COURSES IN SCIENCE

The Columbia science faculty began discussing a general science course inparallel with discussions about Contemporary Civilization, the first CoreCurriculum course, which was launched in 1919. The motivation then forestablishing a core science course was similar to the motivation that drove thedevelopment of Frontiers of Science beginning in 2001, but the courses thateventually were launched in 1934 bear little resemblance to Frontiers. Thosecourses, Science A (physics and chemistry) and Science B (geology and biol-ogy), were to be taken only by non-science students and could not serve as

SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN222

prerequisites for any “real” courses in any science department. They were ter-minated at the outbreak of war in 1941, and although we do not have courseevaluations for those seven years, the experience must have been unsatisfactory.By 1945, with the Core Curriculum well under way, a general science coursewas again under discussion, but this time the goal was to create a course thatwould include all students. The idea was

that a specially constructed and well-integrated two-yearcourse in the natural sciences be a required course for allstudents who are candidates for a degree from ColumbiaCollege, quite irrespective of whether such students plan toenter one of the scientific professions or not . . . [and] thatsuch a course be staffed by men who are prepared to givecompetent instruction in all of it, and not simply in somefragmentary portion of it.1

In her May 2006 address to the Columbia College graduating class, DeanKathryn Yatrakis noted:

The 1945 Committee was in fact quite emphatic about thisgeneral science course being required of all students sayingthat if it were to restrict the course to non-science students,it would amount to lowering the general standard of inter-est, enthusiasm, and inquisitiveness, and hence to excludethose who would supply the chief stimulus to both teachersand students.

The new attempt apparently had general support from the faculty as awhole but foundered on the antipathy of the science faculty. The resulting1946 report amounted to a recommendation for the reinstatement of ScienceA and Science B when the financial climate permitted. Apparently the climatedid not sufficiently improve between 1946 and 1983, the year in which a fac-ulty committee again recommended a single course for all students. The see-saw continued, however: in 1990 another faculty committee recommendedagainst a single science course but did recommend the creation of a standingCommittee on Science Instruction (COSI). This committee, in the end, pro-vided the impetus for Frontiers of Science.

The university administration (especially the provost and the dean of thecollege) was from the outset highly supportive of change. A working groupadopted the 1983 recommendation, its form was shaped by the members ofCOSI, and the future directors went forth to sell the idea, first to the sciencefaculties and then to the faculties as a whole. As in 1945, the science facultywas skeptical: one distinguished senior chemist even informed the vice presi-

1. Columbia College Committee on Plans, A College Program in Action: A Review of WorkingPrinciples at Columbia College (New York: Columbia University Press, 1946), 127.

223SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM

dent for arts and sciences that the course would be created “over my deadbody.” While such a high level of opposition was unusual, the concerns voicedby members of the science faculty were thoughtful and well founded. Butfrom their meetings with the science departments, the course directors usuallyemerged, like the Pied Piper of Hamlin, trailing at least one enthusiastic facultymember, typically a scientist of extreme distinction with a passion for convey-ing the beauty and power of science to the public. This initial group recruitedanother group of more junior faculty members (the Columbia Science Fellows),and after a pilot semester in Fall 2003, Frontiers of Science appeared as a five-year experiment in the Core Curriculum in 2004, an experiment renewed foran additional five years in Spring 2009. The chemistry department now feelsthat “Chemistry is too important not to be in Frontiers and Frontiers is tooimportant not to include Chemistry,” as James Valenti, director of undergrad-uate studies and former chair of the Department of Chemistry, put it.

Why the seesaw? What conditions in 1945, 1983, and 2001 made a singlecourse seem important enough to be a possibility, and what in 1933, 1946,and 1990 engendered such grave reservations? The main factor was probablyleadership, from both faculty committees and the university administration.However, world events may well have played a role in faculty opinions. In the1940s, the atomic bomb and the nuclear arms race focused American attentionon the power of science, how it should be harnessed, and how it must be con-strained. At the millennium, a widespread appreciation of a new threat—globalwarming—emerged. Determining the causes and consequences of warmingrequires an extraordinary scientific effort to understand and political will to act;that will must be an informed one. Finally, there is money. In 1933 and 1941,funds for education (and all else) were in short supply because of, respectively,the Great Depression and World War II. Dreams of inclusive education, nomatter how important, were a luxury. In the expansive economy of the early2000s, the financial climate might have been relaxed enough for universityleaders to consider seriously the ambitious goals of Frontiers of Science.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND FRONTIERS

A beginning science faculty member at a typical R1 university is expected todevelop a research program and a series of graduate and undergraduate courses.Although the new faculty member has been training for the research programfor more than ten years, he or she has no explicit preparation for developing ateaching program. “Sink or swim” is often an accurate summary of the newfaculty experience. One useful feature of Frontiers of Science is that beginningfaculty members are mentored in creating a curriculum and teaching smallseminars both by more senior faculty and by other Science Fellows. The Fellowswork in teams with other faculty members to create seminar materials for eachunit, weekly assignments, and the midterm and final examinations. The teams

SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN224

include scientists both from within the discipline of the unit and from otherdisciplines. Seminar materials include computer simulations, experimental de-sign, and data analysis—all tied to the unit and that week’s lecture. The Fellowsalso lead a weekly seminar in how one might teach that week’s seminar, goingthrough the suggested class exercises and troubleshooting issues that wereraised in the Monday lectures.

Columbia currently has eleven Science Fellows and twenty-three formerFellows. Of the latter, thirteen hold a tenure-track assistant professorship orits equivalent, five hold a non-tenure-track research position, one is a highschool science teacher, two work in industry, one in policy, and one in educa-tional consulting. Some former Fellows have launched Frontiers-like effortsat their new institutions. The network of former Fellows has great potentialas a resource for the development of new faculty. We have also prepared a web-site (Frontiers of Science Online, or FOSO) with materials (lectures, seminarguides, Scientific Habits of Mind) from four representative units in the Frontiersof Science course. The site provides opportunities for faculty outside Columbiato engage in substantive discussions of science education and to share materialsand approaches.

Frontiers of Science has also affected the educational approaches of thesenior faculty at Columbia. Twenty-six faculty members, representing all thescience departments at Columbia College, have taught the course, deliveringlectures and leading seminars. An example of the impact of Frontiers of Scienceon their teaching is the weekly lecture that serves, together with ScientificHabits of Mind, as a text for the course. The idea behind the lecture is to pre-sent a cutting-edge topic in current research in a way that is comprehensibleto any entering student. This goal means that the lecture has to have a clearroad map and no jargon. The common themes of the course, embodied inScientific Habits of Mind, are highlighted as they appear.

I give lectures in a unit on neuroscience. The third lecture in this unit ex-plores “The Evolution of Language” (http://www.fos-online.org/?q=node/390). This one lecture required more than two hundred hours to prepare, in-cluding review of any relevant papers that appeared the week before. All Fron-tiers of Science lectures are extensively rehearsed and critiqued before and afterdelivery by the Frontiers faculty members. Through this process (and by ob-serving and critiquing the lectures of other Frontiers faculty), I have learnedan enormous amount about clearly and effectively presenting information,lessons that have informed all the other courses I teach. Before my involve-ment with Frontiers of Science, I was accustomed to lecturing but found thesmall seminar format challenging. The Frontiers of Science seminar materials,seminar practice, and tutorials on how to engage students in discussion (http://www.fos-online.org/?q=taxonomy/term/62,61) were a terrific help inlearning how to engage with twenty-two students effectively and collaboratively.

At this point you may wonder why any senior faculty member wouldchoose to teach Frontiers of Science. At Columbia, no department requires its

225SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM

faculty to participate. All who teach Frontiers of Science are volunteers. Thefaculty who volunteer do so for two major reasons, I believe. The first is thatlearning about the science you never got to explore while climbing the disci-plinary pyramid is enormous fun. Using gravitational lensing to peer back intime to the origins of the universe: who knew? Those pyroclastic flows thatconsumed Pompeii: awesome! Aside from learning new things (and sharpen-ing one’s intellectual skills to be able to teach them), arguing about how toteach science with fifteen other extremely bright people from other disciplinesis also enjoyable. It is worth pointing out that I had never discussed how toteach with fellow faculty members before Frontiers started, and I expect thatI am not alone in this experience. After Frontiers was initiated, we started aperiodic brown bag luncheon across the sciences to discuss new approaches;the lunches are attended by a very large swath of the faculty from many differ-ent disciplines as well as by postdocs preparing for teaching positions.

The second major reason Columbia faculty volunteer for Frontiers of Sci-ence is the strong feeling among many of the faculty that Frontiers representsa significant opportunity to influence how our graduates will view scientificinformation and its uses in the future. Before Frontiers of Science, concernsabout Earth’s climate had led the Department of Earth and EnvironmentalSciences to propose that all students be required to take a course on the planet.This concern has translated into sturdy departmental support for Frontiers ofScience.

EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF FRONTIERS

Frontiers is still evolving as a course, and the major effort in evaluation is toimprove its effectiveness for all students. Students have difficulty determininghow to approach their assignments, they have difficulty seeing the commonthreads of scientific analysis that run through different topics, and they findthe relation between course readings and course topics opaque. These are theissues we are addressing using data from a thorough evaluation at the end ofeach semester and from meetings with students who have suggestions forcourse improvements. We are making progress, but much work remains.

The percentage of students majoring in science at Columbia has remainedsteady at approximately 20 percent for the past ten years. Within the sciences,we have seen some shift in the choice of courses taken by students to satisfythe science requirement, most notably a doubling of enrollments in earth andenvironmental sciences courses. We are currently gathering data on coursechoices and number of science courses taken before and after Frontiers by maleand female Columbia College students not majoring in a science. Finally, agroup of faculty led by David Krantz developed an instrument to surveychanges in attitudes and aspirations toward science and scientific literacy. AWeb-based questionnaire (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/

SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN226

Krantzlabweb/Ques/Scienceideas04/scienceideas.html) was administered tocoincide with the pilot version of Frontiers of Science taken by one-third ofColumbia’s entering class in Fall 2003. The questionnaire was completed inearly Fall 2003 by some of the students enrolled in the course and by somewho were not enrolled; it was completed again in Spring 2004 by a separategroup of first-year students, again including some who had enrolled in thecourse and some who had not. The questionnaire included a scale for mathe-matics confidence, a scale for science confidence and positivity, an assessmentof interest in several different careers (some of which were science-related),an assessment of important career goals (personal and social), and a test of“science literacy” adapted in part from a former National Science Foundationsurvey of scientific literacy.

Among students not enrolled in Frontiers of Science, mathematics confi-dence scores were lower in Spring 2004 than for the group tested in early Fall2003. The decrease in math confidence was much smaller for students whowere enrolled in Frontiers of Science. While this result suggests a positive ef-fect of enrollment in the course, the sample was small, and the questionnairereturn rate was substantially higher among those enrolled in the course. AtColumbia College, approximately one-third of each entering class intends tomajor in science, but at graduation the actual number is approximately 20percent. Questionnaire results suggest that substantial attrition takes place inthe first year of college: openness to several science-related careers declinedbetween early Fall 2003 and Spring 2004. Because openness to these science-related careers is related to math confidence, part of the attrition might beexplained by the decline in math confidence. If Frontiers of Science doesmaintain math confidence in addition to stimulating interest in a variety ofscientific fields, it will help Columbia College realize more of its potential inundergraduate science education.

FRONTIERS FOR ALL?

How to provide a university-level education in the sciences is a persistentquestion for colleges as they periodically review their undergraduate curricula.The relevant issues have been discussed at a number of recent conferences(for example, http://www.aacu.org/meetings/engaging_science/index.cfmand http://www.reinventioncenter.miami.edu/conference2006/proceedings.htm) and are the subject of several studies, including the one sponsored bythe American Academy of Arts and Sciences that led to this publication (seehttp://www.amacad.org/projects/sciLiberalArts.aspx). How an individualcollege or university tackles this issue will differ dramatically depending on itssize, resources, students, faculty interests, and educational philosophy. What isgenerally true, however, is that we need a wealth of approaches and educa-tional resources to meet this challenge. Providing a forum in which those ap-

227SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM

proaches and resources can be shared among us all is one of the goals ofFrontiers of Science Online. At Columbia, we hope to shape Frontiers of Sci-ence using discussions and resources from other programs and look forwardto sharing what we develop.2

2. The 1983 committee that raised the possibility of a “great ideas in science” course waschaired by David Helfand, author of Scientific Habits of Mind. The committee on science in-struction was chaired by Jacqueline van Gorkom during the period when Frontiers of Sciencewas initiated and shaped. Darcy Kelley and David Helfand were the initial course directors,joined later by Don Hood and, in 2010, Nicholas Christie-Blick. Special thanks to them fortheir useful comments on this essay. Establishing Frontiers of Science would not have beenpossible without the strong support of Columbia’s then-provost, Jonathan Cole, and ColumbiaCollege’s then-dean, Austin Quigley, as well as the backing of David Cohen, vice president forarts and sciences. The Office for the Core Curriculum, especially Assistant Director Elina Yuffa,provides essential logistical, moral, and intellectual support. Special thanks are due to DeanKathryn Yatrakis not only for her guidance during various reviews but also for her research intothe history of science in the Core Curriculum. Frontiers of Science has a spectacular faculty whomake teaching and learning a joy. Last but not least, the students of Columbia College are aspecial group who have freely shared their good ideas about how Frontiers of Science shouldevolve.

Appendix 4

Frontiers of Science Visiting Committee Report

February 8, 2013

Frontiers of Science (FoS) at Columbia University is a one term Core

course taken by all Columbia students. FoS consists of three lectures and

three seminars on four science subjects typically in the areas of biology, physics, geology and psychology (although other sciences have also

participated). The instructors of the lectures and the seminars prepare

extensively for their presentations. Grades are based on 40% seminar

preparation, 20% midterm exam and 40% final exam.

All faculty involved in FoS express the desire to continue teaching in this

program in spite of the very considerable demands made on their time.

Participation in FoS is voluntary and thus poses a significant course-

staffing problem for home departments because they must redistribute the normal teaching load of FoS faculty.

FoS was first offered in 2003 on a five-year trial basis. In 2008 the

course was reviewed by Columbia’s Committee on Science Instruction

(COSI). The review was rather negative. It disagreed with the concept of presenting four fields of science with four instructors. COSI

recommended a more conventional course emphasizing a single subject,

with a textbook and so on. This recommendation was based largely on

student and alumni evaluations, which were not as favorable as those in other core courses. Nevertheless, COSI recommended that FoS be

continued for an additional four years. The second trial period is now

approaching its end. A recent student “Town Hall” echoed many of the

sentiments from the previous review. The purpose of this external review is to consider the future of FoS in light of this history and on the

basis of the Visiting Committee’s observations.

Some of the recommendations of the COSI report were adopted as the

course proceeded after 2008. For example, the lectures were moved from a theater into a proper lecture hall. COSI also recommended

increased emphasis on principles and concepts and less on methods

(concepts were largely taught in lectures, while the seminars

concentrated on methods). That balance has been somewhat adjusted. The course retained its basic structure of four topics taught by different

lecturers despite the COSI recommendation. Lectures have, however, become more student-centric which is reflected in improving student evaluations. The Visiting Committee was impressed by the dedication of both the FoS senior faculty and the teaching fellows. The senior faculty present most of the lectures and they teach some seminars, including ones far removed from their own research fields. The teaching fellows do the remainder of the teaching. The only issue our committee identified that could argue against continuation of the course is the student evaluations. The students were unenthusiastic from the start, and they remain so. However, student ratings of the course have steadily risen presumably reflecting improvements that have been made as this new course learns, through time and experimentation, what can and cannot be accomplished. Indeed, the students rate the lectures and the seminars highly, but not the course as a whole. This difficulty might be remedied at least in part by making FoS a permanent part of the Core Curriculum, equal in all respects to the rest of the Core. Students are acutely aware that FoS is on trial and thus they do not embrace it in the same manner as the other 100 year old core courses. The Visiting Committee is concerned, as was COSI, with sustainability. Will there always be enthusiastic lecturers and fellows to continue once the course transitions from a noble experiment to a standard course? The other core courses have mechanisms to ensure longevity. The Visiting Committee hopes an analogous system can be put in place to ensure that FoS remains vibrant through time. The following elaborates many of the points made above. The Visiting Committee believes that:

1) Given the history and importance of the Core Curriculum at Columbia College it is essential to have a core science course,

taken by all students at the college. The developers of FoS are to

be applauded for starting a course of this type. The Visiting

Committee hopes that when FoS is made a permanent part of the

core, the spirit of experimentation will remain a critical part of its

delivery.

2) Developing and sustaining a science course of this type (broad,

multi-disciplinary science course taught to students with varying

backgrounds and interests) is a huge challenge, one that many

other schools have undertaken with limited to no success. From

this perspective, the Visiting Committee views the current version

of FoS as an impressive proof of concept. It is by no means

perfect, but the view of the review team is that it succeeds in

many areas. These include the introduction of exciting

developments in science, the training of students in a number of

simple (but not yet ingrained) tools for the basic understanding of

scientific data, and the introduction of a seminar component in

science instruction. From the perspective of point 1) above, the

College is fortunate to have such a course in place from which to

build for the future.

3) FoS has been staffed by heroically dedicated faculty. Their

passion for the students, for improving their teaching, and for

communicating difficult but important ideas, as well as their

embrace of the “Core” concept for the college is exciting and

refreshing.

4) FoS benefits tremendously from a group of inspired Columbia

Science Fellows. Indeed, the Visiting Committee felt that its

meeting with the Fellows was the single most inspiring aspect of

the visit. Columbia undergraduate students are in extremely

capable hands with Fellows, and the long-term prospects for

impacting higher education in America through the Fellows are

quite good. To the extent that this portion of the Core is able to

continue, Columbia has the possibility to reshape how general

education science is taught.

5) Everyone with whom the Visiting Committee spoke is clearly

committed to students and student learning. This dedication was

an impressive display from a faculty who have many other commitments and obligations on their time. Columbia University should be celebrated for taking the education of undergraduates seriously and it should widely advertise that its faculty works diligently as teachers and to improve the excellence of courses.

6) Nevertheless, with any young course or component of the

curriculum it is impossible to get everything right at the outset. Despite the many successes of FoS, the Visiting Committees noted some areas that could be improved as well as hurdles to undertaking these improvements. Areas that Visiting Committee believe need to be addressed include:

a. The history of the course and its reviews, b. The staffing of the course by faculty from departments, c. The staffing and funding of Science Fellows by the College, d. The grading policy in the course relative to the remainder of

the Core Curriculum, e. The structure of the course, in particular the balance

between lecture and seminar, f. The overall amount of material covered in the course, g. The lack of autonomy of seminar instructors, h. The disparity of student backgrounds and course

expectations, i. The perceived repetition of material amongst readings,

lectures, and seminars, j. The standardization of lecture material between fall and

spring semesters

7) Finally, the Visiting Committee noted the extreme lack of parity between FoS and other core courses. The Visiting Committee suggests a dramatic move to staff and direct the course through mechanisms that parallel other core offerings. Adequate staffing and support could require additional FTEs or support staff lines associated with departmental commitments to course staffing.

Brief comments directed at the above topics:

- The history of the course and its reviews

o The course was generated by a few charismatic and visionary people. This history automatically engenders strong emotions both for and against the course and it tends to work against change. Likewise, the COSI review and its responses were well intended but led to rigidifying the course structure of FoS. The College needs to find a way to get beyond this history in order to let FoS evolve and thrive.

- The staffing of the course by faculty from departments. o A College Core course should have faculty buy-in from most

if not all departments that fall under the rubric of this section of the Core. That does not appear to have occurred for FoS. In part, the mechanism by which FoS selects its lecturers works against true collaboration with department chairs. Further, the large number of hours spent on lecture preparation is a deterrent to junior faculty participation as well as to participation by especially busy senior faculty. The Visiting Committee’s perception of student comments was that the lectures are good, but not SO good that they could not be prepared with somewhat less investment of time. Indeed, the committee experienced an excellent lecture, but each review committee member feels similar quality lectures have been given in other contexts without such laborious preparation, oversight, and practice.

The staffing and funding of the Science Fellows

o The 70% college funding model does not work. It puts an undue burden on excellent Fellows to identify mentors. Similarly, faculty/departments are required to fund part-time postdocs. That might not be in the best interest of their research programs especially in a tight funding climate. The Fellows are among the true gems of the program and they need to be fully funded by the college.

- The grading policy in the course relative to the remainder of the Core.

o FoS gives many fewer A’s than other core courses. This singular feature of the course sends a message that, “Yes, you were right, you are no good at science” to the very

group of students FoS is trying to inspire. Were other core

course graded on a similar scale, that would be one thing,

but they are (most emphatically) not. This singular feature

could be responsible for much of the negative FoS

evaluations.

o Further, the course places significant weight on the two

exams and the research paper. This mechanism increases

student anxiety and it restricts the focus of the course to

problem solving at the expense of learning big ideas.

Additionally, homework and grading are significant burdens

for the students and the fellows with little outcome for

either. If homework counted for a significant portion of the

course grade (40%?), students would recognize that the

work they put into homework leads to a measureable payoff

in the class. In such a scenario, exams would become less of

a burden. Finally, if FoS wants to encourage discussion,

class participation in seminars needs to count for more

toward the final grade. Such reframing of the seminars,

gives seminar instructors more latitude, allows big ideas to

be discussed and evaluated, and sends the message that FoS

wants both the fellows’ originality and the students’ voices

to play a large role.

- The structure of the course with respect to lectures vs. seminars

o The lectures are marvelously thought out and delivered.

However, the current repetition of lecture material in

seminars combined with the large number of exercises

delivered during seminars has over-packed the seminar

period leaving little opportunity for discussion. FoS

students are clearly avid participants. They will embrace

the material to a greater extent if there is increased active

discussion. Adopting such a format will make FoS more

akin to other core courses. Increased discussion can only

occur if there are perhaps fewer lectures, and certainly less

material presented in seminar. The Visiting Committee

believes consideration should be given to limiting the

number of topics in the course and/or limiting the number

of lectures per topic to free time for discussion.

- Limiting the overall amount of material in the course

o No matter how much the instructors tell students not to

worry about the details, the fact is that a huge amount of

difficult detail is covered in lecture. In addition, there are a

significant number of “Habits” which serve as goals for the

course. These features combine to make the seminars serve

many purposes and appear to significantly limit instructor

autonomy. The Visiting Committee realizes that to some

extent the increase in material is a response to the COSI

review of 2008. However, in our view, the pendulum has

swung too far in the other direction. A “less is more”

rethinking of the lecture material and seminars is required.

- The autonomy (or lack thereof) of seminar instructors

o Intimately related to the amount of material covered. The

fellows are creative and excellent teachers. However, they

are constrained by the large amount of material they are

tasked to cover and by students’ desires to receive one of

the (relatively) few A’s given out. Fellows need to be freed

to experiment with methods for communicating science in

ever better ways and to talk deeply about scientific issues

rather than focusing on covering facts and habits that will

appear on exams. Such a transformation can only happen if

the amount of material delivered is reduced and/or if the

number of seminars is increased.

- The disparity of student backgrounds and course expectations

o Students have a variety of backgrounds entering the course.

Many science students are not challenged by the homework

whereas non-science students are often overwhelmed. The

Visiting Committee does not believe that the level of

material should be lowered, nor should the College consider

science and non-science tracks in FoS. However, the College

might consider two-track homework. One track would

mirror that offered now, the other would be more advanced.

Students may choose either, and let the chips fall. This

option would allow advanced students to demonstrate

mastery while keeping the spirit of the core in which all

students are enrolled in the same class.

- The perceived repetition of material amongst readings, lectures,

and seminars o Students note that the readings reiterate the lectures, which

are then reviewed in seminar. Not in all cases but in many. The Visiting Committee also felt that use of the seminar to review lecture material is redundant and counter to the other more creative uses that could be made of this time. One could imagine offering after hours help sessions to review lectures if needed, freeing seminars for other uses as noted above.

o The Committee believes that some text is required for the material presented, beyond lecture slides and similar articles. Students learn in different ways and given the work put into lectures, it would not be a stretch to construct a text that could be used for a given unit from year to year (updated for the latest Frontier).

- Standardization of lecture material between fall and spring semesters

o Simple in principle. Teaching the same segments in fall and spring will allow Fellows to exploit expertise gained in the fall during the second semester. This change will also generate a greater sense of commonality for the students in a given year, thus matching more closely the remainder of the core.

- A move to staff and direct the course in ways that parallel other standardized core offerings.

o If Columbia wants science to be perceived as a central component of the core, then FoS must be treated equally to other core courses. FoS suffers because it functions on a volunteer basis. Once it is adopted as a permanent core course, FoS should receive the financial and administrative support that other core courses enjoy. Most critically, participating home departments should receive benefits such as increased FTEs, redistributed teaching loads, financial support, and political support. A benefit of this

approach will be increased participation from additional science departments.

The Visiting Committee engaged with a significant number of Columbia faculty during its visit. Faculty enthusiasm for undergraduate education was infectious. We believe this commitment can be harnessed to make a permanent FoS even better, but this will take time and, we believe, cannot be dictated by any central authority. It seems that a period of faculty reflection on the goals of core science education, coupled with open discussion about what FoS is and might become, would be an appropriate place to start. the Visiting Committee was impressed by the members of the EPPC and could easily imagine EEPC guiding a faculty-wide discussion of where Columbia goes next with FoS. One outcome could be increased faculty buy in as FoS develops further. To summarize: FoS was and is a noble experiment. We feel that Columbia now needs to reshape and institutionalize such a science as a permanent part of the Core. Bonnie Bassler Benedick Gross David Goodstein Robert Cave

Appendix 5

Academic Analysis and Planning

5/8/2013, A5a.course.evals.xlsx

Report 5a: Course Evaluations for Frontiers of Science with Possible Benchmarks, Fall 2004-Fall 2012

Scale: 1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=excellent. Unless otherwise noted.

FOS ClassesSeminar Leader

Effectiveness (mean)# of Respondents

2012 Fall 4.33 4362012 Spring 4.22 3962011 Fall 4.18 4712011 Spring 4.28 4632010 Fall 4.02 5112010 Spring 4.10 4682009 Fall 4.17 5112009 Spring 4.17 4082008 Fall 4.09 5222008 Spring 3.86 4272007 Fall 4.21 4112007 Spring 3.84 5022006 Fall 3.91 4812006 Spring 3.86 4842005 Spring 3.93 4282004 Fall 3.54 472Grand Total 4.04 7391

Possible Benchmarks for Comparison

Comparison Science Classes

(Spring 2007 to Spring 2011)

Instructor

Effectiveness (mean)

Quality of Course

(mean)

# of

Respondents# of courses

Designed for non-science majors only 4.25 4.08 784 31

Designed for non-science majors but also required for a science major

3.86 3.82 683 10

Required introductory science course 3.72 3.73 3,793 71

Comparison Core ClassesInstructor

Effectiveness (mean)

Quality of Course

(mean)

# of

Respondents# of courses

Literature Humanities

Spring 2012 4.45 4.35 944 59Fall 2011 4.37 4.29 999 59Spring 2011 4.47 4.30 1053 64Fall 2010 4.32 4.16 1125 61

Contemporary Civilization

Spring 2012 4.30 4.19 865 60Fall 2011 4.21 4.08 906 61Spring 2011 4.44 4.34 965 64Fall 2010 4.17 4.10 1025 64

*Scale: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Mixed Feelings, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree

Note: In fall 2005, paper course evaluations were administered. It was reported that there were no significant differences between the paper and the online evaluations.

Academic Planning and Analysis

Data Source: Core Office

5/8/2013, A5b.course.evals.xlsx

Appendix 5b: Course Evaluations for Frontiers of Science, Fall 2004-Fall 2012*Scale: 1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=excellent. U

nless otherwise noted.

Note: In fall 2005, paper course evaluations w

ere administered. It w

as reported that there were no significant differences betw

een the paper and the online evaluations.Grouping of questions into sections is based on Fall '12 course evaluation form

Section 1: Seminar

Leader EffectivenessSem

inar Leader Effectiveness

Clear presentation of subject m

atter

Seminar Leader's

ability to help clarify course m

aterial

Seminar Leader's

ability to encourage student participation

effectively

Seminar Leader's

responsiveness to student questions

Evaluate your seminar

leader's ability to stim

ulate interest in the subject

Seminar Leader's

ability to stimulate

intellectual curiosity

Seminar Leader's feedback

Seminar Leader's

ability to raise challenging questions

Seminar Leader's

availability for assistance outside of

class

2012 Fall4.33

4.384.30

4.034.43

4.084.33

4.572012 Spring

4.224.24

4.253.87

4.333.94

4.144.45

2011 Fall4.18

4.244.15

3.874.38

3.954.14

4.402011 Spring

4.284.25

4.244.02

4.364.08

4.194.41

2010 Fall4.02

3.993.96

3.804.19

3.814.04

4.412010 Spring

4.103.98

4.003.89

4.293.90

4.054.39

2009 Fall4.17

4.144.08

3.944.34

3.924.06

4.412009 Spring

4.174.21

4.124.02

4.304.00

4.023.98

4.362008 Fall

4.094.01

3.914.25

3.943.83

4.482008 Spring

3.863.87

3.833.75

4.033.77

3.583.78

4.082007 Fall

4.213.90

3.803.79

4.402007 Spring

3.843.55

3.583.49

3.962006 Fall

3.913.58

3.543.49

4.072006 Spring

3.863.54

3.513.52

3.902005 Spring

3.933.61

3.623.55

4.142004 Fall

3.543.28

3.223.18

3.82G

rand Total4.04

4.143.89

3.774.29

3.503.94

4.043.88

4.26

Section 2: Lecturer Evaluation

Evaluate the Lectures by Prof. 1

Evaluate the lectures by Prof. 2

Evaluate the lectures by Prof. 3

Evaluate the lectures by Prof. 4

Evaluate the lectures by Prof. 5

Evaluate the lectures by Prof. 6

Clarity of comm

on approaches to scientific

problems across

lectures 2012 Fall

4.164.35

3.373.82

3.722012 Spring

3.353.61

4.013.55

3.633.36

2011 Fall3.73

4.312.33

4.043.57

2011 Spring3.51

4.102.93

4.183.40

2010 Fall4.07

3.533.93

3.623.55

2010 Spring4.13

3.823.62

3.103.62

3.222009 Fall

4.313.78

3.673.94

3.792009 Spring

3.703.85

3.603.57

3.743.49

2008 Fall3.21

4.193.21

3.314.25

2008 Spring3.89

3.913.81

3.593.81

3.552007 Fall

4.103.29

3.072.72

3.262007 Spring

3.953.46

3.713.08

3.353.40

2006 Fall4.20

2.542.84

2.883.91

2006 Spring3.56

3.423.04

3.623.54

2005 Spring3.42

3.493.08

3.042.96

2004 Fall3.88

3.222.79

3.99G

rand Total3.83

3.683.30

3.513.62

3.483.52

Academic Planning and Analysis

Data Source: Core Office

5/8/2013, A5b.course.evals.xlsx

Section 3: Readings, M

aterials, Assignments,

and Exams

Overall value of hom

ework

assignments

Overall value of the

Tutorials

Overall value of the

other reading assignm

ents

Overall value of the

term paper assignm

ent

Overall value of the

Am. M

us. Of N

at. Hist. trip

Fairness of gradingClarity of expectations

for student learning

Relevance of assignm

ents and exams

to course objectives

Overall value of the

course text Scientific Habits of M

ind

2012 Fall3.50

3.113.10

3.193.85

4.053.78

3.702012 Spring

3.433.00

2.733.10

3.773.41

3.432011 Fall

3.613.04

3.263.90

3.543.58

2.622011 Spring

3.363.00

3.683.29

3.402.27

2010 Fall3.43

3.103.70

3.413.51

2.562010 Spring

3.043.01

3.622.98

3.042009 Fall

3.313.18

3.883.48

3.502.65

2009 Spring3.18

3.173.96

2.352008 Fall

3.253.18

3.822.67

2008 Spring3.09

3.193.64

2.482007 Fall

2.752007 Spring

2.612006 Fall

2.802006 Spring

2.672005 Spring

2.652004 Fall

3.01G

rand Total3.32

3.063.07

3.193.85

3.803.41

3.452.63

Section 4: General

Contribution to your know

ledge of the subject m

atter

Contribution to your capacity for critical evaluation of the

subject matter

Contribution to your interest in science

Contribution to the developm

ent of your analytical and

reasoning skills in general

General Section:

Clarity of expectations for student learning

Overall value of the

seminar

Overall value of the

lectures Integration of lectures

with sem

inars O

verall quality of the course

2012 Fall3.42

3.333.23

3.133.38

3.553.60

3.723.28

2012 Spring3.06

2.992.81

2.683.43

2.872011 Fall

3.263.22

3.063.03

3.553.09

2011 Spring3.04

2.972.89

2.763.40

2.902010 Fall

3.303.30

3.023.07

3.323.08

2010 Spring2.89

2.732.62

2.573.07

2.592009 Fall

3.363.31

3.133.05

3.433.13

2009 Spring2.92

2.782.61

2.622.69

2008 Fall3.17

3.042.86

2.832.90

2008 Spring3.02

2.802.77

2.682.61

2007 Fall3.00

2007 Spring#DIV/0!

2.642006 Fall

2.782006 Spring

2.542005 Spring

2.232004 Fall

2.76G

rand Total3.15

3.062.91

2.853.38

3.553.60

3.412.82

Appendix 6

Academic Analysis and Planning

Data Source: OPIR 3/12/2013, A6.science.classes.before.after.FoS.xlsx

* These programs include: Business Management, Economics, Financial Economics, Economics-Operations Research, Economics-Philosophy, Economics-Political Science, Education, Urban Studies Specialization in Education, Sustainable Development.

Notes: Excludes students who at some point were enrolled in SEAS.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

% o

f Col

lege

Non

-Sci

ence

Stu

dent

s

# of Science Classes Taken

Chart 1a: % of College Non-Science Students Taking n Number of Science Classes Pre- and Post-FoS,

(Classes of 2004/05-2006/07, 2009/10-2011/12)

Pre-FoS

Post-FoS

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

% o

f CC

Non

-Sci

ence

Stu

dent

s w/S

ome

Sc. R

eq.

# of Science Classes Taken

Chart 1b: % of College Non-Science Students Who Declared Programs with Some Science Requirements* Taking n Number of Science Classes Pre- and

Post-FoS (Classes of 2004/05-2006/07, 2009/10-2011/12)

Pre-FoS

Post-FoS

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

% o

f CC

All O

ther

Non

-Sci

ence

Stu

dent

s

# of Science Classes Taken

Chart 1c: % of All Other College Non-Science Students Taking n Number of Science Classes Pre- and Post-FoS

(Classes of 2004/05-2006/07, 2009/10-2011/12)

Pre-FoS

Post-FoS

Aca

de

mic

Pla

nn

ing

an

d A

na

lysis

Da

ta S

ou

rce

: OP

IR3

/1

2/2

01

3, A

6.s

cie

nce

.cla

sse

s.b

efo

re.a

fter.F

oS

.xls

x

Re

po

rt 2a

: En

rollm

en

ts in

Scie

nce

Cla

sse

s b

y A

ll Non-Science CC Students

Pre

- an

d P

ost-F

oS

by

Cla

ss (C

lasse

s o

f 20

04

/0

5-2

00

6/0

7, 2

00

9/1

0-2

01

1/1

2)

No

te: E

xclu

de

s a

ll stu

de

nts

wh

o d

ecla

red

so

me

scie

nce

pro

gra

m. In

clu

de

s p

re-m

ed

ica

l stu

de

nts

. Exclu

de

s s

tud

en

ts w

ho

at s

om

e p

oin

t we

re e

nro

lled

in S

EA

S.

Type of Science Class# of Enrl.

% of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

Science Classes for Non-Science M

ajors971

25%1101

28%1054

31%1007

33%967

30%1129

36%

All O

ther Science Classes2872

75%2767

72%2387

69%2039

67%2220

70%1986

64%

Grand Total

3843100%

3868100%

3441100%

3046100%

3187100%

3115100%

Re

po

rt 2b

: En

rollm

en

ts in

Scie

nce

Cla

sse

s b

y N

on-Science CC Students Who D

eclared Programs w

ith Some Science Requirem

ents* Pre

- an

d P

ost-F

oS

by

Cla

ss

(Cla

sse

s o

f 20

04

/0

5-2

00

6/0

7, 2

00

9/1

0-2

01

1/1

2)

No

te: E

xclu

de

s a

ll stu

de

nts

wh

o d

ecla

red

so

me

scie

nce

pro

gra

m. In

clu

de

s p

re-m

ed

ica

l stu

de

nts

. Exclu

de

s s

tud

en

ts w

ho

at s

om

e p

oin

t we

re e

nro

lled

in S

EA

S.

Type of Science Class# of Enrl.

% of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

Science Classes for Non-Science M

ajors149

18%160

20%167

21%157

20%234

26%257

26%

All O

ther Science Classes687

82%625

80%627

79%622

80%678

74%747

74%

Grand Total

836100%

785100%

794100%

779100%

912100%

1004100%

* T

he

se

pro

gra

ms in

clu

de

: Bu

sin

ess M

an

ag

em

en

t, Eco

no

mic

s, F

ina

ncia

l Eco

no

mic

s, E

co

no

mic

s-O

pe

ratio

ns R

ese

arc

h, E

co

no

mic

s-P

hilo

so

ph

y,

Eco

no

mic

s-P

olitic

al S

cie

nce

, Ed

uca

tion

, Urb

an

Stu

die

s S

pe

cia

liza

tion

in E

du

ca

tion

, Su

sta

ina

ble

De

ve

lop

me

nt.

Re

po

rt 2c: E

nro

llme

nts

in S

cie

nce

Cla

sse

s b

y A

ll Other N

on-Science CC Students P

re- a

nd

Po

st-F

oS

by

Cla

ss (C

lasse

s o

f 20

04

/0

5-2

00

6/0

7, 2

00

9/1

0-2

01

1/1

2)*

No

te: E

xclu

de

s a

ll stu

de

nts

wh

o d

ecla

red

so

me

scie

nce

pro

gra

m. In

clu

de

s p

re-m

ed

ica

l stu

de

nts

. Exclu

de

s s

tud

en

ts w

ho

at s

om

e p

oin

t we

re e

nro

lled

in S

EA

S.

Type of Science Class# of Enrl.

% of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

Science Classes for Non-Science M

ajors822

27%941

31%887

34%850

37%733

32%872

41%

All O

ther Science Classes2185

73%2143

69%1760

66%1417

63%1542

68%1239

59%

Grand Total

3007100%

3084100%

2647100%

2267100%

2275100%

2111100%

*T

his

inclu

de

s a

ll no

n-s

cie

nce

stu

de

nts

wh

o d

id n

ot d

ecla

re a

no

n-s

cie

nce

pro

gra

m th

at h

ad

so

me

scie

nce

req

uire

me

nts

.

Pre-FoSPost-FoS

2004/052005/06

2006/072009/10

2010/112011/12

Pre-FoSPost-FoS

2004/052005/06

2006/072009/10

2010/112011/12

Pre-FoSPost-FoS

2004/052005/06

2006/072009/10

2010/112011/12

Aca

de

mic

Pla

nn

ing

an

d A

na

lysis

Da

ta S

ou

rce

: OP

IR3

/1

2/2

01

3, A

6.s

cie

nce

.cla

sse

s.b

efo

re.a

fter.F

oS

.xls

x

Re

po

rt 3a

: En

rollm

en

ts in

Scie

nce

Cla

sse

s b

y All N

on-Science CC Students P

re- a

nd

Po

st-F

oS

by

Cla

ss b

y D

ep

artm

en

t (Cla

sse

s o

f 20

04

/0

5-2

00

6/0

7, 2

00

9/1

0-2

01

1/1

2)

No

te: E

xclu

de

s a

ll stu

de

nts

wh

o d

ecla

red

so

me

scie

nce

pro

gra

m. In

clu

de

s p

re-m

ed

ica

l stu

de

nts

. Exclu

de

s s

tud

en

ts w

ho

at s

om

e p

oin

t we

re e

nro

lled

in S

EA

S.

Type of Science Class by Departm

ent# of Enrl.

% of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

Science Classes for Non-Science M

ajors

Astronomy

2737%

3048%

2567%

1234%

1043%

1515%

Biology31

1%19

0%12

0%14

0%10

0%8

0%Chem

istry0%

0%0%

0%4

0%5

0%Com

puter Science22

1%17

0%23

1%37

1%37

1%22

1%Earth and Envr. Eng.

0%0%

30%

341%

331%

211%

EEEB20

1%29

1%53

2%51

2%42

1%55

2%Earth and Envr. Sciences

612%

862%

782%

1585%

2097%

2448%

Electrical Eng.0%

0%4

0%19

1%15

0%17

1%Engineering**

431%

1023%

1555%

261%

281%

381%

Philosophy60

2%57

1%98

3%77

3%73

2%92

3%Physics

973%

822%

732%

472%

411%

421%

Psychology336

9%382

10%271

8%362

12%333

10%394

13%Statistics

281%

231%

281%

592%

381%

401%

All Other Science Classes

Applied Physics and Applied Math.

20%

20%

10%

10%

0%2

0%Astronom

y7

0%13

0%15

0%5

0%5

0%9

0%Biochem

istry3

0%1

0%2

0%0%

10%

0%Biology

2817%

2928%

2166%

2267%

2568%

1976%

Civ. Eng. And Eng. Mechanics

241%

251%

130%

90%

100%

181%

Chemistry

45212%

46812%

42212%

35912%

39512%

2779%

Computer Science

431%

451%

251%

371%

692%

682%

Earth and Envr. Eng.0%

20%

20%

90%

70%

140%

EEEB191

5%198

5%132

4%46

2%80

3%96

3%Earth and Envr. Sciences

592%

581%

301%

672%

782%

813%

Electrical Eng.6

0%1

0%0%

20%

0%2

0%IEO

R7

0%6

0%9

0%17

1%8

0%19

1%M

athematics

98826%

95425%

84324%

65822%

67621%

65021%

Physics273

7%286

7%243

7%172

6%216

7%172

6%Psychology

3369%

2256%

1996%

1766%

1896%

1605%

Statistics200

5%191

5%235

7%255

8%230

7%221

7%

Grand Total3843

100%3868

100%3441

100%3046

100%3187

100%3115

100%

**

Th

ese

co

urs

es (p

rima

rily S

CN

C W

10

05

En

rgin

ee

ring

an

d th

e R

ise

of M

od

ern

Ind

ustry

an

d S

CN

C W

30

10

Scie

nce

, Te

ch

no

log

y, a

nd

So

cie

ty) w

ere

ap

pro

ve

d fo

r the

scie

nce

req

uire

me

nt u

ntil th

e 2

00

7/0

8 a

ca

de

mic

ye

ar w

he

n C

OS

I revie

we

d a

pp

rove

d s

cie

nce

co

urs

es a

nd

rem

ove

d th

ese

co

urs

es.

Pre-FoSPost-FoS

2004/052005/06

2006/072009/10

2010/112011/12

Aca

de

mic

Pla

nn

ing

an

d A

na

lysis

Da

ta S

ou

rce

: OP

IR3

/1

2/2

01

3, A

6.s

cie

nce

.cla

sse

s.b

efo

re.a

fter.F

oS

.xls

x

Re

po

rt 3b

: En

rollm

en

ts in

Scie

nce

Cla

sse

s b

y N

on-Science CC Students Who Declared Program

s with Som

e Science Requirements* P

re- a

nd

Po

st-F

oS

by

Cla

ss b

y D

ep

artm

en

t

(Cla

sse

s o

f 20

04

/0

5-2

00

6/0

7, 2

00

9/1

0-2

01

1/1

2)

No

te: E

xclu

de

s a

ll stu

de

nts

wh

o d

ecla

red

so

me

scie

nce

pro

gra

m. In

clu

de

s p

re-m

ed

ica

l stu

de

nts

. Exclu

de

s s

tud

en

ts w

ho

at s

om

e p

oin

t we

re e

nro

lled

in S

EA

S.

Type of Science Class by Department

# of Enrl.%

Total Enrol.

# of Enrl.%

Total Enrol.

# of Enrl.%

Total Enrol.

# of Enrl.%

Total Enrol.

# of Enrl.%

Total Enrol.

# of Enrl.%

Total Enrol.

Science Classes for Non-Science M

ajors

Astronomy

496%

446%

527%

314%

384%

485%

Biology4

0%2

0%1

0%1

0%0%

0%Chem

istry0%

0%0%

0%0%

20%

Computer Science

81%

51%

30%

81%

91%

40%

Earth and Envr. Eng.0%

0%0%

111%

202%

81%

EEEB2

0%4

1%2

0%4

1%7

1%11

1%Earth and Envr. Sciences

40%

162%

101%

182%

465%

505%

Electrical Eng.0%

0%1

0%4

1%1

0%3

0%Engineering**

132%

152%

233%

71%

162%

141%

Philosophy14

2%12

2%22

3%23

3%24

3%27

3%Physics

213%

122%

71%

71%

91%

81%

Psychology33

4%49

6%45

6%40

5%57

6%79

8%Statistics

10%

10%

10%

30%

71%

30%

All Other Science Classes

Applied Physics and Applied Math.

0%0%

10%

10%

0%2

0%Astronom

y3

0%2

0%4

1%0%

0%4

0%Biochem

istry1

0%1

0%0%

0%0%

0%Biology

466%

284%

172%

162%

121%

222%

Civ. Eng. And Eng. Mechanics

91%

20%

0%1

0%3

0%7

1%Chem

istry72

9%70

9%42

5%41

5%47

5%31

3%Com

puter Science15

2%20

3%6

1%20

3%20

2%27

3%Earth and Envr. Eng.

0%1

0%1

0%6

1%7

1%11

1%EEEB

10%

71%

41%

152%

414%

414%

Earth and Envr. Sciences4

0%14

2%9

1%27

3%46

5%52

5%Electrical Eng.

0%0%

0%2

0%0%

10%

IEOR

61%

51%

61%

162%

51%

121%

Mathem

atics313

37%275

35%331

42%289

37%291

32%310

31%Physics

597%

516%

233%

111%

222%

273%

Psychology36

4%27

3%32

4%30

4%32

4%50

5%Statistics

12215%

12216%

15119%

14719%

15217%

15015%

Grand Total836

100%785

100%794

100%779

100%912

100%1004

100%

* T

he

se

pro

gra

ms in

clu

de

: Bu

sin

ess M

an

ag

em

en

t, Eco

no

mic

s, F

ina

ncia

l Eco

no

mic

s, E

co

no

mic

s-O

pe

ratio

ns R

ese

arc

h, E

co

no

mic

s-P

hilo

so

ph

y,

Eco

no

mic

s-P

olitic

al S

cie

nce

, Ed

uca

tion

, Urb

an

Stu

die

s S

pe

cia

liza

tion

in E

du

ca

tion

, Su

sta

ina

ble

De

ve

lop

me

nt.

**

Th

ese

co

urs

es (p

rima

rily S

CN

C W

10

05

En

rgin

ee

ring

an

d th

e R

ise

of M

od

ern

Ind

ustry

an

d S

CN

C W

30

10

Scie

nce

, Te

ch

no

log

y, a

nd

So

cie

ty) w

ere

ap

pro

ve

d fo

r the

scie

nce

req

uire

me

nt u

ntil th

e 2

00

7/0

8 a

ca

de

mic

ye

ar w

he

n C

OS

I revie

we

d a

pp

rove

d s

cie

nce

co

urs

es a

nd

rem

ove

d th

ese

co

urs

es.

Pre-FoSPost-FoS

2004/052005/06

2006/072009/10

2010/112011/12

Aca

de

mic

Pla

nn

ing

an

d A

na

lysis

Da

ta S

ou

rce

: OP

IR3

/1

2/2

01

3, A

6.s

cie

nce

.cla

sse

s.b

efo

re.a

fter.F

oS

.xls

x

Re

po

rt 3c: E

nro

llme

nts

in S

cie

nce

Cla

sse

s b

y A

ll Other N

on-Science CC Students* P

re- a

nd

Po

st-F

oS

by

Cla

ss (C

lasse

s o

f 20

04

/0

5-2

00

6/0

7, 2

00

9/1

0-2

01

1/1

2) b

y D

ep

artm

en

t

No

te: E

xclu

de

s a

ll stu

de

nts

wh

o d

ecla

red

so

me

scie

nce

pro

gra

m. In

clu

de

s p

re-m

ed

ica

l stu

de

nts

. Exclu

de

s s

tud

en

ts w

ho

at s

om

e p

oin

t we

re e

nro

lled

in S

EA

S.

Type of Science Class by Departm

ent# of Enrl.

% of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

# of Enrl.%

of Total Enrl.

Science Classes for Non-Science M

ajors

Astronom

y224

7%260

8%204

8%92

4%66

3%103

5%

Biology27

1%17

1%11

0%13

1%10

0%8

0%

Chemistry

0%0%

0%0%

40%

30%

Computer Science

140%

120%

201%

291%

281%

181%

Earth and Envr. Eng.0%

0%3

0%23

1%13

1%13

1%

EEEB18

1%25

1%51

2%47

2%35

2%44

2%

Earth and Envr. Sciences57

2%70

2%68

3%140

6%163

7%194

9%

Electrical Eng.0%

0%3

0%15

1%14

1%14

1%

Engineering**30

1%87

3%132

5%19

1%12

1%24

1%

Philosophy46

2%45

1%76

3%54

2%49

2%65

3%

Physics76

3%70

2%66

2%40

2%32

1%34

2%

Psychology303

10%333

11%226

9%322

14%276

12%315

15%Statistics

271%

221%

271%

562%

311%

372%

All O

ther Science Classes

Applied Physics and A

pplied Math.

20%

20%

0%0%

0%0%

Astronom

y4

0%11

0%11

0%5

0%5

0%5

0%Biochem

istry2

0%0%

20%

0%1

0%0%

Biology235

8%264

9%199

8%210

9%244

11%175

8%Civ. Eng. A

nd Eng. Mechanics

150%

231%

130%

80%

70%

111%

Chemistry

38013%

39813%

38014%

31814%

34815%

24612%

Computer Science

281%

251%

191%

171%

492%

412%

Earth and Envr. Eng.0%

10%

10%

30%

0%3

0%EEEB

1906%

1916%

1285%

311%

392%

553%

Earth and Envr. Sciences55

2%44

1%21

1%40

2%32

1%29

1%Electrical Eng.

60%

10%

0%0%

0%1

0%IEO

R1

0%1

0%3

0%1

0%3

0%7

0%M

athematics

67522%

67922%

51219%

36916%

38517%

34016%

Physics214

7%235

8%220

8%161

7%194

9%145

7%Psychology

30010%

1986%

1676%

1466%

1577%

1105%

Statistics78

3%69

2%84

3%108

5%78

3%71

3%

Grand Total

3007100%

3083100%

2647100%

2267100%

2275100%

2111100%

*T

his

inclu

de

s a

ll no

n-s

cie

nce

stu

de

nts

wh

o d

id n

ot d

ecla

re a

no

n-s

cie

nce

pro

gra

m th

at h

ad

so

me

scie

nce

req

uire

me

nts

.

**

Th

ese

co

urs

es (p

rima

rily S

CN

C W

10

05

En

rgin

ee

ring

an

d th

e R

ise

of M

od

ern

Ind

ustry

an

d S

CN

C W

30

10

Scie

nce

, Te

ch

no

log

y, a

nd

So

cie

ty) w

ere

ap

pro

ve

d fo

r the

scie

nce

req

uire

me

nt u

ntil th

e 2

00

7/0

8 a

ca

de

mic

ye

ar w

he

n C

OS

I revie

we

d a

pp

rove

d s

cie

nce

co

urs

es a

nd

rem

ove

d th

ese

co

urs

es.

Pre-FoSPost-FoS

2004/052005/06

2006/072009/10

2010/112011/12

Appendix 7

Academic Analysis and Planning

alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx 1

Frontiers of Science Review

Alum Survey

December 18, 2012

Executive Summary

The Frontiers of Science (FoS) Internal Review Committee invited College alumni from the classes of 2008-2012 to provide their feedback via an online survey. All non-transfer College students in these classes were required to take FoS. It was sent to 4,758 alumni who had taken Frontiers of Science; 1,048 responded, giving a response rate of 22%.1 In addition to the initial invitation to complete the survey, two reminder emails were sent. The survey ran from November 27 to December 10, 2012.

Below is a summary of the quantitative responses. Please note that the proportions are based on the number of respondents to that question, which are indicated for each chart. Alumni were asked if they had intended to declare either a science program or pre-med. Based on that self-reported response, they were asked slightly different questions for part of the survey.

Representativeness of the Sample

In order to determine if the sample of respondents was representative, we looked at a number of different demographic characteristics including the alum’s program declarations. We compared the distribution of those invited to take the survey (n=4,758) to those who submitted it (n=1,048) to those whose qualitative responses we summarized (n=346, because of the large number of respondents we included only every third response) to, finally, those who did not submit the survey (n=3,710). For the sample to be representative, we would expect the distribution for a given characteristic to be roughly the same for each of these four groups. Overall, we believe that the response sample is representative and that sample is not skewed although we explain exceptions in more detail below.

The distribution by graduating year is almost the same across these four groups. The sample for the qualitative responses may have some bias. For example, of those invited, 22% were from the class of 2010; of those who were included in the qualitative analysis, 25% were from the class of 2010. For the group who submitted and the group who did not, the distribution mirrors that of the invited alumni. (See Report 1)

There is a slight overrepresentation of women among the respondents. Of alumni invited to participate in the survey, 52% were women, while of those who responded 56% were women, and for those in the sample for the qualitative analysis, 59% were women. While there may be some overrepresentation of women, it is unclear in what directions it would skew the results. (See Report 2).

Survey respondents appeared representative based on race/ethnicity which is a self-identified characteristic.

The average GPA for these four groups varies little although it should be noted that while the average GPA for the invited group is 3.51, the average GPA for the respondents was 3.57. So it may be that those students who did slightly better at Columbia were also more likely to complete the survey. (See Report 3)

1 The survey was sent to College alumni who had transferred as well. Although very few transfer students take FoS as the course is not required for this group, we allowed for those who did take the course to respond to the survey.

Academic Analysis and Planning

alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx 2

We also grouped alumni based on their Math SAT scores, if available, and found that the four groups have fairly similar distributions.

There is some overrepresentation of alumni who received higher grades in FoS. For example, about 25% of alumni received an A in the course, while among respondents that proportion was 32%. It should also be noted that 15% of invited alumni received a B, while this proportion was only 12% for respondents. Again, while this presents some possible bias, it is unclear what the specific consequences are for the results of the survey. One should remember in reviewing the results that these may be responses from a group of students who may have been slightly more involved and invested in the course than the invited group overall. (See Report 4)

We then parsed students by the division of the programs, whether major or concentration, with which they graduated.2 (Note: A student with multiple programs may be in multiple groupings. For example, an alum with a double major in mathematics and history would be in the science group and in the social science group.)

o There seems to be some overrepresentation among those alumni who graduated with at least one program in the sciences. For those invited, 31% had graduated with a program in the sciences, while for those who responded that proportion was 35%. (See Report 5a)

o There seems to be some underrepresentation among those alumni who graduated with at least one program in the social sciences, with 47% of the invited alumni having declared a social science program while the same proportion for respondents was 44%. (See Report 5b)

o For those alumni who graduated with at least one program in the humanities/arts or interdisciplinary programs, we found that the groups were fairly similar. (See Reports 5c and 5d)

o Finally, we parsed students by pre-medical declaration and found that the four groups were similarly distributed with one exception. There seems to be a slight overrepresentation of alumni who graduated with at least one program in the sciences and were not premed. For example, of those invited, 21% fell into this group, while of those who responded, 25% fell into this group, further refining the result above of overrepresentation among alumni who graduated with a science program. (See Report 6)

o It seems plausible that alumni who studied in the sciences might be more interested in the course and its future; it may also be that this group is more likely to complete surveys.

Survey Reponses: Questions for All Alumni

For those questions asked of all alumni, the number of responses ranged from 1,047 to 1,021 for a specific question.

2 We could have also looked at students by their intended program, which is something they indicate on their application to the College. But as the alumni are taking this survey in hindsight, we believe that their frame of reference would be most influenced by the programs they graduated with rather than what they intended to study before entering college or knowing that they would be attending Columbia College.

Academic Analysis and Planning

alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx 3

Most alumni responded that the core curriculum3 prepared them well to be an informed and thoughtful citizen, with 81% responding either “to a great extent” or “to a moderate extent” with only 0.3% responding “not at all.” (See Question 1)

In comparison, alumni responded that FoS and the two other required science courses did not prepare them as well, with 47% responding either “to a great extent” or “to a moderate extent” with 16% responding “not at all.” (See Question 2)

Most alumni did think that science should be part of the Columbia College Core Curriculum with 84% responding “strongly agree” or “agree”. (See Question 3)

Alumni were much less positive about the idea of a uniform science course to be required of all College students, with 37% of respondents saying they have mixed feelings - the most common response. (See Question 4)

Survey Responses: Alumni with Science Programs

Alumni were asked if they intended to graduate with a major or concentration in science. The following results apply to those who reported that they intended to graduate with a science program. For this set of questions, there were between 393 and 395 responses per question.

The FoS course did not seem to influence this group’s decision to pursue a program in the sciences with 70% of respondents reporting either “to a limited extent” or “not at all.” (See Question 5)

Most of the alumni in this group did not find that FoS provided scientific analytical skills that were useful in their other science courses, with 86% reporting either “to a limited extent” or “not at all.” (See Question 6)

Similarly, most of this alumni group did not find the content of FoS lectures and seminars useful in their other science courses with 88% reporting either “to a limited extent” or “not at all.” (See Question 7)

Survey Responses: Alumni with Non-Science Programs

The following results apply to those who reported that they did not intend to graduate with a science program. For this set of questions, there were between 644 and 651 responses per question.

Almost no one in this group eventually graduated with a science program, so when asked if FoS impacted the decision to major in science, 88% selected “not applicable.” Of all respondents to this question, 8% responded that FoS did not influence their decision at all. (See Question 8)

This group also did not find that FoS provided analytical skills or scientific knowledge that has been useful in further studies or their professional or everyday life with 81% reporting “to a limited extent” or “not at all.” (See Question 9)

For this group, FoS also didn’t seem to have an impact on the other two sciences courses that these alumni had to take with 69% reporting “not at all.” (See Question 10)

Survey Reponses: Questions for All Alumni

For those questions asked of all alumni, the number of responses ranged from 1,047 to 1,021 for a specific question.

3 The core curriculum was defined in the question to include Literature Humanities, Contemporary Civilization, University Writing, Art Humanities, and Music Humanities.

Academic Analysis and Planning

alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx 4

When asked if particular aspects of the course were memorable, most alumni found neither the lectures nor the seminars very memorable, with 72% and 79%, respectively, responding either “somewhat memorable” or “not memorable.” (Note: This was a five point scale with “memorable” as the middle option.) (See Questions 11 and 12)

Most alumni responded that FoS did not function very well as the basis for subsequent social science courses they took, with 65% responding either “somewhat ineffective” or “very ineffective.” (See Question 13)

Most alumni responded that FoS was ineffective in fostering their interest in science as an intellectual endeavor, with 66% responding either “ineffective” or “very ineffective.” (See Question 14)

Again, most alumni responded that FoS did not teach them valuable skills and information, with 64% responding either “to a limited extent” or “not at all.” (See Question 15)

Alumni don’t seem to remember enjoying the course very much while taking it, with 63% responding either “to a limited extent” or “not at all.” (See Question 16)

o Furthermore, their opinion since graduating from Columbia, does not seem to have changed with 72% responding “not changed.” (See Question 17)

Survey Responses: Broken out by demographics and programs

We also tried to identify demographic variables that once included would lead to significantly different answers than the aggregate results reported above. As the course changed over this time period, we first looked at results broken out by graduating year but found that there were no noteworthy differences.

We then looked at the division of program by graduation, especially as there was some bias in the response sample by program division and did find some differences in the answers between the two groups. We found that there were differences between those alumni who graduated with at least one science program (science alumni) regardless of additional programs they pursued and those alumni who graduated without a program in the sciences. We report here these differences for the central questions of the survey. (Note: We did not find differences by comparing other divisions.) The number of responses ranged from 1,047 to 1,038 for a specific question.

On the question of whether the core curriculum prepared the alum well to be an informed and thoughtful citizen, 59% of the science alumni reported “to a great extent” while 68% of the non-science alumni reported “to a great extent.” (See Question 1a)

Similarly, the science alumni felt more strongly that FoS plus the other two required science courses prepared them well to be an informed and thoughtful citizen with 16% reporting “to a great extent” while the equivalent was 10% for the non-science alumni. (See Question 2a)

The science alumni were much more likely to respond that science should be part of the core curriculum with 80% responding “strongly agree” while only 50% of the non-science alumni responded “strongly agree.” (See Question 3a)

Science alumni were also more likely to support a uniform science course with 23% responding “strongly agree” while 15% of non-science alumni responded “strongly agree.” (See Question 4a)

Science alumni were more likely to respond that FoS succeeded in fostering their interest in science as an intellectual endeavor with 42% of science alumni responding “very effective” and “effective” while 29% of non-science alumni responded “very effective” and “effective.” (See Question 14a)

Academic Analysis and Planning

alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx 5

Science alumni responded more frequently that they thought the course taught them valuable skills and information with 41% responding “to a great extent” or “to a moderate extent” while 33% of non-science alumni responded so. (See Question 15a)

More science alumni responded that they enjoyed the course with 47% responding “to a great extent” or “to a moderate extent” while 32% of non-science alumni responded so. (See Question 16a)

But there were no differences between these two groups on the question of whether their opinion of the course had changed since they took it with the vast majority responding that it did not change. (See Question 17a)

Survey Reponses: Qualitative Questions

In order to begin understanding the qualitative responses provided by the 1,048 alumni who responded to the survey, we looked at every third comment. The comments are sorted by an index number assigned to an alumni’s response in the order they accessed the survey. Therefore, the first alum to click into the survey is given Submission Key #1, although that person may not submit their responses first. This provided a randomized pool of the survey responses which were coded and grouped along themes. Below we summarized the repeating themes from this set of comments.

Best Aspects of the Course: 265 alumni provided a response to the question of which aspects of the course they viewed as best. The largest group, a third, spoke positively about the lectures. They praised the prominence of the outstanding faculty being made accessible, some particularly noting how exciting it was that these faculty were addressing first years. The next most common response (15%) complimented the diversity of the topics covered in Frontiers of Science and the broad exposure it provided students to cutting edge research. Nearly 10% of responses were general negative remarks (i.e. “I cannot recall enjoying anything about the class), despite the question being intended to elicit positive feedback. Finally, approximately 5% of responses addressed each of the following: Frontiers of Science provided a bonding opportunity for members of the first year class, positive feedback regarding the seminars, and the development of analytic thinking skills (specifically back-of-the-envelope calculations).

What Aspects Could Be Improved: 267 alumni provide a response to the aspects of the course

that could be improved. There was significantly more diversity in the responses, with no theme comprising more than 10% of the responses. One of those themes is that it would be better to eliminate the course rather than trying to improve the existing structure. Another common theme addressed the quality of teaching in the seminars, specifically addressing the difficulty of one instructor being knowledgeable about the numerous lecture topics. Alumni felt there was unevenness to the seminars based on what was a particular instructor’s specialization. Alumni also expressed that Frontiers of Science faces a challenging task of appealing to both science and non-science students. Some alumni remarked that the course struggled with one or both of these groups. Another common feedback from alumni was on the lack of cohesion, either between topics or between the lectures and the seminars. This is an interesting juxtaposition with the alumni above who felt the diversity of the topics was a strength of Frontiers of Science. Another group of alumni expressed concern that the structure of the course, namely the large class size with the lecture posted online, allowed students to either not attend or to use the class time socially. Finally, a handful of alumni expressed disappointment that the topics of Frontiers of Science were “too new” making the course different from the other parts of the Core Curriculum that emphasize tradition by teaching the seminal texts of a field.

Academic Analysis and Planning

alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx 6

Additional Comments: Slightly less than a quarter of the alumni (83) provided additional

comments when given the opportunity to do so. The most common response (20%) was to express support for the role of science in the core curriculum. A slightly smaller number of responses were appreciative of the College’s efforts to improve the curriculum, many of which specifically complimented the effort around Frontiers of Science. Smaller groups of alumni (less than 10%) expressed positive sentiments for portions of the Core outside of Frontiers of Science or expressed reservations about Frontiers of Science itself. There were also a handful of alumni who volunteered to be involved with this effort moving forward.

Questions Asked of All Alum

ni

678

321

41 3

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at all

Question 1

Do you feel that the core curriculum (LH, CC, AH, M

H, and UW

) prepared you w

ell to be an informed and thoughtful citizen?

1,043 Responses

125

365 392

163

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at all

Question 2

Do you feel that Frontiers of Science plus the other two required

science courses prepared you well to be an inform

ed and thoughtful citizen?

1,045 Responses

630

246

127

23 21

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Strongly AgreeAgree

Mixed Feelings

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Question 3

What is your reaction to the follow

ing statement:

Science should be part of the Columbia College Core Curriculum

? 1,047 Responses

189 187

388

150 132

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

Strongly AgreeAgree

Mixed Feelings

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Question 4

What is your reaction to the follow

ing statement:

There should be a uniform science course required of all College students?

1,046 Responses

Academic Planning and Analysis

Data Source: FOS Alum

ni Survey 12/19/2012

Questions Asked of Alum

ni Who Intended to Declare Either a Program

in the Sciences or Pre-Med

8 8

26

249

102

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at allN

ot applicable

Question 5

If you graduated with a m

ajor or concentration in science, did Frontiers of Science influence your decision?

393 Responses

10

44

133

208

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at all

Question 6

Did Frontiers of Science provide scientific analytical skills (graphing, probability, statistics, back-of-the-envelope calculations, sense of

scale, etc.) that were useful in your other science courses?

395 Responses

7

40

112

236

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at all

Question 7

Was the content of the Frontiers of Science lectures and sem

inars useful in your other science courses?

394 Responses

Academic Planning and Analysis

Data Source: FOS Alum

ni Survey 12/19/2012

Questions Asked of Alum

ni Who Did N

ot Intend to Declare Either a Program in the Sciences or Pre-M

ed

4 10

10 54

566

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at allN

ot applicable

Question 8

If you eventually graduated with a m

ajor or concentration in science, did Frontiers of Science influence your decision?

644 Responses

35

86

212

318

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at all

Question 9

Did FOS provide analytical skills (graphing, probability, statistics,

back-of-the-envelope calculations, sense of scale, etc.) or scientific know

ledge that has been useful in further studies, or your professional or everyday life?

651 Responses

25 43

76

442

58

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at allN

ot applicable

Question 10

If you did NO

T eventually graduate with a m

ajor or concentration in science, did Frontiers of Science influence the choice of the other tw

o science courses you took to fulfill the science requirement?

644 Responses

Academic Planning and Analysis

Data Source: FOS Alum

ni Survey 12/19/2012

Questions A

sked of All A

lumni

17

130

206 231

437

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Very effective

Somew

hat effectiveM

ixed feelingsSom

ewhat ineffective

Very ineffective

Question 13

How w

ell did Frontiers of Science function as the basis for subsequent social science courses you took?

1,021 Responses

33

91

169

345

401

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Extremely m

emorable

Very m

emorable

Mem

orableSom

ewhat

mem

orableN

ot mem

orable

Question 11

From your perspective today, how

mem

orable were the Frontiers

of Science lectures? 1,039 Responses

25 63

131

247

573

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Extremely m

emorable

Very m

emorable

Mem

orableSom

ewhat

mem

orableN

ot mem

orable

Question 12

From your perspective today, how

mem

orable were the Frontiers

of Science seminars?

1,039 Responses

Academ

ic Planning and Analysis

Data Source: FO

S Alum

ni Survey 12/19/2012

Questions A

sked of All A

lumni

122

268

343

307

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at all

Question 16

While taking Frontiers of Science, did you enjoy the course?

1,040 Responses

84

267

360 330

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Very effective

EffectiveIneffective

Very ineffective

Question 14

How w

ell did Frontiers of Science succeed in fostering your interest in science as an intellectual endeavor?

1,041 Responses

81

291

390

276

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

To a great extentTo a m

oderate extentTo a lim

ited extentN

ot at all

Question 15

While taking Frontiers of Science, did you think that the course

taught valuable skills and information?

1,038 Responses

34

155

746

74 32

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Improved significantly

Improved m

oderatelyN

ot changedD

eclined moderately

Declined significantly

Question 17

Has your opinion of the value of the course changed since graduating from

Columbia, relative to w

hen you took the course? 1,041 Responses

Academ

ic Planning and Analysis

Data Source: FO

S Alum

ni Survey 12/19/2012

Questions Asked of All Alum

ni: Broken Out By Alum

’s Program, Science versus N

on-Science

215

130

16 2

463

191

25 1

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

To a great extentTo a m

oderateextent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Question 1a

Do you feel that the core curriculum (LH, CC, AH, M

H, and UW

) prepared you w

ell to be an informed and thoughtful citizen?

1,043 Responses - 363 Science and 680 non-Science Science Program

No Science Program

58

116

140

48 67

249 252

115

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

To a great extentTo a m

oderateextent

To a limited

extentN

ot at all

Question 2a

Do you feel that Frontiers of Science plus the other two required science

courses prepared you well to be an inform

ed and thoughtful citizen? 1,045 Responses - 362 Science and 683 non-Science

Science Program

No Science Program

290

49 22

2 1

340

197

105

21 20

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Strongly AgreeAgree

Mixed Feelings

DisagreeStronglyDisagree

Question 3a

What is your reaction to the follow

ing statement:

Science should be part of the Columbia College Core Curriculum

? 1,047 Responses - 364 Science and 683 non-Science Science Program

No Science Program

83 78

137

36 30

106 109

251

114 102

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

Strongly AgreeAgree

Mixed Feelings

DisagreeStronglyDisagree

Question 4a

What is your reaction to the follow

ing statement:

There should be a uniform science course required of all College students?

1,046 Responses - 364 Science and 682 non-Science

Science Program

No Science Program

Academic Planning and Analysis

12/19/2012 Data Source: FO

S Alumni Survey

Questions Asked of All Alum

ni: Broken Out By Alum

’s Program, Science versus N

on-Science

37

116 106

103

47

151

254

227

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

Very effectiveEffective

IneffectiveVery ineffective

Question 14a

How w

ell did Frontiers of Science succeed in fostering your interest in science as an intellectual endeavor?

1,041 Responses - 362 Science and 679 non-Science

Science Program

No Science Program

39

110

131

82

42

181

259

194

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

To a great extentTo a m

oderateextent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Question 15a

While taking Frontiers of Science, did you think that the course taught

valuable skills and information?

1,038 Responses - 362 Science and 676 non-Science

Science Program

No Science Program

65

105 105

87

57

163

238 220

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

To a great extentTo a m

oderateextent

To a limited extent

Not at all

Question 16a

While taking Frontiers of Science, did you enjoy the course?

1,040 Responses - 362 Science and 678 non-Science

Science Program

No Science Program

12

58

263

22 8

22

97

483

52 24

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Improved

significantlyIm

provedm

oderatelyN

ot changedDeclined

moderately

Declinedsignificantly

Question 17a

Has your opinion of the value of the course changed since graduating from

Columbia, relative to w

hen you took the course? 1,041 Responses - 363 Science and 678 non-Science

Science Program

No Science Program

Academic Planning and Analysis

Data Source: FOS Alum

ni Survey 12/19/2012

Appendix 8

Academic Analysis and Planning

Data Source: C

ore Office

5/8/2013, A8.faculty.sections.v2.xlsx

Appendix 8: N

umber and P

roportion of Frontiers Sections Taught by Instructor Type, 2004/05-2012/13

Instructor Type# of

Sections Taught

% of

Sections Taught

# of S

ections Taught

% of

Sections Taught

# of S

ections Taught

% of

Sections Taught

# of S

ections Taught

% of

Sections Taught

# of S

ections Taught

% of

Sections Taught

# of S

ections Taught

% of

Sections Taught

# of S

ections Taught

% of

Sections Taught

# of S

ections Taught

% of

Sections Taught

# of S

ections Taught

% of

Sections Taught

Faculty 16

30%14

25%14

26%13

24%9

17%12

21%9

16%7

13%6

11%

Fellows

3463%

4275%

4074%

3869%

4279%

3868%

4275%

4275%

4278%

Adjuncts/Lecturers

47%

0%0%

47%

24%

611%

59%

713%

611%

Grand Total

54100%

56100%

54100%

55100%

53100%

56100%

56100%

56100%

54100%

2006/072005/06

2004/052012/13

2011/122010/11

2009/102008/09

2007/08

Appendix 9

Academ

ic Planning A

nalysis

Data S

ource: Core O

ffice3/12/2013, A

9.fac.by.dept.xlsx

Appendix 9: Count of all tenured faculty w

ho have taught in FOS either as a lecturer or sem

inar leader by department, 2004/05-2012/13

Faculty's Departm

ental Appointment

2004/052005/06

2006/072007/08

2008/092009/10

2010/112011/12

2012/13G

rand Total

Astronomy/Astrophysics

32

33

23

12

120

Biology

22

22

22

22

117

Chem

istry1

11

14

DEES

67

75

65

54

550

E3B1

11

11

11

18

Math

11

Physics1

11

11

11

7

Psychology2

11

11

11

8

Statistics1

12

Medical C

enter (Psychology)

11

11

11

6

Grand Total

1615

1614

1414

1211

11123

Appendix 10

Appendix 10 Possible Models In the course of its review, members of the Internal Review Committee heard many suggestions for how to construct a seminar-centered science core course. Some of the models suggested were very different from the current FoS course; some built on that course. Some replicate all six of the components of the seminar-based core discussed above; some draw on most but not all of those. We list these models here only as a spur to thought by the faculty committee who will carry on with the work of curricular development.

a. First-Year Core Science Seminars

Most simply, the College could require every student to enroll in one of a large menu of Freshman Science Seminars, numbering around twenty-seven a term with approximately twenty students per section. Each instructor could choose the topic of the seminar, so long as it has a solid introduction to some basic science, a well thought through effort to instill scientific habits and practices of mind, and a serious discussion component. Science Fellows could teach such seminars within their disciplines, as could faculty. Students would have some choice in selection among the seminars.

For all its flexibility, such a scheme would do little to help scale the course: each instructor

would, to a great extent, be working individually. It would be enormously challenging to create a collective pedagogical culture such as undergirds the mainstays of the Core Curriculum, with the great benefits that culture affords throughout our curriculum. This model is also the most out of keeping with the effort to create a common experience for students, which is a signal part of much of the core. For this reason, the Internal Review Committee would not recommend adopting such a model at Columbia.

b. A Limited Menu of First-Year Core Science Seminars

A superior option in our opinion would be for every first-year student to take a First-Year Core Science Seminar chosen from a limited selection of topics. The College would offer multiple sections of the seminars for each of these topics. From the start these seminars would be a group effort: these seminars would initially be created by faculty in conjunction with a small team of science fellows. Like Frontiers of Science and the other core courses, each of these topics could have its own evolving pedagogical culture comprising a standing regular meetings of instructors as well as collectively generated suggested syllabi, assignments, and other teaching materials. The set of seminars on each topic could have a shared set of lectures, either sporadically or weekly, should the instructors of the topic think necessary.

Such seminars could be problem-focused or primarily disciplinary in quality. Each of the units

in Frontiers, with its accompanying podcast lectures, readings, and supporting materials, would be an excellent starting point for a semester-long seminar focused on the topic of the unit. Topics for

seminars, however, could easily emerge from a greater number of scientific and technological disciplines than have predominated in Frontiers. Such openness would likely increase departmental participation and buy in.

Such seminars would substantially reduce the burdens placed on Science Fellows and faculty instructors to teach outside their disciplines in subjects that change from term to term. Science Fellows would still gain the experience of teaching in the small seminar liberal arts format within a rich pedagogical structure, but with much smaller start-up costs.

A model of this kind is especially attractive because it could draw on the strengths and work

that went into FoS. The current frontiers of a science or set of sciences, including their intellectual, technological and social significance, could well serve to focus and motivate the seminar. A course, for example, with a focus on climate change could use current frontiers, could motivate the introduction of the basic science of climate, from fluid dynamics to ecological thinking, and serve as the platform for students to develop their skills in reasoned and informed debate about fundamental scientific issues. A seminar of this kind could be genuinely interdisciplinary, the creation of a group of faculty from a set of disciplines motivated to work together. It would scale well, as faculty and Science Fellows, from numerous fields could teach their own sections.

c. A ‘Core Concepts in Science’ / ‘Current issues in Science’ core seminar.

There is the option of seeking to create a coherent, semester-long, course aimed at teaching

basic concepts in science, a model based most fully on the analogy with the core. Alone of the options above, this model has the potential to achieve what is accomplished by other core courses – to create a course that, fixed in syllabus and changing only slowly from semester to semester, could become a focus of student conversation and common culture across the years. It does not seem impossible to us to create such a course, in which students would engage with particular readings or with particular podcast lectures used as ‘texts’. One science faculty member suggested to us, for example, the possibility of taking half a dozen or a dozen key concepts and exploring one each week, so as to give the students a common conceptual language in the same way that students gain a language from CC and LH. For example the core scientific concepts of entropy, inertia, atomism, mutation with natural selection, chaotic behavior, fields, diffusion, energy, heat, light, membranes, and many others that could be discussed and decided upon by a science core committee could be used to build a stable literature for the course. Each of these, and other concepts, could be presented either in its historical context of discovery or in a modern application – or both.

d. A Single Thematic Course

Yet another alternative that would still allow for change but over longer periods of time,

would be to choose a single topic for the semester and have it approached from many different disciplines. An example might be ‘water’ – viewed from chemistry, biology, climate, astronomy, physics (turbulence, flow, etc.), so that multiple disciplines can participate in building a semester long syllabus. This could remain in place for years at a time or could change regularly to another topic – power, time, counting, etc. One or two faculty members active in FoS favored such a model, suggesting that climate change might be the perfect subject, both because it could integrate many disciplines and because it is a pressing subject of immediate interest which carries the same kind of

ethical weight as do many of the subjects discussed in CC. We note, however, that an effort to create a course of this sort at Stanford ran into problems.