23.12.2013 Views

Regis College Application for Promotion to Full Professor Activities ...

Regis College Application for Promotion to Full Professor Activities ...

Regis College Application for Promotion to Full Professor Activities ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Friday September 06, 2013

Regis College

Application for Promotion to Full Professor

Activities Report from Fall 2006 to Spring 2013

Marie-dominique Franco, Associate Professor of Biology

Marie-dominique Franco

Regis University

Department of Biology, Mail code D-8

3333 Regis Boulevard

Denver, CO 80221

Tel: 303-458-4198

E-mail: mfranco@regis.edu


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Teaching Experience ……………………………………………………………………..pages 2-6

A. Classroom Teaching Activities

B. Summary of Classroom Teaching Activities

II. Individualized Workload ……………………………………………………………….pages 6-7

III. Teaching Effectiveness …………………………………………………………...…….pages 7-14

A. Students’ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

B. Self-Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

C. Long-Term Teaching Effectiveness Goals

IV. Research, Creative Work and Professional Activities …...pages 14-17

A. Research and Professional Activities

B. Self-Evaluation of Research and Professional Activities

C. Long-Term Research and Professional Goals

V. Service to the University, including Service to the Student Body ……………………pages 17-22

A. Service Activities

B. Self-Evaluation of Service Activities

C. Long-Term Service Goals

VI. Summary ………………………………………………………………………………..page 22

VII. Curriculum vitae……………………………………………………...………………...pages 23-30

Appendices ……………………………………………………………..……………………pages 31-224

Appendix I: Course Syllabi

Appendix II: Molecular and Cellular Biology “In-Class Notes” (BL260)

Appendix III: Sample of PPT lecture (BL260)

Appendix IV: Assessment Analyses for Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture, laboratory and

Honors courses (BL260/261/261H) and Developmental Biology lecture and laboratory courses

(BL412/413)

Appendix V: Developmental Biology Laboratory Manual, “From Molecules to Organisms: An

Investigative Approach to the Developmental Biology Laboratory”

Appendix VI: Application TBL for undergraduate Genetics lecture (BL414)

Appendix VII: Peer-review article: Franco M-d, Bohbot J, Fernandez K, Hanna J, Poppy J, and

Vogt R. (2007) Sensory Cell Proliferation within the Olfactory Epithelium of Developing Adult

Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera). PLoS ONE 2(2): e215. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000215

Appendix VIII: TriBeta Student Grant

Appendix IX: SPARC Student Grant

Appendix X: Research Poster

Appendix XI: SPARC Faculty Grant

Appendix XII: Biology Department Annual Report (2012-2013 academic year)

- 1 -


I hold a Ph. D. in Immunology from the University of Aix-Marseille II, France and joined Regis

University in the Fall of 2001. I taught as a full-time faculty member for 6 years at the rank of Assistant

Professor and have been teaching for 6 years at the rank of Associate Professor at Regis College (I was

granted tenure in the Spring of 2007). Therefore the current academic year (2013-2014) is the seventh

academic year of my full-time employment as an Associate Professor in Regis College. This report

will describe and analyze the activities I have performed over the past 7 years, a period that

encompasses a sabbatical leave (Spring 2008), a partial bereavement leave (2/3 of Fall 2010) and 4 years

of chairing the Biology Department. During this period I have continued to be very dedicated to my

teaching with developing and implementing new pedagogical tools and new courses at both the

undergraduate and graduate level, I have kept an active research program, published a laboratory manual

and conducted research with many students. Finally, I have committed most of my service activities to

chairing the Biology Department. During my chairship, the department under my direct or indirect

supervision hired 4 tenure-track Assistant Professors (moving from 6 to 9 full-time faculty members), 1

half-time, continuing faculty member 1 Administrative Coordinator, 1 Administrative Assistant, 1

Laboratory Preparator. In addition I was Chair as the Department remodeled its office space, wrote 1

academic unit review, developed 2 strategic plans, developed and redeveloped 3 assessment plan

versions as requirements shifted from year to year, piloted portfolio assessment and developed and

implemented the first new Master’s degree program in Regis College in over 20 years, the M.S. in

Biomedical Sciences. This past 7 year have been very gratifying and rewarding in so many ways, but

they also exhausted my energy, thus I am looking forward to a new era in my professional development,

spending more of my time refining my courses and publishing the work my research students and I have

completed while remaining an engaged citizen of the Regis Community.

I. Teaching Experience

A. Classroom Teaching Activities since the Award of Tenure

Syllabi I have either completely remodeled since being tenured or have developed anew are

shown in Appendices Ia-g. In this section, all semester hours refer to students semester hours (SH).

Academic year 2006-2007

Courses Taught in Fall 2006

• BL 466 RU01 (3 SH), Immunology lecture (14 students).

• BL 263 RU04 (1 SH), Organismic Biology laboratory (23 students).

• BL 263 RU05 (1 SH), Organismic Biology laboratory (23 students).

• BL 490E RU01 (3 SH), Independent Studies in Biology where Annia Martial (Biology senior)

developed, conducted and analyzed a survey entitled “Incidence of illness in function of eating

and exercising habits and incidence of recovery in function of medical and/or spiritual assistance

in the Regis College student population”.

• CCS 400 RU02 (3 SH), Junior Seminar: Health Care in the World, An Inclusive Approach (21

students).

Courses Taught in Spring 2007

• BL 260 RU01 (3 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture (43 students).

• BL 260 RU02 (3 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture (33 students).

• BL 261 RU01 (1 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory (21 students).

• BL 261 RU02 (1 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory (19 students).

- 2 -


• BL 490E (3 SH), Independent Studies in Biology: Developmental Biology Research where

Chelsea Ruller (Biology Senior) investigated the expression of Pax-6 and β-catenin proteins

expressions in developing chick embryos using Western blot analysis.

Honors (Honors thesis Advisor and Reader roles will be mentioned in the teaching section as well as the

service section, starting with bi-monthly meetings, Honors thesis advising moved to 1-hour long weekly

meetings).

Honors Thesis Advisor for Joanna Welch (Biology major). Thesis title “An analysis of hip structure and

related function in cerebral palsy”.

Total teaching credit hours: 21.11 and Total students: 200

Academic year 2007-2008

Courses Taught in Fall 2007

• BL 263 (1 SH), Organismic Biology laboratory RU03 (25 students).

• BL 466 (3 SH), Immunology lecture (24 students).

• CCS 400 (3 SH), Junior Seminar: Health Care in the World (18 students).

Courses Taught in Spring 2008 – SABBATICAL leave

• BL 491E Undergraduate Research in Biology (1 SH, 4 Students 0.444 TC) where Claire

Birkenheuer, Alexander Colgan, Sohayla Hadjimaleki and Crystal Kay investigated the

expression of gap genes in developing and adult Drosophila melanogaster.

Total teaching credit hours: 8.444 and Total students: 71

Academic year 2008-2009

Courses taught in Fall 2008

• BL 412 (3 SH): Developmental Biology lecture (18 students).

• BL 413 (1 SH): Developmental Biology laboratory (16 students).

• CCS 400 (3 SH): Junior Core Seminar: Health Care in the world (18 students).

• BL 498 (3 SH): Internship in Biology- Dentistry, supervised Melissa Herbert, Biology major.

Courses taught in Spring 2009

• BL 260 RU01 (3 SH): Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture (37 students).

• BL 260 RU02 (3 SH): Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture (29 students).

• BL 261 RU04 (1 SH): Molecular and cellular Biology laboratory (14 students).

• BL 261H (2 SH): Molecular and cellular Biology laboratory and Seminar (13 students).

Total teaching credit hours: 19.33 and Total number of students: 146

Academic year 2009-2010

Courses taught in Fall 2009

• BL 263 RU04 (1 SH), Organismic Biology laboratory (24 students).

• BL 412 RU01 (3 SH), Developmental Biology lecture (22 students).

• 466 RU01 (3 SH), Immunology lecture (25 students).

Courses taught in Spring 2010

• 260 RU01 (3 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture (46 students).

- 3 -


• 260 RU02 (3 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture (42 students).

• 261H RU01 (2 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory and Seminar Honors (10

students).

• BL499B (1 SH), Biology Senior Thesis II (2 students).

Honors

Honors Thesis Advisor for Sid White (Chemistry major). Sid withdrew from the Honors program at the

end of his senior year.

Honors Thesis Reader for Erika Tanaka (Biology major). Thesis title “Bridging Cultures”.

Total teaching credit hours: 18.22 and Total number of students: 169

Academic year 2010-2011

Courses taught in Fall 2010 (I only taught one month in the semester as I took a bereavement leave to

go to France to be with my dying mother)

• BL 263 RU05 (1 SH), Organismic Biology laboratory (23 students).

• BL 412 RU01 (3 SH), Developmental Biology lecture (7 students).

• RCC 410D RU01 (3 SH), Medical Anthropology Seminar (17 students).

• BL 491E Undergraduate Research in Biology (1 SH) where Nicolette Mineo developed and

maintained a sea urchin colony and optimized fertilization events.

Courses taught in Spring 2011

• 260 RU01 (3 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture (50 students).

• 260 RU02 (3 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture (48 students).

• 261H RU01 (2 SH), Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory and Seminar Honors (11

students).

• BL 491E Undergraduate Research in Biology (1 SH) where Jeffrey Hassebrock and Alexandra

Lynch investigated the expression of gap protein in developing and adult Drosophila

melanogaster and Nicolette Mineo and Meghan Moroze continued working on establishing a

healthy sea urchin colony and performing immunocytochemistry of the actin protein expression

in developing sea urchin embryos.

Total teaching credit hours: 18.44 and Total number of students: 161

Academic year 2011-2012

Courses taught in Fall 2011

• RCC 410D RU01 (3 SH), Medical Anthropology Seminar (18 students).

• 466 RU01 (3 SH), Immunology lecture (22 students).

• BL 614 RU01 (3 SH), Biomedical Genetics (22 students).

• BL 498 (3 SH): Internship in Biology- Denver Medical Examiner Office, supervised Sonny

Stoen, Junior Biology major.

Courses taught in Spring 2012

• BL 414 RU01 (3 SH), Genetics lecture (52 students).

• BL 414H RU01 (1 SH), Genetics Honors seminar (10 students).

• BL 415 RU01 (1 SH), Genetics laboratory (24 students).

• BL 415 RU02 (1 SH), Genetics laboratory (21 students).

- 4 -


• BL 491E Undergraduate Research in Biology (1 SH) where Genevieve Go investigated the

expression of the Hairy protein in developing and adult Drosophila melanogaster.

Honors

Honors Thesis Advisor for Emmie Altepeter (Biology major). Thesis title “Madagascar: Transitions in

health care”.

Honors Thesis Reader for Alexander Ghincea (Biology major). Thesis title “Beauty and elegance in the

world around us”.

Honors Thesis Reader for Lana Schamberger (Biology major). Thesis title “The changing face of

Autism Spectrum Disorder”.

Total teaching credit hours: 17.33 and Total number of students: 171

Academic year 2012-2013

Courses taught in Fall 2012

• BL 391 RU01 (2 SH), Applied Clinical Research (8 students).

• BL 490 (1 SH), Immunology lecture as Independent Study (1 student).

• BL 495 RU01 (1 SH), Seminar in Biological Research (11 students).

• BL 498 RU01 (3 SH), Internship in Biology (1 student).

• BL 610A RU01 (1 SH), Biomedical Sciences Seminar I (20 students, co-taught with Dr.

Ghedotti who was the primary Instructor).

• BL 610B RU01 (2 SH), Biomedical Sciences Seminar II (18 students).

• BL 614 RU01 (3 SH), Biomedical Genetics (18 students).

Courses taught in Spring 2013

• BL 391 RU01 (2 SH), Applied Clinical Research (2 students).

• BL 414 RU01 (3 SH), Genetics lecture (43 students).

• BL 415 RU01 (1 SH), Genetics laboratory (22 students).

• BL 415 RU02 (1 SH), Genetics laboratory (20 students).

• BL 498 (3 SH): Internship in Biology- Denver Medical Examiner Office, supervised Daniel

Ohmes, Junior Neuroscience major. Orofacial Myology Private Practice, supervised Taylor

White, Senior Biology major.

• BL 628 RU01 (3 SH), Biomedical Externship, (18 students, co-taught with Dr. Betz).

Honors

Honors Thesis Advisor for Jeffrey Hassebrock (Biology major). Thesis title “Mixed agency”.

Honors Thesis Advisor for Alexandra Lynch (Biology major). Thesis title “Abortion, sterilization and

physician assisted suicide”.

Honors Thesis Advisor for Sonny Stoen (Biology major). Thesis title “Terminal and life-threatening

conditions”.

Total teaching credit hours: 19.11 and Total number of students: 183

B. Summary of Classroom Teaching Activities

For the past 7 years I have been teaching an average of 169 students (Table I) per year and very

diverse courses as it relates to content and also category. Indeed, on average, per year I taught biology

lecture courses, biology laboratory courses, Core seminar courses, biology Honors courses and many

- 5 -


other courses that have been regrouped into a category in the Biology Department called Undergraduate

Experiential Learning courses. These courses are Applied Clinical Research (BL391), Undergraduate

Research in Biology (BL491E) and Internship in Biology (BL498) and I have been the Director of the

Biology Undergraduate Experiential Learning Program since Fall 2012. The Biology Department

moved to this format to address the need for rigor across these various practical experiences and to

compensate one faculty with tangible teaching credits (3SH for overseeing all students in all three

courses both Fall and Spring semesters). Historically, these courses generated 1 teaching credit hour for

3 students supervised in 3 semester hours or 0.111 teaching credit per student per semester hour. Many

of us who taught those courses spent an average of one contact hour per week per student, advised their

work and mentored them in many ways. Thus the consolidation of these courses into one unit allowed

for one faculty member to receive 3 teaching credits per year. Having internship and initial research

oversight done by a single faculty member who meets with students as a group and individually, greatly

improve students’ experience by fostering student discussion within each course and focusing students

more consistently on more broadly integrative internship and research outcomes, while at the same time

reducing the oversight burden on faculty and providing a single contact person for the Internship Office

and Denver Health Hospital with which we offer BL 391. This past year I had 19 students enrolled in

the various Biology Undergraduate Experiential Learning courses.

Table I: Numbers of teaching credits and students taught for the 7-year period (data collected from endof-semester

rosters).

Academic Year Teaching Credits Number of Students Taught

2006-2007 21.11 200

2007-2008* 8.44 71

2008-2009 19.33 146

2009-2010 18.22 169

2010*-2011 18.44 161

2011-2012 17.33 171

2012-2013 19.11 183

7-year period 121.98 1,101

Mean per year with

18.77

one Ind. Comp. except year 2006-07 (17-19 range being expected)

169

*Sabbatical and bereavement leaves in S08 and F10 respectively. I taught one month in the latter.

II. Individualized Workload

The standard employment expectation for full-time Regis College faculty consists of a) one

Community Component of service and scholarship responsibilities common to all faculty members, b)

six Teaching Components and c) one STEPP (Scholarship, Teaching, Extraordinary Service, Pedagogy

and Program) Component (Regis College Faculty Handbook, 2013). Therefore, in general faculty

members are expected to teach between 20-22 TH if they choose teaching as their STEPP or between

17-19 TH if they choose another STEPP component. STEPP Component was instituted in the Fall of

2011, before which faculty members were eligible for Individual Component. For the past 7 year,

except for the academic year 06-07 where I thought at the maximum TH, I was either granted a

scholarship Individual Component/ STEPP or I was Chair, thus operated with a service STEPP and

taught 17-19 TH per year (Table II).

I will take this opportunity to mention that sciences faculty members are faced with a unique

situation as it relates to reconciling teaching credits and numbers of courses they teach. Indeed, most

standard laboratory courses are worth 2 teaching credits for the same amount of contact hours a standard

- 6 -


3 teaching credits lecture course generate. In addition, biology laboratory courses require a lot of

preparation, grading and time spent outside the allotted period because biologists work with living

organisms and cells that require constant attention, and perform experiments that may require timeline

not confined to a 3-hour period. Therefore, biology faculty members regularly teach more courses than

their colleagues to reach the required amount of teaching credits.

Table II: Summary of individualized workload for the 7-year period (data collected from end-ofsemester

rosters).

STEPPs or Individual Component

Acad. Year Chair Scholarship Expected TH

Total

TH

S13- F12 course release 17-19 19.11 200

S12- F11 course release STEPP 14-16 17.33 71

S11- F10* 1 ind. component 17-19 18.44 146

S10- F09 1 ind. component 17-19 18.22 169

S09- F08 1 ind. component 17-19 19.33 161

S08*- F07 1 ind. component 8.5-9 (Spring sabbatical) 8.44 171

S07- F06 None 20-22 21.11 183

Mean per year with

1 Ind. Component except year 2006 07

(17-19 range being expected)

Number of

students

18.77 169

*Sabbatical and bereavement leaves in S08 and F10 respectively. I taught one month in the latter.

III. Teaching Effectiveness

A. Students’ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

Although somewhat subjective and not fully informative, I believe that students’ evaluations, when

combined with other sources of information, are of great value. In general, they have corroborated my

self-evaluations over the years and have helped me develop strategies to rectify problems. Table III

shows the summary of my students’ evaluations per course and semester and compares them (Franco

mean) to those of Regis College (College mean). Analysis of the data shows that my mean per semester

is higher than the one of the College (compare 4.35 to 4.33) and most importantly that my median

number is also higher than the one of the college (compare 4.41 to 4.34). Also, even though my lowest

mean is only slightly lower than the College one (compare 4.12 to 4.15), my highest mean is

significantly higher than the college one (compare 4.56 to 4.39). Further analysis shows that my mean

score for elective courses is 4.56 while my mean score for required courses (graduate and undergraduate

courses) is 4.25. It is somewhat expected to have a small variance within a large pool (all College

faculty) compared to a larger one for a given individual who will experience personal highs and lows.

Indeed, my highest scores correlate with times of personal plenty while my lowest scores correlate with

time of hardships in my life outside of Regis. My overall scores closely follow the ones of the Biology

Department with a few lower and a few higher; the Biology Department is a challenging department to

compare oneself to because of its high performing status. The next section will specifically address my

low and high scores in the context of each course. In sum, over the past 7-year period, I believe that my

teaching evaluations show overall consistency of quality with a few minor exceptions that I will address

in the next section.

- 7 -


Table III: Means of students teaching evaluations since tenure. Note that Spring 2008 and Fall 2010 are missing because of sabbatical

and bereavement leaves respectively. All questions but the demographics questions have been included in the means. There is

currently no system by which to assess the courses in the Experiential Learning program.

F06 S07 F07 F08 S09 F09 S10 S11 F11 S12 F12 S13

BL260 RU01: Mol. and Cell Bio. lect. 4.30 3.78 4.25 4.11

BL260 RU02: Mol. and Cell Bio. lect. 4.28 4.14 4.11 3.98

BL261 RU01: Mol. and Cell Bio. lab. 4.36

BL261 RU02: Mol. and Cell. Bio. lab. 4.66

BL261 RU04: Mol. and Cell Bio. lab. 3.90

BL261H: Mol. and Cell Bio. Honors 4.70 4.91 4.55

BL263 RU03: Organismic Bio. lab. 4.39

BL263 RU04: Organismic Bio. lab. 4.36 4.28

BL263 RU05: Organismic Bio. lab 4.34

BL466: Immunology lect. 4.55 4.66 4.44 4.53

BL412: Developmental Bio. lect. 4.59 4.40

BL413: Developmental Bio. lab 4.58

BL414: Genetics lect. 4.20 4.05

BL414H: Genetics Honors 4.91

BL415 RU01: Genetics lab. 4.37 4.26

BL415 RU02: Genetics lab. 4.46 4.05

BL495: Seminar in Bio. Research Lit. 4.88

CCS400: Junior Seminar 4.27 4.63 4.08

RCC400D: Diversity 4.53

BL610B: Biomedical Science Seminar . 3.86

BL614: Biomedical Genetics 4.19 4.09

Mean per semester

Mean

Franco 4.38 4.40 4.56 4.42 4.13 4.37 4.42 4.21 4.42 4.48 4.28 4.12 4.35

College 4.34 4.38 4.15 4.31 4.32 4.32 4.32 4.34 4.39 4.35 4.38 4.39 4.33

Mean have been sorted from smallest to highest to show distribution

Median per semester

Median

Franco 4.12 4.13 4.21 4.27 4.34 4.37 4.38 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.48 4.56 4.41

College 4.15 4.31 4.32 4.32 4.32 4.34 4.34 4.35 4.38 4.38 4.39 4.39 4.34

- 8 -


B. Self-Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

During this past 7 years, I have taught 14 different courses ranging from lecture, to laboratory, to

seminar, to research, to independent study and to honors and formally assessed the courses with more

than 10 students using some form of outcomes assessment measure (assessment results are presented for

selected courses in Appendix IV). Those courses fulfilled requirements of the Biology, Core and Honors

curricula as defined by these various programs. Since granted tenured, I have redesigned the second

semester of Introduction to Biology: Molecular and Cellular Biology course (BL260), the upper-division

elective biology courses Developmental Biology lecture and laboratory courses (BL412/413) and the

Diversity Integrative Core Seminar: Health care in the World (RCC400D). In addition, I have developed

and implemented undergraduate and graduate Genetics lecture courses (BL414 and BL614) and 2 Honors

courses for Molecular and Cellular Biology (BL261H) and Genetics (BL414H) while keeping the

laboratory part of the undergraduate genetics as it was taught (I am planning on writing a Genetics

Laboratory Manual during my up-coming sabbatical leave). In the following paragraphs, I will mainly

discuss my teaching effectiveness and my teaching effectiveness goals for selected courses that best

reflect my teaching competence either because of their frequency in my course rotation or because of their

relevance to the Biology, Core, or Honors curricula. These courses are Principles of Biology: Molecular

and Cellular Biology lecture course (BL 260), Developmental Biology lecture and laboratory courses (BL

412 and BL 413), Genetics courses (undergraduate and graduate courses; BL414/415 and BL614) Honors

courses (Molecular and Cellular Biology and Genetics, BL261H and BL414) and Core Seminar (CCS 400

transformed into RCC400D). I am deliberately not discussing the following courses in details because I

have only taught them infrequently, sometimes as an isolated occurrence or because I have been

performing very well.

• Introduction to Biology: Molecular and Cellular Biology (BL261) and Organismic Biology

(BL263) laboratory courses. I have taught them for only 2 semesters before I rotated out of the

Introduction to Biology sequence and had not changed the BL261 course since granted tenure

(BL263 is developed by Dr. Ghedotti). Also these courses are being completely redesigned

starting this academic year. In general, the sections I taught went very well as reflected in my

students’ evaluations (mean of 4.33, median of 4.36 and high of 4.66) except for one abnormal

occurrence in the Spring of 2009 when I was at the same time teaching the Honors section of this

course. I may have involuntarily overlooked the regular section because I was hyper excited to

teach the Honors students for the first time.

• Biomedical Science Seminar II (BL610B) and Seminar in Biology Research Literature (BL495). I

taught the master seminar BL610B in the Fall of 2012 while Acting Program Director for the M.S.

in Biomedical Sciences. Master students have to complete a series of 4 seminars, 3 of which

taught by the Program Director. Those courses have been developed to foster student analytical

skills in using contemporary biomedical literature and introduce the range of contemporary

biological and biomedical research. These courses also guide and coordinate student externship

and Master's project work. BL610B is the second seminar in the sequence and was taught only

once before I substituted for Dr. Betz who was on sabbatical leave. Although the course was

greatly modified to address most negative comments students had, it still did not meet their

expectation as reflected in the students’ evaluations and left me very unsatisfied and frustrated.

Indeed, this second class of Master’s program students was somewhat challenging; a lot of

dramatic personal events occurred involving students at the beginning of the year and two students

had insolent personalities. Even though the students’ evaluations improved, these were my worst.

The seminar series has been completely modified over the summer and I will not teach this course

anymore. It is worth noting that I may not have been as receptive to students’ need as I was

myself faced with arduous personal circumstances, in general this year was not as good as the

9


previous ones except for outstanding scores I received (mean of 4.88) in the Seminar in Biology

Research Literature course (BL495). I think my passion for biology and teaching really came to

life in this course in the midst of the personal hardships.

• Immunology lecture course (BL466). I taught this course 4 times and performed very well every

time as demonstrated in my students’ evaluations (mean of 4.55, median of 4.54, low of 4.53 and

high of 4.66). It not surprising that teaching this course brings me much joy, indeed I hold a Ph.D.

in the same discipline and as an elective course, the enrolled students are very motivated and

usually of higher academic skills, making my work easier. This year I am teaching this course in

the Fall and redesigning it. The teaching pedagogy has consisted of formal lecturing interspaced

with in-class group exercises and students’ presentations. It appears that this mixture of strategies

is working very well and I am only planning to make a few adjustments; one being the conversion

of the in-class group exercises into formal Team-Based Learning (TBL) activities. The validity of

this formal teaching pedagogy is explained in detail later since I have already implemented it in

many other courses.

I will now discuss the courses I have greatly redesigned or developed anew; starting with the courses I

will no longer teach and ending with the genetics block (undergraduate Genetics, 1 SH Honors Genetics

seminar, and graduate Genetics). After having taught the Introduction to Biology: Molecular and Cellular

Biology lecture, laboratory courses for 10 years (later adding the honors seminar of BL261H in the last

three years), I opted to let go of those and took over the genetics undergraduate courses plus developed a

genetics Honors seminar and also developed the graduate Biomedical Genetics course that I implemented

the same year I was in charge of the undergraduate Genetics courses. All of a sudden, I became the

Geneticist in the Biology Department and spent very long hours developing new lectures, new exercises

and reading many primary research articles to ensure students were going to be exposed to the latest

research findings. This undertaking took me out of my comfort zone and challenged me to become an

expert in a short period of time. I embraced the challenge and delivered courses that were very rigorous

and interesting as demonstrated by the many comments I received. Throughout this section I will present

the pedagogies I have used, that focused on presenting the latest trends in the field and on implementing

active learning into the classroom. More specifically, I will show how the transition (over an 11-year

period) from using non formal in-group exercises to using formal TBL has impacted my instruction and

student learning.

• Introduction to Biology: Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture (BL260) and Honors Seminar

(BL261H). The lecture course (BL260, see Appendix Ia for syllabus) has been a challenging

course to teach in many ways; the most trying effort was to distill, organize and clearly present the

massive amount of materials students have to learn, often to students who are neither

psychologically nor academically ready. In order to guide students in the learning and learning

retention processes, over the years I had developed the following overall course structure where

weekly topics were formally taught, investigated and tested. In an “ideal” week, Monday was

allocated to formal lecturing, Wednesday was allocated to working on exercises and fifteen

minutes of Friday was allocated to assessing students’ knowledge. I think this sequence of

activities gave students structure; much needed at the freshman level, fostered learning

engagement and ultimately gave students a sense of satisfaction when taking tests. Students

thought this format was very well suited for learning and tests preparation and were really

appreciative. Inspired by the Regis Pharmacy School, I later decided to increase students’ learning

responsibility and started to use formal Team-Based Learning pedagogy. The up-front amount of

preparation it required was considerable (I do understand why Pharmacy had a year to prepare

when Biology modified its courses as it taught them). Even though some students expressed

10


skepticism for iRAT and tRAT components of the TBL, interesting enough all students valued the

Application TBL because none of them individually (even the over achievers) was able to solve

complex problems; at the end the team conquered and everyone was a winner. The experience

was very gratifying for me because I witnessed knowledge transfer and knowledge synergy that

was used in problem-solving; I knew that students not only had a basic understanding of the

concepts but also could apply them to various situations. In addition to incorporating TBL into the

course, I also developed what I called “In-Class Notes” as illustrated in Appendix II. Those are

compilations of little exercises that test students’ knowledge as I teach the material; checkpoints

before moving on to more complex content. Those “In-Class Notes” were not available to the

students before class periods but given at the beginning of each session. Beside developing and

implementing TBL and those “In-Class Notes”, I also completely redesigned my lectures to

introduce modern applications and techniques to render abstract concepts more tangible to

students. For example, I used Rebecca Skloot’s novel. “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” to

illustrate cell division and cancer (see Appendix III for lecture PPT) and also to discuss health care

inequity before it became a best seller and before the Biology Department sponsored the book for

the “First Year Reading” program started by Dr. Karen Adkins, Associate Dean for Advising &

First Year Experience. Teaching this course was emotionally exhausting, large classrooms with a

lot of entitled students who recently discovered that College was not going to be as easy as High

School. However, I never gave up on them and at the end of a 10-year period, I believed the

course I handed to my successor was a very solid course. I know students gained, retained

knowledge and knew how to apply it (see Appendix IV for assessment analysis); I believed they

were well prepared for upper-division biology courses.

The Honors seminar course (BL261H, see Appendix Ib for syllabus) was a treat to teach. The

course is a continuation of the Honors section of Introduction to Biology: Organismic Biology that

Dr. Ghedotti developed and teaches. We coordinated our readings as students read similar and

additional chapters of Jim Endersby’s book “A Guinea Pig's History of Biology”. The similar

chapters were discussed in light of molecular biology and genetics thus adding a layer of

knowledge to students’ understanding of biology and the new chapters introduced them to new

concepts. Also, this course made great use of historical and current primary research papers; we

discussed their pure biological content as well as their historic relevance. Students were actively

participating in the discussion, generating a rich academic atmosphere. The course received very

good review all 3 times I taught it (see Appendix IV for assessment analysis). In addition, I

started to receive more requests to become their Honors Thesis Advisor, my contribution

culminated last academic year (2012-2013) with the supervision of 3 concurrent theses.

• Developmental Biology lecture and laboratory courses (BL412/413). The field of developmental

biology is intrinsically a very fascinating field; it explores how the union of 2 gametes (male and

female) generates life and how a mature organism develops from a single fertilized cell. Thus and

because of its nature, it is not difficult to capture student’s attention. The field of developmental

biology is also my second area of expertise after immunology, thus I am very comfortable with the

material. Therefore, it is not surprising that these courses are rated very high. The lecture part of

the course BL412 (see Appendix Ic for syllabus) explores the various concepts using formal

lecturing and exercises and since I have not taught this course in a while, I have not yet developed

formal TBL activities. Students commented on the quality of my PPT presentations, the valuable

exercises and were overall very satisfied as exemplified with comments such as “learned and

retained more from this course than any other courses at Regis” and “interesting course taught by

a teacher who really cares”. Those two quotes summarize what I want my classroom experience

11


to be; I want students to learn and retain and I want to help them as much as possible in that quest

(see Appendix IV for assessment analysis).

The laboratory part of the course BL413 (see Appendix Id for syllabus) has been developed from

ground zero with original experiments that my research students and I developed and refined for

teaching purposes. I compiled these experiments and wrote a Developmental Biology Laboratory

Manual (see Appendix V) that was published just prior to teaching the Fall 2008 courses. The

course is divided into 4 modules, each making use of a different model organism and pairing it

with the most appropriate concepts. For example, I use the chicken Gallus gallus for classical

embryology and the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster for developmental genetics. Students loved

getting to work with all 4 living organisms and loved to investigate their development at cellular

and molecular levels. In this course, students had to propose experiments to complete an

independent project that they presented to the Biology Department using professional scientific

poster presentation; students presented very high quality work, some worked in collaboration with

the former University of Colorado Health Science Center (UCHSC) now UCD at Anschutz (see

Appendix IV for assessment analysis). Most students constructively commented on making this

laboratory course worth 2 student credits (SH) instead of I SH because of all the extra lab-work

time students had to spend outside of the 3-hour period. The Biology Department and I agreed

with their comments and this course has since been modified to increase the number of SH.

• Core Seminar (CCS400 transformed into RCC400D). I started to teach this course when it was a

Junior Seminar course in the Fall of 2005 and have been teaching it 4 additional times in the Fall

of 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011 as a Diversity and Cultural Tradition Core seminar. This course

addresses diversity and cultural tradition through studying the issues of health, illness and health

care in the world in light of cultural, religious and socio-economic diversities. This course has

been designed to expose students to this topic using various media; peer-review articles, books,

little videos, guest speakers, field trips to chosen communities and Community-Based Learning

(CBL), the latest in collaboration with Melissa Nix, Curriculum & Intercultural Program Director,

Center for Service Learning (see Appendix Ie for syllabus). I spent a lot of time designing a

curriculum that exposed students to the various facets of health and health disparities in this

country (U.S.A.) and in the world. For example, I collaborated with Dr. Meyers and Dr.Terry

Knapp who gave a presentation on telemedicine and how they use this methodology to treat

patients in very remote and impoverished countries. Also, I collaborated with Carey Ann Tanaka

who navigated us through the Hmong culture in Asia and in the U.S.A. and took students to

guided community gardens long before Regis had its own. I chose the gardens according to the

culture of the individuals tending them and the plants that are medicinally used. Students were

required to complete numerous and diverse requirements including the writing of a research paper

including their CBL experience and the oral presentation of their research. In order to guide them

in this process, I developed many rubrics that I later modified and used in other courses. In

general, the teaching of this course went well, students really enjoyed the course and commented

on how much it opened their eyes on 1) biological issues, 2) diversity of medicinal treatment

either biomedical or spiritual and 3) disparity issues. I think this course forced them to reflect on

what most of us take for granted, health and health care. I will continue to improve this course 1)

by improving the community-based learning component in association with Melissa Nix, 2) by

visiting other Core Seminars taught at Regis College in order to become more familiarize with

discussion-based courses, 3) by continuing to attend conferences pertinent to the field of Medical

Anthropology, the field that encompasses most of the topics of this course and, 4) by developing

collaborations with the community.

12


• Genetics lecture and seminar courses for undergraduate students (BL414, syllabi in Appendices

If) and graduate students (BL614, syllabus in Appendix Ig). I have started to teach those courses 2

years ago and they have since become one of my main teaching responsibilities. As mentioned

earlier, I started to develop TBL activities in the introductory Molecular and Cellular Biology

course (BL260) many years ago but it is in the genetics courses that I really explored and used this

teaching pedagogy. In the undergraduate course (BL414), TBL activities are a weekly occurrence

and the entire structure of the course is designed around these TBL activities. The first year I

taught the course, I believe that after the first initial hesitancy, students not only accepted this

teaching strategy by also welcomed it. In general, students were grateful for the experience, even

the ones who were at first the least enthusiastic; I was pleased with the learning atmosphere it

generated and the course went well. The following year, I decided to increase lecture time by

giving online iRATs (via D2L) versus in-class iRATs, this move did not go well. Since I had

never used online quizzing before, I misjudged the amount of time allotted per quiz and also the

number of times each quiz could be taken; I had involuntary upset the students and it took some

time to rectify the problem. Soon after, I realized that some students were cheating during the

Application TBL. Unfortunately, cheating is real, I have witnessed it in my courses over the years

and have taken appropriate measures. This year was different as the culprits were academically

strong students and moreover one of them had become a “friend” over the years. I was crushed

and addressed the entire class in a way that probably was overwhelming to them and this upset the

students a second time. Shall I continue…? All that happened this past Spring when I was dealing

with the terrifying acknowledgment that my husband’s health was deteriorating fast and there was

nothing I could do about it, I was emotionally very unstable. I finished the semester as strong as I

could, focusing on developing interesting TBL activities, designed to challenge students’

understanding (see Appendix VI for sample Application TBL). Even though my students’

evaluations numbers were not as good as the previous year (mainly because of the TBL

experience), analysis of the written comments shows that more than one third of the class thought

that TBL contributed the most to their knowledge and provided constructive critiques on how to

improve it. Thus I will continue to implement this strategy but will modify my online quizzes and

fine-tune the Application exercises.

The gradate genetics course has been very interesting to develop and is well received by students.

This course uses a mix of lecturing, informal in-group exercises and formal TBL. This TBL relies

on content from all Fall Master’s Program courses; Anatomy, Biochemistry, Genetics and

Physiology and is thus integrative. Instructors from all courses take turn in developing a TBL unit

centered on a disorder and use primary and review articles to convey content. Students like the

integrative approach as clear connections between the various courses are made very obvious, thus

developing a more global understanding. I have taught this course twice, and am teaching it now,

already implementing changes to improve it based on my personal observation and also based on

students’ comments. What seems to help students most are all the exercises we solve in class and

I have already added many to my lectures.

C. Long-Term Teaching Effectiveness Goals

In sum, I will say that my approach to teaching has evolved over the years; I am no longer trying to

prove myself as a figure of authority or knowledge, but have become an active participant in the learning

process. I believe I have grown much as a person and this growth is positively reflected in my teaching

style and how I relate to others, especially students. I will always be demanding of my students and will

always hold them accountable for their knowledge; however, I do so with more encouragement and more

invitationally, trying to tap into their interests and make connections across courses and disciplines.

13


With the ultimate goal of educating undergraduate students in Biology, in light of the Regis

University Mission Statement, I will continue to develop and implement new pedagogical strategies to

better serve my students. I intend to continue improving my existing lecture courses by incorporating

additional current knowledge and by developing more interactive in-class activities (TBL or others) as

these approaches have already proven successful. I intend to continue improving my existing laboratory

courses by better customizing experiments to our student population and to our infrastructure, by writing

laboratory manuals for all my laboratory courses and by continuing to emphasize the importance of

research. I intend to continue improving my existing Integrative Core Seminar by continuing to better

integrate the community-based learning component into the course. Ultimately, I would like the entire

class to work on one project (rather than one project per pair of students) that would benefit the

community by offering service and problem-solving solutions to the chosen local organization involved.

Also, I will continue listening to my students for improvement guidance as I find their comments to be the

most important in guiding me to better help them understand.

IV. Research, Creative Work and Professional Activities

A. Research and Professional Activities

Over the past 7-year period, most of the highlights of my scholarship occurred before I became

Chair of the Biology Department. I published original work in a peer-reviewed journal (see Appendix V),

wrote and professionally published a Developmental Biology Laboratory Manual (see Appendix IV), and

worked with many undergraduate students on research; some of whom presented their work at

professional conferences and received internal and external grants (see appendices VI, VII and VIII).

After I became Chair, I maintained an active research program and continued to train undergraduate

students to the scholarship of discovery while at the same time pursuing some activities related to the

scholarship of teaching and active learning, focusing on the Team-Based Learning (TBL) pedagogy.

Peer-reviewed Publications

• Franco M-d, Bohbot J, Fernandez K, Hanna J, Poppy J, and Vogt R. (2007) Sensory Cell

Proliferation within the Olfactory Epithelium of Developing Adult Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera).

PLoS ONE 2(2): e215. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000215. (Appendix V).

Textbook Publications

• Franco, Marie-dominique (2009) From Molecules to Organisms: An Investigative approach to

the Developmental Biology Laboratory. Reno: Bent Tree Press. (Appendix IV).

Textbook Review

• Kuby Immunology 7 th edition W. H. Freeman Publisher (2010).

Research Trainees (12 students)

• Annia Martial (BL 490E), “Incidence of illness in function of eating and exercising habits and

incidence of recovery in function of medical and/or spiritual assistance in the Regis College

student population”. Fall 2006.

• Chelsea Ruller (BL 490E), “Pax-6 and β-catenin proteins expressions in developing chick

embryos using Western blot analysis”. Spring 2007.

• Claire Birkenheuer, Alexander Colgan, Sohayla Hadjimaleki and Crystal Kay (BL491E),

“Expression of developmental genes in developing and adult Drosophila melanogaster using RT-

PCR. Spring 2008.

• Nicolette Mineo (BL491E), “Development and maintenance of a sea urchin colony for the purpose

of fertilization”. Fall 2010.

14


• Jeffrey Hassebrock and Alexandra Lynch (BL491E), “Expression of pair-ruled protein in

developing and adult Drosophila melanogaster”. Spring 2011. (Appendix VI).

• Nicolette Mineo (BL491F), “Development and maintenance of a sea urchin colony for the purpose

of fertilization continued”. Spring 2011.

• Meghan Moroze (BL491E), Immunocytochemistry of the actin protein expression in developing

sea urchin embryos”. Spring 2011. (Appendix VII).

• Genevieve Go (BL491E), Expression of the Hairy protein in developing and adult Drosophila

melanogaster using fluorescent immunocytochemistry: Spring 2012. (Appendix VIII).

Grants

• Faculty Development Committee Small Grants, about $300.00 each. (2007, 2008, 2010).

• SPARC faculty grant for $4,519.74. (2007). (Appendix IX).

• Core Faculty Development Grant for $500.00. (2008).

• Tribeta Scholarship grant to Alexandra Lynch (BL491E, Franco Advisor) for $471.00 for her

research project “Indirect Immunofluorescence to Investigate the Role of Hairy Protein, Encoded

by a Pair-Rule Gene, in the Development of the Central Nervous System in Drosophila

melanogaster”. (2011). Tribeta is the National Biological Honor Society. (Appendix VI).

• Student SPARC grant to Meghan Moroze (BL491E, Franco Advisor) for $ 472.55 for her research

project “Immunocytochemical Analysis of the Fascin Protein Expression as a Tool to Investigate

Changes in Microvillar Expression in Developing Sea Urchin Embryos”. (2011). (Appendix VII).

Professional Conferences

• Presentation of newly published laboratory manual. Franco, Marie-dominique (2009) From

Molecules to Organisms: An Investigative approach to the Developmental Biology Laboratory.

Reno: Bent Tree Press at the 67 th meeting of the Society for Developmental Biology, Philadelphia,

PA., July 2008.

• Campisi, J, Franco, MD, Betz, JL, Ghedotti, MJ, Penheiter, K, Sakulich, J, Kleier, C. TBL in a

Biomedical Sciences M.S. Program: Student & Faculty Perceptions of Learning & Group Work.

Team-Based Learning Collaborative Annual TBL conference in Higher Education in St.

Petersburg, FL, March, 2012.

• Genevieve Go*, Alexandra Lynch*, Jeffrey Hassebrock* & Marie-Dominique Franco.

Investigating the Role of Hairy Protein in the Development of the Central Nervous System in

Drosophila melanogaster. TriBeta Biological Honor Society, District Convention Conference,

Alamosa, CO March 2012. * refers to students enrolled in BL491 (Undergraduate Research in

Biology). (Appendix VIII).

• Campisi, J, Franco, MD, Shamieh, LS, Badtke, M, Penheiter, K. Integrating Graduate Biomedical

Courses Through a Common TBL Experience. Team-Based Learning Collaborative Annual

Conference. (Presented at the annual TBL conference in Higher Education in San Diego, CA,

March, 2013).

Professional Associations Memberships

• Society for Developmental Biology

• Society for Applied Anthropology

B. Self-Evaluation of Research and Professional Activities

As already stated, my most noticeable accomplishments as it relates to the scholarship of

discovery occurred before I became Chair of the Biology Department. Although it was a challenge to

maintain an active research program while Chair, I continued to train students in developmental biology

15


ut focused my scholarship on developing and implementing exciting and cutting-edge TBL problems for

my genetics courses (undergraduate and graduate levels). The work on integrative TBL activities with my

colleagues from the Biology Department for the M.S. in Biomedical Sciences was presented at 2 TBL

Collaborative conferences.

After receiving tenure in the Spring of 2007, I started to slightly redirect my research program in

developmental biology in preparation for my sabbatical leave in the Spring of 2008. While my overall

research investigates gene and protein expression in developing embryos and adulthood, most of my work

had focused on investigating the pattern of expression of olfactory receptor genes and proteins in 2 model

organisms; the tobacco hawk moth Manduca sexta and the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis. I had

published several peer-reviewed articles and presented my work at many professional conferences,

sometimes accompanied by students who received awards. In preparation for my sabbatical project

centered on developing, performing and writing experiments to be included into the developmental

biology manual I published, I started to research trends in the field and expanded my research scope. In

particular, I began to explore expression of the so-called “developmental genes” in the fruit fly,

Drosophila melanogaster. These genes belong to 5 different categories, all reported to be expressed in

the developing embryos to specify the fate of the cells in which they are expressed. Surprisingly, my

students (4 undergraduate research students) and I found that some of those genes (pair-rule genes) were

also expressed in adulthood, a stage for which they currently have no defined function. Selected

experiments were included into the laboratory manual and once published; I recruited additional research

students to further investigate this discovery and particularly looked at the corresponding Pair-rule

proteins’ patterns of expression. We found that the proteins are specifically expressed in the developing

nervous system much later than anticipated. Because of my other duties, I have not had the time to

further pursue and publish these data, but I intend on doing so in these coming years.

The publication of the developmental biology laboratory manual was my first work in the category

of the scholarship of teaching and I have since developed this scholarship by introducing and developing

TBL activities in most of my courses as discussed earlier. My colleagues from the Biology Department

and I were approached by Dr. Wayne McCormack (TBL Collaborative Presidents) while presenting our

work at the last TBL Collaborative conference and invited to publish our work in a peer-reviewed journal.

Much is still needed as it pertains to data collection because our sample is relatively small but with our

new master class of 29 students (Fall 2013), I believe we will be able to obtain additional data and do a

final analysis.

C. Long-Term Research and Professional Goals

With the ultimate goal of educating students in scholarship, in light of the Regis University

Mission Statement, I will continue to develop and implement scholarly projects to better serve my

students and the community. I intend to continue my Developmental Biology scholarship of discovery by

seeking durable collaboration with faculty from Metropolitan State University, Department of Biology,

especially Dr. Joanne Odden who advised me on the Drosophila melanogaster data and the University of

Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, especially Dr.

Joan Hooper with whom I had starting conversing about these data. In addition to the TBL projects I

have already initiated and implemented, I intend to continue my scholarship of teaching by writing a

laboratory manual for my undergraduate genetics course during my next sabbatical leave scheduled for

Fall 2014. I have learned much about the process while publishing my Developmental Biology laboratory

manual and feel confident I will be able to generate a product that will be of high academic quality and at

the same time engaging for students.

16


V. Service to the University, including Service to the Student Body

A. Service Activities

Over the past 7-year period, my service activities were diverse as reported below, even though most of

them became focused on the Biology Department when I became Chair and remained so for the last 4

years (see Appendix X for the last Biology Annual Report). Indeed, the Biology Department went

through a lot of productive changes (as mentioned earlier) and while I do not claim them all, I managed

most of them, coordinated the totality of a large and very active department’s activities, and handled the

many departmental crises that inevitably arise when necessary. Overall, I enjoyed all tasks and felt that

my opinions were taken into consideration during decision-making. I would like to mention that I always

participated in meetings’ and committees’ discussions even if I was not part of the executive boards, e.g.,

Senate Plenary Meetings. Because I believe Regis College is an open and caring community where

opinions are not only sough after but respected, I always felt I could voice mine without being censured.

In addition, I would also like to mention, even if this does not fall into any particular category, that I

always help staff, faculty and students in any way I could when in need of assistance.

Specific Service to the Student Body (most is embedded in the other categories)

• Ranger Preview Day, Biology representative. (2007).

• Advised an average of 24 Biology students per year with an apex year of 30 students in 2008-2009

(number that equals the lowest number that will qualify for extraordinary service), the number of

students to advise grew tremendously as more of them declared Biology major. (2006-2013).

• Wrote countless letters of recommendation for students applying to Medical Schools, Graduate

Schools, Physician Assistant School, Physical Therapy Schools and other professional schools,

most students were accepted. (2006-2013).

• Wrote many letters of recommendations for students applying for Internship, Research Positions,

Honors Societies and such, most were accepted. (2006-2013).

• Honors Thesis Advisor for 6 students, Joanna Welch, Sid White, Emmie Altepeter, Jeffrey

Hassebrock, Alexandra Lynch and Sonny Stoen. (2006-07, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13).

• Honors Thesis Reader for 3 students, Erika Tanaka, Lana Schamberger and Alexander Ghincea. I

really served as Erika’s Advisor because her Reader was not involved. (2009-10, 2011-12).

Service to the Community and Regis University

• Magis National Faculty Retreat, Fairfield University, CT. (2007).

Regis University Institutional Review Board committee (IRB). (2006, 2007, 2008).

• Budget and Facilities Committee. (2007, 2008, 2009).

• Mentored the two first exchange students from Brazil (rides, meals and such). (2006, 2007).

• Faculty representative for the development and implementation of a Community Garden on

campus (members of this committee were composed of Physical Plant, student, faculty and DUG

representatives). (2008-2009).

• Nominated for the National Society of Collegiate Scholars (NSCS). (2009).

• Member of an ad hoc committee appointed by Janet House, Dean of RHCHP to assess the

feasibility of developing a M.S. in Clinical Sciences in collaboration with the Colorado Center for

Medical Laboratory Science sponsored by the Colorado Health Foundation. (2010-2011).

• Provided research information for an article on frogs published in National Geographic Kids

magazine. (2012).

• Participated in the CU’s Graduate Teacher and Preparing Future Faculty program organized by Dr.

Sagendorf, one of the graduate students I met stayed in contact with me, will give a seminar in the

Biology Seminar Series this coming Fall and is interested in teaching in the Biology Department.

(2012).

17


• Member of the Regis Faculty Leader Committee as a sub-committee of the Search Committee for

Regis University President appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affair Dr. Ladewig,

lunch and dinner with Father Fitzgibbons. (2011-2012).

Service to Regis College

• Summer Advising. This task became financially remunerated in 2010. (2007-2013).

Regis Chapter of AAUP, member at-large. (2006-2008).

• Outstanding Faculty Member Award for the exceptional support of the Collegium Musicum at

Regis University. (2007).

• Search Committee member for the Assistant/Associate Advising Dean, the position was filled. Dr.

Atkins was hired in 2007. (2006-2007).

• Interview Committee member for the Music Theory Tenure-Track position, the position was

filled. Dr. Notareschi was hired. (2006-2007).

• Interview Committee member for one Religious Studies Tenure-Track position, the position was

filled. Dr. Balani was hired. (2007).

• Wrote a 2-page summary of my experience as a foreign educator in the U.S. that was used as an

excerpt in the book “Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Exceptional Students: Strategies for

Teaching and Assessment” by Elizabeth Grassi and Heidi Barker published in 2009. (2007).

• Helped in the translation from English to French of texts used for a Religious Conference held at

Regis University. (2006).

• Search Committee member for one Assistant tenure-track position in Psychology, the position was

filled. Dr. Basham was hired in 2007. (2006).

• Attended Faculty Forum and later Faculty Senate sessions on a regular basis. (2006-2013).

• Member of COTER (Committee on Teacher Education at Regis), the committee meets twice a

year to discuss the College policies on admission, retention, and recommendation for licensure.

(2007-2013).

• Member of the Neuroscience Advising Committee. (2009-2011).

• Member for the Student Life Committee (met as a committee and interviewed student-athletes).

(2008-2010).

• Admission Open Houses and Breakfasts, usually 3 events a year meeting with students and

parents. (2006-2013).

• Wrote letter to support the hire of a second Physicist to the Dean of the College Dr. Ewald, the

proposal went through and Dr. Hart was hired in 2010. (2009).

• Worked in close relation with the newly designed University Relations to improve communication

between academics and administrative offices. (2010).

• Worked with Dr. Barnes from Physical Therapy to continue an already established collaboration

between our departments, especially concerning the cadaver anatomy laboratory. (2009-20011).

• Informally mentored Dr.Tong, Chemistry faculty for 2 years, Dr. Tong accepted a position in

Canada since. (2011-2012).

• Nominated for faculty of the year but declined the nomination (2012).

• Developed a working collaboration with Sarah Behuneck, new Assistant Vice President, Alumni

Engagement Program. A survey to biology majors was sent out for the first time in many years

(2011-2010).

• Member of the Regis College Assessment Committee and piloted the Biology Portfolio

Assessment with Dr. Sakulich. (2012-2013).

• Member of the Study Abroad AUR Committee. (2012-2013).

18


• Member of the ad hoc committee appointed by the Dean of the College Dr. Ewald to review the

Communication Department and make recommendation for its future. (2013).

Service to the Biology Department

• Advised an average of 24 Biology students per year with an apex year of 30 students in 2008-2009

(number that equals the lowest number that will qualify for extraordinary service), the number of

students to advise grew tremendously as more of them declared Biology major. (2006-2013).

• Wrote countless letters of recommendation for students applying to Medical Schools, Graduate

Schools, Physician Assistant School, Physical Therapy Schools and other professional schools,

most students were accepted. (2006-2013).

• Wrote many letters of recommendations for students applying for Internship, Research Positions,

Honors Societies and such, most were accepted. (2006-2013).

• Met with prospective athletes and biology majors, with and without parents. (2006-2013).

• Informally tutored many struggling biology students. (2006-2013).

• Actively participated in the writing of 2 AURs, the first in 2007 by compiling and analyzing

various alumni databases and the second in 2011 (Dr. Ghedotti did most of everything for those).

• Key participant in the discussions concerning the remodeling of the Science Building and actively

participated in the general move/storage of supplies and furniture to the many allocated locations

pending the remodeling. (2006-2007).

• Biology Scholarship Week-ends, proctored exams, attended socials with students and parents and

compile data for winners selection. (2006-2013).

• Search Committee member for an Assistant tenure-track Microbiologist position, the position was

filed and Kristi Penheiter was hired. (2008).

• Created and initially maintained Facebook pages for the Biology alumni in an effort to gather

information and generate a community. (2010).

• Search Committee member for an Assistant tenure-track Primate Behaviorist position, the position

was filed and Amy Schreier was hired. (2012).

• Search Committee member for an Assistant tenure-track Environmental Ecology position, the

position was filed and John Sakulich was hired. (2010).

• Search Committee Chair for 2 Biologist Assistant tenure-track positions, all positions were filled.

Jay Campisi was hired in 2009 and Lara Shamieh was hired in 2012.

• Master of Science in Biomedical Science Curriculum Committee. (2010-2013).

• Worked closely with Lisa Greco, Creative Lead in University Brand marketing to generate

promotional brochures for the undergraduate Biology programs and the M.S. in Biomedical

Sciences. (2009-2012).

• Tribeta (National Biological Honor Society) Advisor. (2011-2012).

• AED (Alpha Epsilon Delta, Premedical Honor Society) Advisor. (2011-2012).

• Chair of Search Committee for a Biology Coordinator Position, the position was filled. Alice

Young was hired in 2010. (2009).

• Developed a semi-formal collaboration with Valerie Saltou, Postdoctoral Coordinator, CU Denver

and met with Dr. John Freed, former Dean of the Graduate School for the recruitment of

outstanding adjuncts. I am planning in making this collaboration formal as explained later. (2009-

1013).

• Chair of Search Committee for a Laboratory Preparator, the position was filled. Kate Gould was

hired. (2010).

• Chair of Search Committee for an Application Processing Assistant for the M.S. in Biomedical

Sciences, the position was filled. Kara Sakulich was hired in 2010. (2010).

19


• Chair of all Search Committees for all Biology Adjunct positions, all positions were filled

(average of 9 Adjuncts per semester, many became regular Adjuncts). (2009-2013).

• Chair of the Biology Department. (2009-2013). In addition to the normal Chair duties (Regis

College Faculty Handbook, 2013), I have created what I called the A-Z Biology Chair list of

duties that although non-exhaustive, captures the most important tasks to be done in a given year.

Since our Department is so big and since a lot of what the Chair does is dealing with everyday

operations and crises that come around (and they do), I had started to delegate some of the duties

as represented in the list that follows. It will not come as a surprise that Dr. Ghedotti gets his own

special column; so much of what we are has been defined by his work.

• Acting Program Director for the M.S. in Biomedical Sciences while Dr. Betz was on sabbatical

leave (Fall 2012).

• M.S. capstone project Advisor for 9 students. (2012-2013).

20


B. Self-Evaluation of Service Activities

Over this 7-year period, I have been very active and was involved in many service activities. Although

it is very difficult to measure energy and time spent daily with the affairs of running a department, I

would say that this charge has been like the glue that holds pieces together and permeated most of my

days after I became Chair. I believed I reached the peak of my activities this past academic year (2012-

2013) with the following activities being the highlights. Indeed, I was Chair of the Biology Department

(see appendix X for the Biology annual report), Acting Director for the M.S. in Biomedical Sciences in

the Fall 2012, was the Honors Thesis Advisor for 3 students, developed the new Experiential Learning

program (students presented very high quality work), was a member of the ad hoc committee appointed

by the Dean of the College Dr. Ewald to review the Communication Department and make

recommendation for its future, moved Portfolio assessment forward in the Biology Department and

developed a new collaboration with the Alumni Engagement Programs (Assistant Vice President, Sarah

Behuneck and Director, Kate Paquette). I am particularly happy with the latter accomplishment because I

started this project in 2007 while the department was writing one of its AURs and struggled over the years

to obtain accurate information. After many unsuccessful attempts to obtain alumni data, this year and

with the collaboration of Alice Young (Biology Administrative Coordinator), Sarah and Kate, we

developed an online survey that was sent out to the last four graduating classes; Figure 1 reports the

occupations of these alumni. This data will help us put forward our strategic planning.

Figure 1: Summary of the professional activities of the Biology alumni for the past four years.

The survey was sent to 117 Biology alumni and we

received 45 responses as of, May 14, 2013 (more

answers have been received since but need to be

analyzed, overall the trend remained the same). The

collected data has been analyzed and shows that 62%

of the students are currently enrolled in graduate

schools (Medical, DO, Dental, Veterinary, PA,

Pharmacy, Sciences and Chiropractic schools), 29% of

the students have a professional occupation (79% with

a Biology focus) and 9% of the students are currently

Sciences). These numbers are very encouraging and

demonstrate that the Biology Department is doing a

very good work at training Biologists, not only at

graduating students with a college degree.

C. Long-Term Service Goals

I intend to remain actively involved in service to the Biology Department, the College, the

University and the community at-large. The most pressing activity will be to finish the compilation and

analysis of the alumni data collected this past Spring 2013 and to develop a long-term plan for assessing

the data. Also, I intend to remain the Chair of Adjuncts Searches and would like to formalize the

collaboration I have established with Valerie Saltou, Postdoctoral Coordinator at CU Denver (UCD). We

had discussed the possibility of entering into agreement with the UCD Postdoctoral Teaching and

Mentoring Exchange (PTME), designed to assist UCD’s Postdoctoral Fellows/Trainees to obtain teaching

and/or mentoring experience and help strengthen their academic portfolio. In addition, I would like to

develop some relationship between my Diversity Core Seminar (RCC400D), the Experiential Learning

program and the local community. More specifically, I would like to connect them by developing student

projects with the local community that will enhance students’ concern for Biology-related public issues

and foster their leadership and advocacy.

21


VI. Summary and Concluding Statement

I believe that my post tenure 7-year period was successful in the areas of teaching, scholarship and

service. Based on personal observations and reflections and based on students’ evaluations, I feel my

teaching effectiveness has reached a level at which I consider myself an effective instructor in all the

courses I have taught. I attribute this achievement to my genuine desire to continually improve the quality

of my teaching and to my dedication to the student body. My most significant achievements were: 1) the

improvement and design (for BL261H) of the Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture and laboratory

courses (BL260, BL261 and BL261H). These courses represented half my teaching load each year (for

many years before I started to teach genetics), 2) the development of all genetics lecture courses (graduate

and undergraduate) (BL 414, BL414H and BL614). These courses are central to the Biology and the

Biomedical Sciences M.S. curricula and I feel that the quality of my instruction well prepares students for

their future academic careers, 3) the redesign of the Junior Core Seminar (CCS 400) into the Diversity and

Cultural Tradition Core Seminar (RCC400D) and 4) the supervision of numerous Honors theses.

Concerning my scholarship activities as they relate to the scholarship of discovery, I feel that I have been

successful in developing and implementing a research program centered on patterns of gene expression

during organismic development (Developmental Biology), in collaboration with undergraduate Regis

students. Indeed, this program had led to students’ grants and scholarly presentation. In addition, I have

started to engage in new types of scholarship, scholarship of teaching and scholarship of application

demonstrated by my involvement in TBL

scholarship presentations and my publication of

a Developmental Biology Laboratory Manual

respectively. I intend to repeat the Laboratory

Manual Publication experience with the

Genetics Laboratory course (BL415).

Concerning my service activities, I believe that

I have also been successful; from departmental

service (including extended-term Chairship) to

University-wide service, my activities have

been numerous and diverse. I plan to continue

my engagement in service in the future and I

look forward to become more involved at the

College level now that my Chair term is over.

In sum, I believe I have been able to bring

together my teaching, scholarship and service,

in light of the Regis University Mission. This

accomplishment has required deep personal

analysis, reflection and refocusing. I am very

grateful that I am part of an academic institution

that not only values academic excellence but

also personal growth.

I would like to finish this application

with one of the thank-you cards I received at

the end of last academic year. I recognize that

many of the dedicated faculty at Regis receive

similar notes from students, but I think it really

communicates why my work at Regis is where

my heart is.

22


VII. Curriculum vitae

23


APPENDIX Ia

Molecular and Cellular Biology Lecture (BL 260)

Spring 2011

MEETING TIME and PLACE

Lecture periods meet three times a week either in Pomponio Science Center

#212 on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 11:30 am to 12:20 pm

(RU01), or in Pomponio Science Center #313 on Mondays, Wednesdays and

Fridays from 12:30 pm to 1:20 pm (RU02).

INSTRUCTOR

Dr. Marie-dominique Franco (Pomponio Science Center #223, mfranco@regis.edu). Laboratory course

(BL261 and BL261H) coordinator and lecture (BL260) instructor: Dr. Marie-dominique Franco (office

hours: Mondays 9:00 am to 11:30 am; Wednesdays 9:00 am to 11:30 am; Fridays 8:00 am to 9:00 am and

appointments).

TEACHING ASSISTANTS

Teaching assistants will conduct weekly tutoring/review sessions, that will be scheduled at the beginning

of the semester.

IMPORTANT DEADLINES

The Add/Drop period ends on January 25, and the withdrawal period ends on March 25.

COURSE WEB SITE (http://academic.regis.edu/mfranco/MCB/MolCellBio.htm)

To print a Power point lecture you will have to 1) Right click on the link to the lecture and select Save

Target As and save the file to your computer or disk, 2) Open the saved file in Power Point and select

Print from the File menu, and 3) Choose Handouts from the Print window and select the number of slides.

LECTURE MATERIALS

Weekly assigned readings will include appropriate sections from the textbook:

• Life: The Science of Biology 9 th Ed. by Savada, Hillis, Heller, and Berenbaum (2011), Ed. Sinauer

and Freeman (see schedule for assigned page numbers).

In addition, I recommend students with weak chemistry background to obtain the textbook:

• An Introduction to Chemistry for Biology Students 9 th Ed by G.I. Sackheim (2007), Ed. Benjamin

Cummings

COURSE DESCRIPTION and OBJECTIVES

This course will introduce students to Natural Science; particularly the hypothesis testing and data

analysis used in contemporary Molecular and Cellular Biology. In addition, this course will develop

student knowledge of the terms and concepts of Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology, and will

also highlight social and ethical issues.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

Students should be able to:

• Generally explain how science differs from other ways of knowing

• Define the major terms used in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology

• Explain the major organizing concepts in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology

31


• Recognize the social and ethical relevance of content covered in Genetics and Biotechnology

HOW TO STUDY FOR THIS COURSE

This course is an intensive first-year introductory Biology course that requires a lot of work. All topics

build on each other and you need to comprehend the early material in order to progress through the

course. In order to succeed in this course you need to:

• Read assigned textbook chapters before lecture periods

• Come to class with your printed PowerPoint lectures

• Ask questions in class if you don’t understand

• Spend a minimum of 3 hours of study time for 1 hour of lecture

• Work in group, quiz yourselves and do the exercises at the end of each chapter

If you realize that you still don’t understand, you need to come to me for explanations.

ATTENDANCE

Attendance is expected and will be taken on a daily basis, although you will not be penalized if you

miss classes. If you are a member of the NCAA athletic team and must miss either a quiz, or a home-work

exercise, or an exam (except the final exam), you must present me with an official schedule provided by

your coach during the first week of the semester. In addition, it is your responsibility to remind me a

week in advance that you will be missing either a quiz, or a home-work exercise, or an exam (except the

final exam). If you must miss a quiz, a home-work exercise, or an exam (except the final exam) for

medical or family emergency, you must notify me and provide an official letter of explanation. If I am

not provided with an official letter of explanation, your absence will be considered as unexcused. Neither

make-up quizzes, nor make-up home-work exercises, nor make-up exams will be given, therefore and for

all EXCUSED absences, your final grade will be calculating averaging tests you took, and home-work

you turned in. For all UNEXCUSED absences, any missed quizzes, or home-work exercises, or exams

will result in a “zero” grade.

Promptness is mandatory; any late coming will result in minus 10 points each from the grand total

points. Indeed, tardiness is not acceptable, as I need to start lecture in time in order to ensure in-time

ending of the period.

iClickers

iClickers will be used in class most (or all) class days to take attendance and ensure that students are

comprehending material as it is covered to help the instructor gauge student learning. Students must

register their iClicker online at http://www.iclicker.com by Monday January 24, 2011.

**** Bring your iClicker to class every day. *****

Use of Laptop Computers in Class

Studies have shown that use of laptops in class correlates with poor grades for the student AND for other

students able to see the screen. Thus, students may NOT use laptops or iPads to take notes in class (unless

it is a disability accommodation or granted special instructor permission).

ASSIGNMENTS and TESTS

• Exercises that will be started in class and allowed to be finished at home

• Quizzes (in class)

• Exams (comprehensive, in class)

MISSED AND LATE ASSIGNMENTS

All UNEXCUSED absences resulting in either a missed quiz, or a missed home-work exercise, or a

missed exam will result in a “zero” grade. For EXCUSED absences, and on a case-to-case basis, I may

32


eserve the right to allow an assignment to be turned in late (time extension will be determined also on a

case-to-case basis). No other late assignments will be accepted.

DISABILITY

If you have a documented disability requiring academic adjustments for this course, please contact the

Disability Services Office (303-458-4941, disability@regis.edu). The Disability Services office will

review your documentation with you and determine appropriate, reasonable accommodations. Following

the meeting with Disability Services personnel, please make an appointment with me to discuss your

accommodation request in light of the course requirement.

INNAPROPRIATE CONDUCT

Academic dishonesty such as cheating and plagiarism will be severely punished as it will result in the

failure of the course (grade F) and the offense will be reported to the Biology Department Chair and to the

Dean’s Office for documentation that could lead to expulsion from Regis College. The following is an

excerpt from the Regis College’s Academic Integrity Policy:

"Consistent with the College's Academic Integrity Policy, I will report all violations of this course's

academic integrity policy to the Dean's office. Students who have committed multiple instances of

academic dishonesty can be subject to institutional penalties like probation, suspension, or expulsion,

in addition to the penalties for this course. The Academic Integrity policy is described in the Bulletin;

detailed information about the policy and the appeals process can be found in the Dean's office."

Cell phones, pagers, and any other electronic devices should be turned off during class periods and

exams. Any use of such devices will result in minus 10 points each time from the grand total points. If

you need to be contacted for an emergency situation, you should notify me at the beginning of a class

period.

During testing periods, personal calculators will not be permitted, hat brims will need to be turned

backward and, and all personal items will be stored in the front of the room.

GRADING and POINTS DISTRIBUTION

Your final course grade will be assigned based on the percentage of points earned out of a total of 755

points. In addition, I may occasionally give pop quizzes. Each of them will be worth 5 points. All tests

(quizzes and exams) and home-work exercises are scheduled at the beginning of the semester; therefore

you need to make sure you will be on campus these days. Neither make-up quizzes, nor make-up homework

exercises, nor make-up exams will be given, therefore and for all EXCUSED absences, your final

grade will be calculating averaging tests you took, and home-work you turned in. For all UNEXCUSED

absences, any missed quizzes, or home-work exercises, or exams will result in a “zero” grade. All exams

are comprehensive.

Exercises

60 (6 x 10) points

Quizzes

100 (5 x 20) points

Exam I

100 points

Exam II

125 points

Exam III

150 points

Final exam

Assessment quiz

200 points

20 points

755 points

A 100-92.5 % A- 92.4-89.5 % B+ 89.4-85.5 %

B 85.4-82.5 % B- 82.4-79.5 % C+ 79.4-75.5 %

C 75.4-72.5 % C- 72.4-69.5 % D+ 69.4-65.5 %

D 65.4-62.5 % D- 62.4-59.5 % F


Date Topic and Reading Lab Topic

Wed. Jan. 19 Introduction to the Course and Assessment quiz (not graded)

Fri. Jan. 21 Small Molecules and the Chemistry of Life (pp. 20-37)

Metric system

Mon. Jan 24 Small Molecules and the Chemistry of Life (pp. 20-37) Solutions,

Wed. Jan 26 Small Molecules and Exercises on Small Molecules

Acids and

Fri. Jan. 28 Quiz1 on Small Molecules and Lecture on Macromolecules (pp. 38-75) Bases

Mon. Jan. 31 Macromolecules (pp. 38-75)

Macro-

Wed. Feb. 2 Macromolecules (pp. 38-75)

-molecules

Fri. Feb. 4 Exercises on Macromolecules

Mon. Feb. 7 Cells (pp. 76-104)

Wed. Feb. 9 Quiz2 on Macromolecules and Lecture on Cells (pp. 76-104)

Cells

Fri. Feb. 11 Review for Exam I

Mon. Feb. 14 Exam I

Diffusion and

Wed. Feb. 16 Cell Membranes (pp. 105-127)

Osmosis

Fri. Feb. 18 Energy, Enzymes, and Metabolism (pp. 148-167)

Mon. Feb. 21 Pathways that Harvest Chemical Energy (Cellular Respiration) (pp. 168-188)

Wed. Feb. 23 Pathways that Harvest Chemical Energy (Cellular Respiration) (pp. pp. 168-188) Enzymes

Fri. Feb. 25 Exercises on Pathways that Harvest Chemical Energy (Cellular Respiration)

Mon. Feb. 28 Photosynthesis (pp. 189-208)

Wed. Mar. 2 Quiz3 on Pathways and Lecture on Photosynthesis (pp. 189-208)

Fri. Mar. 4 Exercises on Photosynthesis

Mar. 7 th -11 th No Class: Spring Break Week

Mon. Mar. 14 Cell Cycle and Cell Division (pp. 209-235)

Wed. Mar. 16 Cell Cycle and Cell Division (pp. 209-235)

Fri. Mar. 18 Review for Exam II

Mon. Mar. 21 Exam II

Wed. Mar. 23 Genetics (pp. 236-265)

Fri. Mar. 25 Genetics (pp. 236-265)

Mon. Mar. 28 Genetics (pp. 236-265)

Wed. Mar. 30 Exercises on Genetics

Fri. Apr.1 DNA and its Role in Heredity (pp. 266-289)

Mon. Apr. 4 Quiz4 on Genetics and Lecture on DNA and its Role in Heredity (pp. 266-289)

Wed. Apr. 6 From DNA to Protein: Gene Expression Transcription (pp. 290-315)

Fri. Apr. 8 From DNA to Protein: Gene Expression Translation (pp. 290-315)

Mon. Apr. 11 Exercises on DNA and its Role in Heredity and From DNA to Proteins

Wed. Apr. 13 Review for Exam III

Fri. Apr. 15 Exam III

Mon. Apr. 18 Regulation of Gene Expression (pp. 342-364)

Wed. Apr. 20 Regulation of Gene Expression (pp. 342-364)

Fri. Apr. 22 No Class: Easter Break

Mon. Apr. 25 Quiz 5 on Regulation of Gene Expression and Lecture on Recombinant DNA

Wed. Apr. 27 Recombinant DNA and Biotechnology (pp. 386-404)

Fri. Apr. 29 Wrap-up and Review session for Final Exam

Final Exam (with assessment quiz) for RU01 is from 8:00 am to 10:00 am

Wed. May 4

Final Exam (with assessment quiz) for RU02 is from 10:10 am to 12:10 pm

Fri. May 6

Important note: In general, you will NOT be able to switch sections.

Cellular

Respiration

Photosynthesis

Mitosis and

Meiosis

Genetics

Restriction

Enzymes

Bacterial

Transformation

Independent

Projects

Independent

Projects

Independent

Projects

Presentation

34


APPENDIX Ib

Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory (BL 261H)

Spring 2011

Seminar Part of the Course

MEETING TIME and PLACE

Laboratory sessions meet twice a week in Pomponio Science Center #206 on

Tuesdays from 9:25 am to 12:02 pm, and in Pomponio Science Center #319 on

Fridays from 9:30 am to 10:30 am.

IMPORTANT DEADLINES

The Add/Drop period ends on January 25, and the withdrawal period ends on March 25.

INSTRUCTOR

Dr. Marie-dominique Franco (Pomponio Science Center #223, mfranco@regis.edu). Laboratory course (BL261

and BL261H) coordinator and lecture (BL260) instructor: Dr. Marie-dominique Franco (office hours: Mondays

9:00 am to 11:30 am; Wednesdays 9:00 am to 11:30 am; Fridays 8:00 am to 9:00 am and appointments).

COURSE WEB SITE

http://academic.regis.edu/mfranco/MCB/MolCellBio.htm

LABORATORY MATERIALS

Weekly assigned readings will include appropriate sections from either/and:

• Endersby J. 2007. A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard press. 499 p.

• Various online articles or articles distributed in class.

COURSE DESCRIPTION and OBJECTIVES

For the experimental part of this course, students will be introduced to scientific study design, use of

primary literature, basic laboratory skills, data interpretation, and presentation of scientific results. These

exercises will be implemented through the performing of experiments, including DNA recombination,

designed to reinforce lecture content. Each laboratory session will start with about 15 minutes of

laboratory lecture, then students will perform experiments, and finally the results of the experiments will

be discussed.

For the seminar part of this course, the readings will explore biological topics in greater depth and link

these topics to broader academic themes.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

Students should be able to:

• Generally explain how science differs from other ways of knowing

• Propose, design, and execute a simple but rigorous scientific study/investigation

• Analyze primary data to correctly test hypotheses in Molecular and Cellular Biology

• Compose a clear, concise, and accurate primary research paper

• Define the major terms used in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology

• Explain the major organizing concepts in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology

• Recognize the social and ethical relevance of content covered in Genetics and Biotechnology

ATTENDANCE

The seminar part of this course is a discussion-based; therefore attendance is required and will be taken during each

class period. If you miss two class periods without an official university-sanctioned or official emergency excuse,

35


your grade will be reduced by one letter grade and your grade will be reduced by an additional letter grade for each

absence beyond two.

Attendance is required; if you are a member of the NCAA athletic team and must miss a seminar period for an

athletic competition, you must present your instructor with an official schedule provided by your coach during the

first week of the semester and the penalty points will be waived. In addition, it is your responsibility to let your

instructor know that you will be missing a seminar period a week in advance; otherwise you will be penalized as

mentioned above. If you must miss a seminar period for medical or family emergency, you must notify your

instructor and provide an official letter of explanation; otherwise you will be penalized as mentioned above. There

are no make-up seminar periods for excused absences; you will be responsible for studying any missed material on

your own.

Promptness is mandatory; any late coming will result in minus 10 points each from the grand total points. Indeed,

tardiness is not acceptable, as your instructor needs to start discussion in time in order to ensure in-time ending of

the session.

COURSE PARTICIPATION

As a seminar course, it is a basic assumption that students will participate actively in discussions in class, as nonparticipation

disrupts the class dynamics, therefore participation will be monitored in class. Students who

consistently do not participate will have their final grade reduced by a letter grade at the end of the semester.

ASSIGNMENTS and TESTS

• Reading summaries (entry slips) will be completed before class each week and will be collected during class.

• Midterm examination

• Final examination

MISSED AND LATE ASSIGNMENTS

Any missed assignments will result in a “0” for the missed assignment unless you provide your instructor with an

official letter of explanation. If you provide your instructor with an official letter of explanation, a late assignment

will be accepted (time extension will be determined by your instructor on a case to case basis). No other late

assignment will be accepted.

INNAPROPRIATE CONDUCT

Academic dishonesty such as plagiarism and cheating will be severely punished as it will result in the failure of

the course (grade F) and the offense will be reported to the Biology Department Chair and to the Dean’s Office for

documentation that could lead to expulsion from Regis College (refer to the Regis University Bulletin for more

information).

Cell phones and pagers use (including text messaging) will result in minus 10 points each time from the grand

total points. Cell phones and pagers should be turned off. If you need to be contacted for an emergency situation,

you should notify your instructor at the beginning of the laboratory period.

DISABILITY

If you have a documented disability requiring academic adjustments for this course, please contact the Disability

Services Office (303-458-4941, disability@regis.edu). The Disability Services office will review your

documentation with you and determine appropriate, reasonable accommodations. Following the meeting with

Disability Services personnel, please make an appointment with your instructor to discuss your accommodation

request in light of the course requirement.

REGIS COLLEGE WRITING CENTER

The Writing Center is a free resource where Regis College students get immediate and personal feedback on their

writing and answers to questions about grammar, documentation, and formatting. Peer writing consultants help at

any point in the writing process, from brainstorming for ideas to organizing a draft to polishing the final version.

The Writing Center is a very popular service, so appointments are strongly recommended. Drop by Loyola 1 or call

(303) 458-4039 for more information.

36


GRADING

Seminar reading summaries are completed (typed) before class each week and will be collected during class.

Because of the diversity of the readings (book chapters, review articles, primary research articles and others) and

because of the variable amount of readings per week, the specific format of the entry slip will not be uniform across

the semester. I will let you know in advance how to specifically write your entry slip. However, for all entry slips,

the following sections will have to be completed and will be graded as described below:

BL261H, Entry Slip “corresponding number”

“Your name”

Citation: Example: Durski JM, Weigel RJ, and McDougall IR (2000). Recombinant human thyrotropin (rhTSH)

in the management of differentiated thyroid cancer. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 21:521-528.

Summary:

Write a brief summary (2-3 paragraphs) of the reading/s. This section will vary according to the type and amount

of readings. I will let you know in advance how to write the summary.

Questions:

Write 3 questions/opinions based on the reading/s using bullet format.

Points allocations: 3 points for the citation/s, 13 points for the summary/ies, and 4 points for the questions (20

points total per entry slip). In addition, 20% penalty points will be removed for each direct quote. You will have

up to four articles per week. In this case, write 4 mini Entry slips, the points will be divided accordingly. Note: All

ESs need to be electronically turned in to TurnItIn in addition to be turned in printed.

Examinations are designed to assess if students have learned the seminar course material and to serve as means

to encourage students to revisit and synthesize the material covered previously in the course. I will give you

possible essay questions in advance. During the examinations (midterm and final), one or two of these questions

will be randomly selected as examinations questions.

Points Distribution

Your final grade for the seminar part of this course will be assigned based on the percentage of points earned out of

a total of 350 points as described below. In addition, I may give occasional pop quizzes (5 points each) that will be

added as bonus points.

Entry slips

Midterm examination

Final examination

200 points (10 x 20 points)

50 points

100 points

Penalty points (deducted from the final grade)

Attendance

One letter grade per two unexcused absences and an additional letter grade for each additional unexcused absence.

Participation

One letter grade removed from your final grade if non-participation is constant.

TurnItIn

Entry slips will not be graded if not submitted to TurnItIn.

FINAL GRADE FOR BL261H (Experimental and Seminar parts)

The final grades received in both the experimental and seminar parts of this course will be averaged at the end of

the semester; the averaged grade will constitute the final grade for BL261H course.

Grading Scale

A 100-92.5 % A - 92.4-89.5 % B+ 89.4-85.5 % B- 85.4-82.5 %

B - 82.4-79.5 % C+ 79.4-75.5 % C 75.4-72.5 % C - 72.4-69.5 %

D+ 69.4-65.5 % D 65.4-62.5 % D - 62.4-59.5 % F


Date Seminar Topic and Reading Assignment Due

1- Fri. Jan. 21

1. Endersby J. (2007). A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard press. Chapter 12: OncoMouse®.

2. Hanahan D, Wagner EF, and Palmiter RD. (2007). The Origins of oncomice: a history of the first transgenic mice genetically

engineered to develop cancer. Genes and Development. 21:2258-2270. (article will be distributed in class)

2- Fri. Jan. 28

1. Durski JM, Weigel RJ, and McDougall IR (2000). Recombinant human thyrotropin (rhTSH) in the management of differentiated

Entry slip 1

thyroid cancer. Nuclear Medicine Communications. 21:521-528. (print this article from the Medline database accessible from the

(TurnItIn and print)

DML website)

3- Fri. Feb. 4

1. Ingram VM. (1956). A Specific Chemical Difference between the Globins of Normal Human and Sickle-Cell Anemia haemoglobin.

Nature. 178:792-794. (article will be distributed in class)

2. Allison, AC. (2004). Two Lessons From the Interface of Genetics and Medicine. Genetics. 166:1591-1599. (print this article from

Google Scholar)

3. Carroll SB. (2009). Into the Jungle: Great adventures in the search for evolution. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.

Chapter 8: A Sickle-Cell Safari. (chapter will be distributed in class)

4- Fri. Feb. 11 Laboratory Activity

1. Fujimoto K. (1995). Freeze-fracture replica electron microscopy combined with SDS digestion for cytochemical labeling of integral

5- Fri. Feb. 18 membrane proteins. Application to the immunogold labeling of intercellular junctional complexes. Journal of Cell Science.

108:3443-3449. (print this article from Google Scholar)

1. Adam M. (2005). Integrating research and development: the emergence of rational drug design in the pharmaceutical industry.

6- Fri. Feb. 25 Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.

36(3): 513-537. (print this article from the Medline database accessible from the DML website)

1. Abuissa H, Jones PG, Marso SP, and O’Keefe JH. (2005). Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin Receptor

7- Fri. Mar. 4 Blockers for Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 46:821-826. (print this article from the

Medline database accessible from the DML website)

Fri. Mar. 11

No Class: Spring Break

8- Fri. Mar. 18 Midterm Examination

1. Endersby J. (2007). A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard press. Chapter 4: Hieracium auricula, What

9- Fri. Mar. 25

Mendel did next. (bring your book)

1. Endersby J. (2007). A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard press. Chapter 8: Bacteriophage, The virus that

10- Fri. Apr. 1

revealed DNA. (bring your book)

1. Maddox B. 2003. The double helix and the “wronged heroine”. Nature. 421:407-408. (print this article from the Medline database

accessible from the DML website)

2. Franklin R and Gosling RG. (1953). Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate. Nature. 171:740-741. (print this article

from the Medline database accessible from the DML website)

11- Fri. Apr. 8

3. Franklin R and Gosling RG. (1953). The Structure of Sodium Thymonucleate Fibres. I. The Influence of Water Content. Acta

Crystallographica. 6:673-677. (print this article from Google Scholar)

4. Watson JD, and Crick FHC. (1953). Genetical Implications of the Structure of Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Nature. 171:964-969. (article

will be distributed in class)

1. Mullis K, Faloona F, Scharf S, Saiki R, Horn G, and Erlich H. (1986). Specific enzymatic amplification of DNA in vitro: the

12- Fri. Apr. 15

polymerase chain reaction. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 51:263-73. (article will be distributed in class)

Fri. Apr. 22

No Class: Easter Break

1. Food from Genetically Modified Crops. (print brochure “from http://www.sdcma.org/education.html” under the Publications tab)

13- Fri. Apr. 29 2. Biotechnology and the Poor. (print brochure “from http://www.sdcma.org/education.html” under the Publications tab)

3. Agricultural Ethics. (print brochure “from http://www.sdcma.org/education.html” under the Publications tab)

F. May 2 Final Examination from 8:00 am to 10:00 am

Entry slip 2

(TurnItIn and print)

Entry slip 3

(TurnItIn and print)

Entry slip 4

(TurnItIn and print)

Entry slip 5

(TurnItIn and print)

Entry slip 6

(TurnItIn and print)

Entry slip 7

(TurnItIn and print)

Entry slip 8

(TurnItIn and print)

Entry slip 9

(TurnItIn and print)

Entry slip 10

(TurnItIn and print)

38


APPENDIX Ic

Developmental Biology Lecture BL 412, Fall 2009

Dr. Marie-dominique Franco

Department of Biology Room #223; Tel: 303-458-4198; mfranco@regis.edu

Office hours: Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 8:00 to 10:00 am, and by appointments. Note: All e-

mail communications will be sent to your Regis account.

Course website: http://academic.regis.edu/mfranco/devbio/devbio.htm

Withdrawal deadline: October 30, 2009.

MEETING TIME

Lecture sessions meet three times a week on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 1:30 pm to 2:20 pm in

Loyola Hall room #14.

COURSE WEB SITE

You can find the Power Point lectures and other relevant information at the address printed below. To print a

Power Point lecture you will have to 1) right click on the link to the lecture, select “Save Target As” and save

the file to your computer or disk, 2) open the saved file in Power Point and select “Print” from the “File” menu,

and 3) choose “Handouts” from the “Print” window and select the number of slides per page.

http://academic.regis.edu/mfranco/devbio/devbio.htm.

COURSE DESCRIPTION/GOALS

This course explores the fundamental principles of Developmental Biology by investigating organismal,

cellular, genetic and molecular aspects of development in a variety of invertebrate and vertebrate models

organisms (sea urchins, the nematode C. elegans, the fruit fly D. melanogaster, amphibians, birds, and mice)

and also in humans. The principles for current knowledge of the developmental processes will be presented

using both normal and disease systems. A particular emphasis will be given to the scientific method, including

experimental techniques/designs and data analysis. Students are expected to know the material presented in the

Principles of Biology: Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture and laboratory courses (BL260 and BL261).

COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES

a) To use biological content presented in the Principles of Biology: Molecular and Cellular Biology

courses

b) To define the major terms used in Developmental Biology

c) To understand and explain the fundamental mechanisms leading to the development of mature

organisms

d) To compare and contrast the relevance and use of model organisms

e) To analyze scientific data generating using various techniques

READING

Weekly assigned reading will include appropriate sections of the textbook, Gilbert, S.F. 2006. Developmental

Biology 8 th ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Inc., and from the Power Point lecture notes that will be

available to you on the course web site. These lecture notes will be posted before the lecture sessions to allow

you to review the material. Please bring a printed version of the notes in class for addition of your personal

notes. Also, I will provide handouts and papers for specific topics when necessary.

HOW TO STUDY FOR THIS COURSE

This course is an in-depth upper division course that requires a lot of work. All topics build on each other and

you need to comprehend the early material in order to follow. In order to succeed in this course you need to:

• Read assigned chapters before lecture sessions

39


• Come to class with your printed PowerPoint lecture notes

• Ask questions in class if you don’t understand

• Spend a minimum of 3 hours of study time for 1 hour of lecture

• Work in group and quiz yourselves. If you still don’t understand, you need to ask for explanations

ATTENDANCE

Attendance is required, although you will not be penalized if you miss class on occasional times. If you are a

member of the NCAA athletic team and must miss either quizzes or exams for an athletic competition, you must

present me with an official schedule provided by your coach during the first week of the semester. If you must

miss either quizzes or exams for medical or family emergency, you must notify me and provide an official letter

of explanation. There are no make-up quizzes or exams for excused (NCAA or emergency) missed ones; your

final grade will be calculated averaging the quizzes and exams you took. However any unexcused missed

quizzes or exams will result in a 0 grade.

DISABILITY

If you have a documented disability requiring academic adjustments for this course, please contact the Disability

Services Office (303-458-4941, disability@regis.edu). The Disability Services office will review your

documentation with you and determine appropriate, reasonable accommodations. Following the meeting with

Disability Services personnel, please make an appointment with me to discuss your accommodation request in

light of the course requirement.

INNAPROPRIATE ACADEMIC CONDUCT

Academic dishonesty such as cheating and plagiarism will be severely punished as it will result in the failure

of the course (grade F) and the offense will be reported to the Biology Department Chair and to the Dean’s

Office for documentation that could lead to expulsion from Regis College. The following is an excerpt form the

Regis College’s Academic Integrity Policy:

"Consistent with the College's Academic Integrity Policy, I will report all violations of this course's

academic integrity policy to the Dean's office. Students who have committed multiple instances of academic

dishonesty can be subject to institutional penalties like probation, suspension, or expulsion, in addition to

the penalties for this course. The Academic Integrity policy is described in the Bulletin; detailed information

about the policy and the appeals process can be found in the Dean's office."

Cell phones, pagers, and any other electronic devices should be turned off during class periods and exams.

Any use of such devices will result in minus 10 points each time from the grand total points. If you need to be

contacted for an emergency situation, you should notify me at the beginning of a class period.

During testing periods, personal calculators will not be permitted, hat brims will need to be turned backward

and, all personal items will be stored in the front of the room.

GRADING

Your final course grade will be assigned based on the percentage of points earned out of a total of 695 points. In

addition, I may occasionally give pop quizzes. Each of them will be worth a certain amount of points, to be

determined at the end of the course. All the exams, quizzes, and exercises are scheduled at the beginning of the

semester; therefore you need to make sure you will be on campus these days. There will be no make-up quizzes

or exams; any missed quiz, exam, or exercises will result in 0 for this particular test. All exams are

comprehensive. If you must miss a quiz or exam for either athletic competition or medical emergency or family

emergency, you must provide an official letter of explanation within a week of the scheduled test.

Quizzes

80 points (4 including the assessment quiz x 20 points)

Exercises

40 points (2 x 20 points)

Exam I

100 points

Exam II (comprehensive) 125 points

Exam III (comprehensive) 150 points

Final Exam (comprehensive) 200 points

Total -------------

695 points

40


Date

Lecture Topic and Reading

I- Principles of Developmental Biology

M Aug. 24 Introduction to the Course, Assessment Quiz, and “From Egg to Tadpole” video

W Aug. 26 Developmental Biology: The Anatomical Tradition (pp. 3-24)

F Aug. 28 Life Cycles and the Evolution of Developmental Patterns (pp. 25-47)

M Aug. 31 Principles of Experimental Embryology I (pp. 49-75)

W Sep. 02 Principles of Experimental Embryology II (pp. 49-75) and Class Review 1

F Sep. 04 Quiz 1 (Life Cycles and Exp. Biology) and The Genetic Core of Development I (pp. 77-99)

M Sep. 07 No Class: Labor Day

W Sep. 09 The Genetic Core of Development II (pp. 77-99)

F Sep. 11 The Genetic Core of Development III (pp. 77-99)

M Sep. 14 Exercises 1 on the Genetic Core of Development

W Sep. 16 The Paradigm of Differential Gene Expression I (pp.101-138) – Exercises 1 due at 5:00 pm.

F Sep. 18 The Paradigm of Differential Gene Expression II (pp.101-138)

M Sep. 21 Exercises 2 on Differential Gene Expression and Class Review 2

W Sep. 23 Exam I

F Sep. 25 Cell-Cell Communication in Development I (pp. 139-172)

M Sep. 28 Cell-Cell Communication in Development II (pp. 139-172)

W Sep. 30 Cell-Cell Communication in Development III (pp. 139-172)

F Oct. 02 No Class: Fall Faculty Conference

M Oct. 05 Exercises 3 on the Cell-Cell Communication in Development

II- Early Embryonic Development – Exercises 3 due at 5:00 pm.

W Oct. 07 Quiz 2 (Cell-Cell Com.) and Fertilization: Beginning a New Organism I (pp. 175-209)

F Oct. 09 Fertilization: Beginning a New Organism II (pp. 175-209)

M Oct. 12 No Class: Fall Break

W Oct.14 Early Development in Invertebrates: Sea Urchin and C. elegans I (pp. 211-251)

F Oct. 16 Early Development in Invertebrates: Sea Urchin and C. elegans II (pp. 211-251)

M Oct. 19 The Genetics of Axis Specification in Drosophila I (pp. 253-290)

W Oct. 21 The Genetics of Axis Specification in Drosophila II (pp. 253-290)

F Oct. 23 The Genetics of Axis Specification in Drosophila III (pp. 253-290) and Class Review 3

M Oct. 26 Exam II (comprehensive)

W Oct. 28 Early Development and Axis Formation in Amphibians I (pp. 291-324)

F Oct. 30 Early Development and Axis Formation in Amphibians II (pp. 291-324)

M Nov. 02 Early Development of Vertebrates: Mammals I (pp. 348-369)

W Nov. 04 Early Development of Vertebrates: Mammals II (pp. 348-369)

F Nov. 06 Class Review 4: Summary of Early Embryonic Development

III- Later Embryonic Development

M Nov. 09 The Emergence of the Ectoderm: Central Nervous System and Epidermis I (pp. 373-405)

W Nov. 11 The Emergence of the Ectoderm: Central Nervous System and Epidermis II (pp. 373-405)

F Nov. 13 Neural Crest Cells and Axonal Specificity I (pp. 407- 441)

M Nov. 16 Quiz 3 (Ectoderm) and Neural Crest Cells and Axonal Specificity II (pp. 407- 441)

W Nov. 18 Paraxial and Intermediate Mesoderm I (pp. 443-470)

F Nov. 20 Paraxial and Intermediate Mesoderm II (pp. 443-470) and Class Review 5

M Nov. 23 Exam III (comprehensive)

W Nov. 25 No Class: Thanksgiving Break

F Nov. 27 No Class: Thanksgiving Break

M Nov. 30 Lateral Plate Mesoderm and Endoderm (pp. 471-504)

W Dec. 2 Sex Determination (pp. 529-554)

F Dec. 4 Assessment Quiz 4 and Review for Final Exam

F Dec. 11 10:10 am to 12:10 pm Final Exam

41


APPENDIX Id

Developmental Biology Laboratory BL 413

Fall 2008

Dr. Marie-dominique Franco

Department of Biology Room #223; Tel: 303-458-4198;

mfranco@regis.edu

Office hours:

Mondays and Wednesdays from 8:00 to 9:00 am, Fridays from 8:00 to 10:00 am

and by appointments. Note: All e-mail communications will be sent to your

Regis account.

Course website: http://academic.regis.edu/mfranco/devbio/devbio.htm

Withdrawal deadline: November 7, 2008.

MEETING TIME

Laboratory sessions meet once a week on Thursdays from 9:25 am to 12:05 pm in room #SC209.

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course will examine the organismal, cellular, and molecular aspects of development in a variety

of animal model organisms (invertebrates and vertebrates) and will incorporate both classical and

modern experimental techniques. The principles for the current knowledge of the developmental

processes will be presented during the lectures and the laboratories will allow for the investigation of

those processes using different model organisms. The laboratory contents will not always correlate

with the lectures’ materials, therefore it is essential that you read your manual before each laboratory

session. Although each experiment is designed to be completed in 2 hours and 40 minutes, you will

have to sometimes observe and record developing organisms over the course of a week, following

initial experimentations.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

To provide an understanding of the different steps leading to the formation of fully functional

organisms by mainly focusing on the molecular and cellular mechanisms, to gain an appreciation for

the scientific method, to develop skills in critical analysis of observations, data and scientific

information, and to develop skills on how to communicate scientific data.

READING

Weekly assigned readings will include appropriate sections from the following and I may provide

research papers for specific topics:

• Gilbert, S.F. 2006. Developmental Biology. 8 th ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Inc.

• Franco, M-d. 2009. From Molecules to Organisms: An Investigative Approach to the

Developmental Biology Laboratory. Reno: Bent Tree Press.

• Wright, S.J. 2005. A Photographic Atlas of Developmental Biology. Englewood: Morton

Publishing Company.

• McMillan, V.E. 2006. Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. 4 th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.

Martin’s.

42


SUPPLIES

You will need to buy a research notebook and a 2 1/2 inch binder. In this binder, you will put your

laboratory manual, research notebook, research papers, and anything else you will find pertinent to the

course. In addition, you will also need a calculator.

HOW TO STUDY FOR THIS COURSE

This course is an in-depth upper division course that requires a lot of work during and outside the

laboratory sessions. In order to succeed in this course you need to 1) read the laboratory manual prior

to the laboratory sessions, 2) conduct your experiments knowing why and how you are doing them, 3)

turn in well-thought and well-written papers, 4) develop an interesting independent project with a

testable hypothesis, and 5) spend extra time observing and recording developing organisms.

REGIS COLLEGE WRITING CENTER

The Writing Center is a free resource for Regis College undergraduates. All writers, no matter how

proficient, benefit from working with a writing consultant. These peer consultants will help you at any

point in your writing process, from brainstorming for ideas to organizing a draft to polishing the final

version. You get immediate and personal feedback about your writing as well as answers to your

questions. Appointments are recommended. You can stop by the Writing Center in Loyola room #1

or call at 303-458-4039 for more information.

ATTENDANCE AND PROMPTNESS

Attendance is required; any missed laboratory will result in minus 50 points each from the grand total

points. If you are a member of the NCAA athletic team and must miss a laboratory session for an

athletic competition, you must present your instructor with an official schedule provided by your coach

during the first week of the semester and the penalty points will be waived. In addition, it is your

responsibility to let your instructor know that you will be missing a laboratory a week in advance;

otherwise you will be penalized as mentioned above. If you must miss a laboratory session for medical

or family emergency, you must notify your instructor and provide an official letter of explanation, as

any missed laboratory without an official letter of explanation will result in minus 50 points. There are

no make-up experiments for excused missed laboratories, you will be responsible for studying any

missed material on your own.

Promptness is mandatory; the door of the laboratory will be closed at 9:25 am. Any late coming will

result in minus 10 points each from the grand total points. Indeed, tardiness is not acceptable, as your

instructor needs to start pre-laboratory in time in order to ensure in time ending of the laboratory

period.

MISSED AND LATE ASSIGNMENTS Any missed assignments will result in a “0” for the missed

assignment unless you provide your instructor with an official letter of explanation. If you provide

your instructor with an official letter of explanation, your grade will be averaged out (except for the sea

urchin introduction/References and chick development papers). No late assignments will be accepted

and will therefore be considered as missed assignments unless you provide your instructor with an

official letter of explanation; in this case, you will have additional time (to be defined by the instructor)

to complete the assignment. On a case to case basis your instruction may allow late assignment with a

drop of a letter grade per day after the due date. In addition, the final paper on chick development will

not be graded if the draft and the grading template sheet are not attached.

DISABILITY

If you have a documented disability requiring academic adjustments for this course, please contact the

Disability Services Office (303-458-4941, disability@regis.edu). The Disability Services office will

43


eview your documentation with you and determine appropriate, reasonable accommodations.

Following the meeting with Disability Services personnel, please make an appointment with your

instructor to discuss your accommodation request in light of the course requirement.

INNAPROPRIATE ACADEMIC CONDUCT

Academic dishonesty such as plagiarism and cheating will be severely punished as it will result in

the failure of the course (grade F) and the offense will be reported to the Biology Department Chair

and to the Dean’s Office for documentation that could lead to expulsion from Regis College (refer to

the Regis University Bulletin for more information).

Cell phones and pagers use (including text messaging) will result in minus 10 points each time from

the grand total points. Cell phones and pagers should be turned off. If you need to be contacted for an

emergency situation, you should notify your instructor at the beginning of the laboratory period.

INNAPROPRIATE LABORATORY CITIZENSHIP

Each pair of students will be responsible for cleaning their instruments, their glassware and their bench

at the end of each laboratory session. Your Teaching Assistant will inspect your bench after each

laboratory session and penalty points will be taken out of the grand total points if you leave your work

area dirty (minus 20 per infraction). Also, it is expected that students will show respect for the

equipment, furniture, and materials in the laboratory. Vandalism will result in the failure of the course

(grade F) and the student will be held financially responsible for the cost of professional repairs.

Working with live animals is a privilege that requires compliance with institutional policies and

responsibilities. Therefore, each student should treat live animals with respect and give them the best

care.

RESPONSIBLE MICROSCOPE USE

Use only the microscopes assigned to you. Microscopes must be cared for appropriately. If a

microscope is returned to the cabinet with either a slide left on the stage or a high or intermediate

powered lens clicked into the functional position, or an inappropriately wrapped cord, then BOTH

students assigned to the microscope will receive a minus 10 points penalty from the grand total points.

GRADING

Research Notebook

Maintaining or keeping a research notebook while conducting scientific experiments (whether be

defined by the instructor or be inquisitive such as in independent projects or research), is essential in

conducting good science. Therefore you will be asked to keep a detailed research notebook for the

duration of this course. The pre-lab entries and following notebook keeping entries will be graded by

your instructor at the beginning of each laboratory session. See the INSTRUCTIONS TO

ASSIGNMENTS section for points’ distribution and discuss assignment importance.

Introduction and References Sections (Sea urchin fertilization)

This assignment has been incorporated in this course, mainly to emphasize the importance of

documenting a paper with appropriate sources and using an appropriate format. See the

INSTRUCTIONS TO ASSIGNMENTS section for points’ distribution and discuss assignment

importance.

Research Paper (Chick development)

This assignment is designed to teach students scientific writing as a critical aspect of the scientific

process in the reporting of new results (or known results as in a teaching setting) in scientific journals

to the larger community of scientists. Communication of your results contributes to the pool of

44


knowledge within your discipline and very often provides information that helps others interpret their

own experimental results. Most journals accept papers for publication only after peer review by a small

group of scientists who work in the same field and who recommend the paper be published (usually

with some revision). See the INSTRUCTIONS TO ASSIGNMENTS section for points’ distribution

and discuss assignment importance.

Independent Research Proposal

This assignment is designed to teach students scientific study design and implementation. The

completion and final presentation of your independent project require a lot of planning and work.

Students that are not prepared adequately will panic, experience frustration and ultimately fail to

succeed. Thus, you need to seriously think about developing hypotheses and experiments well before

your proposal is due. See the INSTRUCTIONS TO ASSIGNMENTS section for points’ distribution

and discuss assignment importance.

Poster

This assignment is designed to teach students scientific data sharing in a more informal manner than

that of a research paper. A scientific poster is a large document that can communicate your research at

a scientific meeting, and is composed of a title, an introduction, an overview of your experimental

approach, your results, some insightful discussion of results, a listing of previously published articles

that are important to your research, and some brief acknowledgement of the assistance and financial

support from others. If all text is kept to a minimum, a person could fully read your poster in less than

10 minutes and you should also be able to present in about 10 minutes. See the INSTRUCTIONS TO

ASSIGNMENTS section for points’ distribution and discuss assignment importance.

Poster Peer-Review

This assignment is designed to teach students how to evaluate their peers’ works and how to improve

their works though valuable feedback on what is compelling and what is problematic. See the

INSTRUCTIONS TO ASSIGNMENTS section for points’ distribution and discuss assignment

importance.

Points Distribution and Grading Scale

Your final grade will be assigned based on the percentage of points earned out of a total of 600 points

as described below. In addition, I may give occasional pop quizzes (5 points each) that will be added

as bonus points.

Pre-lab entries

130 points (13 x 10 points)

Research notebook keeping

110 points (11 x 10 points)

Introduction and References sections (Sea urchin fertilization) 20 points

Draft paper (Chick development)

50 points

Final paper (Chick development)

100 points

Independent project proposal

40 points

Poster

100 points

Poster peer-review

20 points (2 x 10 points)

Assessment quiz

30 points

Grand Total

600 points

A 100-92.5 % A - 92.4-89.5 % B+ 89.4-85.5 % B- 85.4-82.5 %

B - 82.4-79.5 % C+ 79.4-75.5 % C 75.4-72.5 % C - 72.4-69.5 %

D+ 69.4-65.5 % D 65.4-62.5 % D - 62.4-59.5 % F


DATE TOPIC ASSIGNMENT DUE

Lab 1 Th. Sep. 4 th Introduction, assessment quiz (20’) and library instruction including Writing Center

presentation (10:30 am in DML room #310)

Sea Urchin Development Module

Lab 2 (Ex.1)

Th. Sep. 11 th

Lab 3 (Ex.2)

Th. Sep. 18 th

In vitro fertilization and early development

in normal and altered seawater conditions.

Early development continued.

Xenopus laevis Development Module

Lab 4 (Ex.3) In vitro fertilization, embryonic and early

Th. Sep. 25 th larval development.

Lab 5 (Ex.4) Early larval development and

Th. Oct. 2 nd metamorphosis.

Chick Development Module

Lab 6 (Ex. 5)

Th. Oct. 9 th

Preparation of tissue lysates from whole

embryos, brains and hearts.

Lab 7 (Ex. 6) Gel electrophoresis and transfer of proteins

Th. Oct. 16 th isolated from embryos, brains and hearts.

Lab 8 (Ex. 7) Detection and analysis of the expression

Th. Oct. 23 rd pattern of the proteins Pax-6 and β-catenin.

Drosophila melanogaster Development Module

Lab 9 (Ex. 8)

Th. Oct. 30 th

Lab 10

Th. Nov. 6 th

Lab 11 (Ex. 9)

Th. Nov. 13 th

Lab 12 (Ex. 10)

Th. Nov. 20 th

Purification of total RNA from embryonic,

larval, pupal, and adult stages.

Meeting for independent project in my

office

Reverse transcription of mRNA and

polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Analysis of PCR products.

Independent Project Module

Th. Nov. 27th th No class: Thanksgiving Break

Lab 13

Th. Dec. 4 th

Lab 14

Th. Dec. 11 th

Tu. Dec. 16 th

10:00 am to noon

Independent project.

Poster preparation instructions and

independent project continued.

FINAL: Poster Presentation of

Independent Project.

-Pre-lab entry for Ex.1

-Introduction and References sections of

research paper with 3 references (Topic:

role of Ca ++ in sea urchin fertilization)

-Pre-lab entry for Ex.2

-Notebook keeping for Ex.1 with Tables I,

II, and III

-Pre-lab entry for Ex. 3

-Notebook keeping of Ex.2 with Table II

-Pre-lab entry for Ex. 4

-Notebook keeping for Ex.3 with Table II

-Pre-lab entry for Ex.5

-Notebook keeping for Ex.4 with Table I

-Pre-lab entry for Ex. 6

-Notebook keeping for Ex. 5

-Pre-lab entry for Ex. 7

-Notebook keeping for Ex. 6

-Pre-lab entry for Ex. 8

-Notebook keeping for Ex. 7

-Draft of paper on chick development

-Independent project proposal with a

detailed list of materials (2 copies)

-Pre-lab entry for Ex. 9

-Notebook keeping for Ex. 8 with Table II

-Pre-lab entry for Ex. 10

-Notebook keeping for Ex. 9 with table II

-Final paper on chick development, paper

clip draft and grading template for grade

-Pre-lab entry for independent project

-Notebook keeping for Ex. 10 with Figure 3

and Table I

-Pre-lab entry for independent project

-Notebook keeping for independent project

-Assessment quiz (20’)

-Pre-lab entry and notebook keeping for

independent project

-Poster peer-review

46


INSTRUCTIONS TO ASSIGNMENTS

Research Notebook Include name and table of contents (minus 10 points each if missing)

Pre-lab entries (10 points each)

Prior to each laboratory session, you should read the pertinent sections of the laboratory manual and of the

lecture textbook and you should make a short pre-lab entry in your notebook consisting of the following:

Date: (written and underlined) followed by the date of the experiments.

Title: (written and underlined) followed by the title of the experiments.

Purpose: (written and underlined) followed by at least 2 sentences explaining the purposes/goals of the

experiments.

Hypothesis/es: (written and underlined) followed by your hypothesis/es about the outcomes of the experiments.

Support for hypothesis/es: (written and underlined) followed by background information supporting your

hypothesis/es, available in either the laboratory manual, or your lecture notes or in primary research literature.

Materials and Methods: (written and underlined) followed by a very short description of the procedure/s

(combination of materials and methods, no bullet format for materials or methods) you will be using.

Date

(1 point)

Title

(1 point)

Purpose

(2 points)

Hypothesis/es

(2 points)

Support for

hypothesis/es (2 points)

Materials and Methods

(2 points)

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

-Absent or wrong date

(0-0.75 point)

-Absent or wrong title

(0-0.75 point)

-Purpose absent or irrelevant

(0-1.50 points)

-Hypothesis/es absent or

irrelevant

(0-1.50 points)

-Reason/s hypothesis/es is/are

proposed absent or irrelevant

(0-1.50 points)

-M/M absent, or Materials

separated from methods, or

bullet format

(0-1.50 points)

Approaches expectations

(75-90%)

-N/A

-N/A

-Purpose not clearly stated

(1.50-1.80 points)

-Hypotheses/es mostly unclear

(1.50-1.80 points)

-Reason/s hypothesis/es is/are

proposed mostly clear

(1.50-1.80 points)

-M/M mostly concise and

relevant

(1.50-1.80 points)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

-Correct date

(0.9-1.00 point)

-Correct title

(0.9-1.00 point)

-Purpose concise and clearly stated

(1.80-2.00 points)

-Hypothesis/es clearly stated

(1.80-2.00 points)

-Reason/s hypothesis/es is/are

proposed concise and clear

(1.8-2.00 points)

-M/M concise and relevant

(1.8-2.00 points)

Research notebook keeping (10 points each)

This will consist in recording a detailed diary of all the experiments you are performing. For each laboratory,

and after the corresponding pre-lab entry, you should finish recording your experiments as follows:

Results: (written and underlined) followed by your raw data presented both in prose and illustrated with

tables/graphs/drawings with legends. All figures, tables and drawings should 1) be numbered and referenced in

the prose, 2) have a title, and 3) have a legend and units. Note: Transfer all data tables from your lab manual to

your research notebook.

Reject or support hypotheses: (written and underlined) followed by whether and why your hypothesis/es

was/were supported or rejected.

Conclusion/Discussion: (written and underlined) followed by a short summary of your experiments,

sources of errors, and how to trouble-shoot and future studies.

Poor/Needs Improvement Approaches expectations Meets Expectations

Results

(6 points)

Reject/support

hypothesis/es

(2 points)

Conclusion/Discussion

(2 points)

(0-75%)

-No prose, no row data or

inappropriate figures, tables

and/or drawings

(0-4.50 points)

-Hypothesis/es not discussed

(0-1.50 points)

-No conclusion or missing parts

(0-1.50 points)

(75-90%)

-Mostly clear prose and most

data present in correct format

(4.50-5.40 points)

-Hypothesis/es mostly clearly

discussed

(1.50-1.80 points)

-Conclusion mostly present and

clear

(1.50-1.80 points)

(90-100%)

-Prose and correct row data present

(5.40-6.00 points)

-Hypothesis/es clearly discussed

(1.80-2.00 points)

-Clear and appropriate conclusion

(1.80-2.00 points)

47


Introduction and References Sections on “The role of Ca ++ in sea urchin fertilization”

(20 points)

This assignment has been designed to mainly emphasize the importance of documenting a research paper with

appropriate sources and using an appropriate and professional format. Following the Library Instruction

session, you will have to write a short Introduction section and the corresponding References section as found in

a scientific research paper. You are not required to write the other sections (Abstract, Materials and Methods,

Results and Discussion) found in a scientific research paper. The Introduction section should consist of a few

paragraphs with in-text references and the References section should list the references used in the introduction.

Poor/Needs Improvement Approaches expectations Meets Expectations

Introduction:

Prose

(5 points)

Introduction:

In-text references

(7.5 points)

References

(7.5 points)

(0-75%)

-Background irrelevant to topic

-Background poorly written

(0-3.75 points)

-Fewer than 3 references

-Background info. inappropriately

cited (place and format)

(0-5.625 points)

-References missing

-Incorrect format

(0-5.625 points)

(75-90%)

-Background mostly relevant to topic

-Background mostly well written

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Some incorrect in-text citations (place

and format)

(5.625-6.75points)

-Some errors in citations

(5.625-6.75points)

(90-100%)

-Background relevant to topic

-Background well written

(4.50-5.00 points)

-At least 3 references

-Correctly cited references (place

and format)

(6.75-7.50 points)

-All 3 references present

-Correct format

(6.75-7.50 points)

Research Paper on “The expression patterns of the proteins Pax-6 and β-catenin in

whole embryos, brains and hearts of the developing chick Gallus gallus”

After completing the chick development module, you will have to report your results by writing a complete

scientific research paper using the following instructions and grading templates.

Draft paper (50 points)

Refer to McMillan, V.E. 2006. Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s,

for detailed instructions.

Body length

(2 points)

Front page

(2 points)

and penalties

points

Abstract

(3 points)

Introduction:

Prose

(5 points)

Materials and

Methods

(5 points)

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

-Below 5 pages (excluding front page,

figures and References section)

(0-1.50 points)

-No front page (-5%)

-Title or names missing

-Title does not include results

-Citation format not stated

(0-1.50 points)

-Abstract excludes relevance, methods,

hypothesis and results

-Abstract is not coherent

(0-2.25 points)

-Background mostly irrelevant to

hypothesis and does not clearly lead to

hypothesis

-Hypothesis unclear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is not stated or unclear

-Poor logic and paragraphing

(0-3.75 points)

-Not written using passive voice

-Not written using past tense

-Unclear, lengthy description of study

-Includes unnecessary details

-Lists materials

-Does not explain experimental design

(0-3.75 points)

Approaches expectations

(75-90%)

-Between 4 and 5 pages

(1.50-1.80 points)

-Title poorly worded

-Title includes minor error

-Citation format not clearly

stated

(1.50-1.80 points)

-Abstract is somewhat wordy

and long in summarizing all of

paper

-Abstract is somewhat unclear

(2.25-2.70 points)

-Background mostly relevant to

hypothesis and mostly

clearly leads to hypothesis

-Hypothesis mostly clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is somewhat unclear

-Acceptable logic and

paragraphing

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Mostly written using passive

voice and past tense

-Mostly clear description

-Includes some needless details

-Explains most important

experimental design aspects

(3.75-4.50 points)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

-5 pages (excluding front page,

figures and References section)

(1.80-2.00 points)

-Title states conclusion

-Authors appropriately cited

-Citation format clearly stated

(CSE or APA)

(1.80-2.00 points)

-Abstract is concise and

summarizes all of paper

-Abstract is coherent and clear

(2.70-3.00 points)

-All background relevant to

hypothesis and clearly leads to

hypothesis

-Hypothesis clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is clear

-Excellent logic and

paragraphing

(4.50-5.00 points)

-Used passive voice

-Used past tense

-Clear description of study

-Concise description of study

-Avoids unnecessary details

-Clearly explains design

(4.50-5.00 points)

48


Results

(10 points)

Discussion

(7 points)

In-text citation

(5 points)

and penalty points

Acknowledgements

(2 points)

References

(5 points)

and penalty points

Experimental

Design and

Cohesiveness

(4 points)

-Not written using active voice and

present tense

-Prose summary of study absent

-Prose summary of study incoherent

-Prose summary includes discussion of

hypothesis

-Prose summary does not cite table(s)

and figure(s)

-Raw data not included

-Inappropriate figure(s) included

-No figure(s) included

(0-7.50 points)

-Incorrectly states that hypothesis was

supported or rejected

-Why hypothesis was supported or

rejected not explained

-Discussion of larger context absent

-Incoherent attempt to place results in

larger context

-Alternative interpretations absent

-Discussion of sources of error absent

(0-5.25 points)

-Fewer than 5 references (-10% each)

-Incorrect citation format (-5% each)

-Non-academic sources (-10% each)

-Background inappropriately located

(0-3.75 points)

-Acknowledgements frivolous or

absent

(0-1.50 points)

-Fewer that 5 references (-10% each)

-Literature uses non-CSE or non-APA

format (-5% each)

-Literature cited section absent

-Literature citations ordered

inappropriately (not alphabetically by

author) (-5% each)

(0-3.75 points)

-Demonstrates little understanding of

study

-Paper incoherent, not logically

consistent, and/or poorly written

(0-3.00 points)

-Mostly written using active

voice and present tense

-Mostly clear prose summary of

study

-Presents some (not all) raw data

-Includes figure(s) that illustrate

relevant trends/results but are in

some small way inappropriate

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Does not explain why

hypothesis was supported or

rejected very clearly

-Results ineffectively placed in

larger context

-Results poorly linked to Intro.

-Alternative interpretations

discussed, but unlikely

-Some significant sources of

error not discussed

(5.25-6.30 points)

-Minor incorrect citations (place

and format)

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Acknowledgements somewhat

well written

(1.50-1.80 points)

-Some literature citations in CSE

or APA format, others in

inappropriate format

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Demonstrates some

understanding of the study

-Paper mostly coherent, and

logically consistent

-Paper mostly well written

(3.00-3.60 points)

-Written using active voice and

present tense

-Clear prose summary of data

-Prose summary cites table(s)

and figure(s)

-Clearly presents raw data

-Includes figure(s) that clearly

illustrate relevant trends/results

-Includes figure(s) that have

appropriately labeled axes and

titles

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Correctly states that hypothesis

was supported or rejected

-Clearly explains why

hypothesis was supported or

rejected

-Results placed in larger context

-Results placed in context of

background outlined in Intro.

-Reasonable alternative

interpretations discussed

-Sources of error discussed

(6.30-7.00 points)

-At least 5 references

-All citations are academic

-Correctly cited references

(place and format: CSE or APA)

(4.50-5.00 points)

-Acknowledgements well

written

(1.80-2.00 points)

-Literature cited present

-Literature uses CSE or APA

format

-Literature citations ordered

appropriately (alphabetically by

author)

(4.50-5.00 points)

-Clearly demonstrates an

understanding of the study

(including background)

-Paper coherent and logically

consistent

-Paper well written

(3.60-4.00 points)

Subtotal: ----------------------

Additional Penalties

-Paper not stapled (minus 5 points) ----------------------------------

-Incorrect spelling, grammar, or word choice (minus 2 points each) ----------------------------------

-Direct quotes (minus 5 points each) ----------------------------------

-Formatting error of section headings or sectioning (minus 5 points each) ----------------------------------

-Usage of non primary literature (minus 5 points each) ----------------------------------

-Citation format (CSE or APA) does not appear in the front page ----------------------------------

will result in the loss of all references points (in-text and References)

Final total: --------------------

49


Final paper (100 points)

Refer to McMillan, V.E. 2006. Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s,

for detailed instructions.

Body length

(4 points)

Front page

(3 points)

and penalties

points

Abstract

(5 points)

Introduction:

Prose

(10 points)

Materials and

Methods

(8 points)

Results

(20 points)

Discussion

(12 points)

In-text citation

(10 points)

and penalty points

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

-Below 6 pages (excluding front page,

figures and References section)

(0-3.00 points)

-No front page (-5%)

-Title or names missing

-Title does not include results

-Citation format not stated

(0-2.25 points)

-Abstract excludes relevance, methods,

hypothesis and results

-Abstract is not coherent

(0-3.75 points)

-Background mostly irrelevant to

hypothesis and does not clearly lead to

hypothesis

-Hypothesis unclear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is not stated or unclear

-Poor logic and paragraphing

(0-7.50 points)

-Not written using passive voice

-Not written using past tense

-Unclear, lengthy description of study

-Includes unnecessary details

-Lists materials

-Does not explain experimental design

(0-6.00 points)

-Not written using active voice and

present tense

-Prose summary of study absent

-Prose summary of study incoherent

-Prose summary includes discussion of

hypothesis

-Prose summary does not cite table(s)

and figure(s)

-Raw data not included

-Inappropriate or no figure(s) included

(0-15.00 points)

-Incorrectly states that hypothesis was

supported or rejected

-Why hypothesis was supported or

rejected not explained

-Discussion of larger context absent

-Incoherent attempt to place results in

larger context

-Alternative interpretations absent

-Discussion of sources of error absent

(0-9.00 points)

-Fewer than 7 references (-10% each)

-Incorrect citation format (-5% each)

-Non-academic sources (-10% each)

-Background inappropriately located

(0-7.50 points)

Approaches expectations

(75-90%)

-Between 6 and 7 pages

(excluding front page, figures

and References section)

(3.00-3.60 points)

-Title poorly worded

-Title includes minor error

-Citation format not clearly

stated

(2.25-2.70 points)

-Abstract is somewhat wordy

and long in summarizing all of

paper

-Abstract is somewhat unclear

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Background mostly relevant to

hypothesis and mostly

clearly leads to hypothesis

-Hypothesis mostly clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is somewhat unclear

-Acceptable logic and

paragraphing

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Mostly written using passive

voice and past tense

-Mostly clear description

-Includes some needless details

-Explains most important

experimental design aspects

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Mostly written using active

voice and present tense

-Mostly clear prose summary of

study

-Presents some (not all) raw data

-Includes figure(s) that illustrate

relevant trends/results but are in

some small way inappropriate

(15.00-18.00 points)

-Does not explain why

hypothesis was supported or

rejected very clearly

-Results ineffectively placed in

larger context

-Results poorly linked to Intro.

-Alternative interpretations

discussed, but unlikely

-Some significant sources of

error not discussed

(9.00-10.80 points)

-Minor incorrect citations (place

and format)

(7.50-9.00 points)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

-7 pages (excluding front page,

figures and References section)

(3.60-4.00 points)

-Title states conclusion

-Authors appropriately cited

-Citation format clearly stated

(CSE or APA)

(2.70-3.00 points)

-Abstract is concise and

summarizes all of paper

-Abstract is coherent and clear

(4.50-5.00 points)

-All background relevant to

hypothesis and clearly leads to

hypothesis

-Hypothesis clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is clear

-Excellent logic and

paragraphing

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Used passive voice

-Used past tense

-Clear description of study

-Concise description of study

-Avoids unnecessary details

-Clearly explains design

(7.20-8.00 points)

-Written using active voice and

present tense

-Clear prose summary of data

-Prose summary cites table(s)

and figure(s)

-Clearly presents raw data

-Includes figure(s) that clearly

illustrate relevant trends/results

-Includes figure(s) that have

appropriately axes and titles

(18.00-20.00 points)

-Correctly states that hypothesis

was supported or rejected

-Clearly explains why

hypothesis was supported or

rejected

-Results placed in larger context

-Results placed in context of

background outlined in Intro.

-Reasonable alternative

interpretations discussed

-Sources of error discussed

(10.80-12.00 points)

-At least 7 references

-All sources are academic

-Correctly cited references

(place and format: CSE or APA)

(9.00-10.00 points)

50


Acknowledgements

(3 points)

References

(10 points)

and penalty points

Experimental

Design and

Cohesiveness

(6 points)

Revision

(9 points)

-Acknowledgements frivolous or

absent

(0-2.25 points)

-Fewer that 5 references (-10% each)

-Literature uses non-CSE or non-APA

format (-5% each)

-Literature cited section absent

-Literature citations ordered

inappropriately (not alphabetically by

author) (-5% each)

(0-7.50 points)

-Demonstrates little understanding of

study

-Paper incoherent, not logically

consistent, and/or poorly written

(0-4.50 points)

-Final not substantively different

(inappropriately) from draft

-Few/no substantive comments

addressed

(0-6.75 points)

-Acknowledgements somewhat

well written

(2.25-2.70 points)

-Some literature citations in CSE

or APA format, others in

inappropriate format

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Demonstrates some

understanding of the study

-Paper mostly coherent, and

logically consistent

-Paper mostly well written

(4.50-5.40 points)

-Final substantively different (as

appropriate) from draft

-Most substantive comments

addressed

(6.75-8.10 points)

-Acknowledgements well

written

(2.70-3.00 points)

-Literature cited present

-Literature uses CSE or APA

format

-Literature citations ordered

appropriately (alphabetically by

author)

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Clearly demonstrates an

understanding of the study

(including background)

-Paper coherent and logically

consistent

-Paper well written

(5.40-6.00 points)

-Final substantively different (as

appropriate) from draft

-All substantive comments

addressed

(8.10-9.00 points)

Subtotal: ----------------------

Additional Penalties

-Draft paper not paper-clipped to final Paper will not be graded (0)

-Grading template of draft paper not paper-clipped to final Paper will not be graded (0)

-Paper not stapled (minus 5 points) ----------------------------------

-Incorrect spelling, grammar, or word choice (minus 2 points each) ----------------------------------

-Direct quotes (minus 5 points each) ----------------------------------

-Formatting error of section headings or sectioning (minus 5 points each) ----------------------------------

-Usage of non primary literature (minus 5 points each) ----------------------------------

-Citation format (CSE or APA) does not appear in the front page ----------------------------------

will result in the loss of all references points (in-text and References)

Final total: --------------------

Independent Research Proposal (40 points)

A substantial portion of your grade will be based on an independent research project that you will perform with

a laboratory mate. Think of this project as experiments you are inventing. The purpose of this independent

project is to give you a chance to be involved in all stages of a small scientific investigation, from the

identification of an interesting developmental biology question, formulation of hypothesis/es that might account

for the observed patterns, appropriate experimental designs, collection, analysis, and interpretation and

presentation of the data.

The purpose of this project is to make you a better consumer and practitioner of science by: 1) having you

conduct your own research (from identifying an interesting question, organizing appropriate experimental or

observational design, collecting and analyzing the data); and 2) getting you to transmit your results to a

scientific audience.

Your proposal (2 copies per group) should be written as follows:

Date: (written and underlined) followed by the date you wrote your proposal.

Names: (written and underlined) followed by the names of the investigators.

Title: (written and underlined) followed by the title of the project (without conclusion in it as you will not have

performed the experiments yet).

51


Introduction: (written and underlined) followed by a small paragraph explaining the purposes/goals of the

experiments and including one peer-reviewed reference using either CSE or APA format.

Hypotheses, one per experiment: (written and underlined) followed by your hypothesis/es concerning the

outcomes/results of the experiments.

Experiments outline: (written and underlined) followed by a detailed description of your procedure. Break the

procedure into different sub-headings and include controls (positive and negative) for each of them. This

section is not the same as writing a Materials and Methods section of a research paper. Here you can use the

present imperative tense and bullets.

Materials: (written and underlined) followed by a table of all needed materials. You may have to repeat some

experiments for accuracy, therefore ask for more supplies to account for repetitions and also pipetting errors.

You should provide items under $10.00 if they can easily be found at local stores. Use the following table

format. Usually you will have to make your own solutions, therefore ask for items such as bottles, stirring bars,

balance, pH papers and others.

References: (written and underlined) followed by the citations of the reference/s you used in the Introduction

using either CSE or APA format.

Table format:

Item

Concentration Volume Quantity T o C

Small specimen dish N/A N/A 2 RT

1L bottle N/A N/A 2 RT

Sucrose 1M 100ml N/A 4 o C

Running buffer 1X 500ml N/A RT

Date and Names

(1 point)

Title

(2 points)

Introduction

(10 points)

and penalty points

Hypothesis/es

(4 points)

Experimental Outline

(7 points)

Materials

(13 points)

References

(3 points)

and penalty points

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

-Absent or wrong

(0-0.75 point)

-Absent or wrong title

(0-1.50 points)

-Background mostly irrelevant

to hypothesis and does not

clearly lead to hypothesis

-Poor logic and paragraphing

-Citation missing (-10%)

(0-7.50 points)

-Hypothesis/es absent or

irrelevant

(0-3.00 points)

-Experimental design does not

directly address hypothesis/es

(0-5.25 points)

-Materials does not follow

required format (see above

table)

-Materials does not match

proposed experiments

(0-1.50 points)

-No reference (-10%)

-Literature uses non-CSE or

non-APA format (-5%)

(0-2.25 points)

Approaches expectations

(75-90%)

-N/A

-Title poorly worded

(1.50-1.80 points)

-Background mostly relevant to

hypothesis and mostly

clearly leads to hypothesis

-Acceptable logic and

paragraphing

-Errors in citation format

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Hypotheses/es mostly not

clear

(3.00-3.60 points)

-Experimental design directly

addresses hypothesis/es

(5.25-6.30 points)

-Materials somewhat follows

required format (see above

table)

-Materials somewhat matches

proposed experiments

(1.50-1.80 points)

-Minor errors in citations

format

(2.25-2.70 points)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

-Correct date and names

(0.9-1.00 point)

-Correct title

(1.80-2.00 points)

-All background relevant to

hypothesis and clearly leads to

hypothesis

-Excellent logic and paragraphing

-Citation using either CSE or APA

format

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Hypothesis/es clearly stated

(3.60-4.00 points)

- Experimental design effectively

addresses hypothesis/es

(6.30-7.00 points)

-Materials follows required format

(see above table)

-Materials matches proposed

experiments

(1.8-2.00 points)

-Literature cited present

-Literature uses CSE or APA format

(2.70-3.00 points)

Subtotal: ----------------------

-Missing one copy (needs 2 copies of proposal) Prop. will not be graded (0)

-Direct quotes (minus 5 points each) ----------------------------------

-Usage of non primary literature (minus 5 points) ----------------------------------

Final total: --------------------

52


Poster

Preparation and Presentation (100 points)

A scientific poster is a method of professional communication that visually tells the comprehensive, but condensed,

story of a research project. While a poster can be effective alone, a presenter at a planned gathering enhances the poster

by engaging interested visitors in dialogues that: 1) explain the research, 2) expand the provided information, and 3)

ensure the visitor leaves with the desired “take-home” message about the project.

In addition, a scientific poster is given: 1) to serve as a basis for structured communication, 2) to convey findings in

scientific research, 3) to share ideas with colleagues, 4) to receive criticism and constructive input to the project, 5) to

serve as an alternative to longer oral presentations, and 6) to become familiar on how to organize and effectively

present research data.

(Modified from K.L. Sutphin, Summer Program in Computational Biology Seminar Series, UMBC College of Natural

and Mathematical Sciences)

The general format of a scientific poster follows the one of a scientific research paper. However, a scientific poster

does not require as many details as a scientific research paper does; therefore you should minimize the text and

maximize illustrations and schematics. In addition, ensure you practice your presentation in front of an audience as

you will need to formally present your poster in front of the class in 6 minutes.

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

Approaches expectations

(75-90%)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

Overall Format

(10 points)

Title and Names

(3 points)

Abstract

(5 points)

Introduction:

Prose

(10 points)

Materials and

Methods

(8 points)

-Panels poorly mounted on poster board

-Panels carelessly cut and not organized

logically

-Poster uses font that is too small or too

big

-Poster is not viewer-friendly and not

professional

(0-7.50 points)

-Title or names missing

-Title does not include results

-Title does not include affiliation

-Title font is too small

(0-2.25 points)

-Abstract excludes relevance, methods,

hypothesis and results

-Abstract is not coherent

(0-3.75 points)

-Background mostly irrelevant to

hypothesis and does not clearly lead to

hypothesis

-Hypothesis unclear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is not stated or unclear

-Poor logic and paragraphing

-Introduction too wordy

-Introduction does not include

schematics

-Text too long

(0-7.50 points)

-Not written using passive voice

-Not written using past tense

-Unclear, lengthy description of study

-Includes unnecessary details

-Lists materials

-Does not explain experimental design

-Text too long

(0-6.00 points)

-Panels somewhat poorly mounted

on poster board

-Panels somewhat carelessly cut and

somewhat organized illogically

-Poster uses font that is a little too

small or big

-Poster is somewhat viewer-friendly

but not professional

-Poster is not viewer-friendly but

somewhat professional

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Title poorly worded

-Title includes minor error

-Title font is somewhat too small

(2.25-2.70 points)

-Abstract is somewhat wordy and

long in summarizing all of research

-Abstract is somewhat unclear

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Background mostly relevant to

hypothesis and mostly

clearly leads to hypothesis

-Hypothesis mostly clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is somewhat unclear

-Acceptable logic and paragraphing

-Introduction somewhat wordy

-Introduction includes inappropriate

schematics

-Text somewhat too long

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Mostly written using passive voice

and past tense

-Mostly clear description

-Includes some needless details

-Explains most important

experimental design aspects

-Text somewhat too long

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Multiple panels mounted on a

poster board

-Panels precisely cut and

organized logically (see demo.

poster from previous students)

-Poster uses appropriate

subheadings (Intro. and Hyp.,

M&M, Results, Discussion,

Acknowledgment, and

References)

-Poster uses appropriate font

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Title states conclusion

-Authors appropriately cited

-Title font is appropriate

(2.70-3.00 points)

-Abstract is concise and

summarizes all of research

-Abstract is coherent and clear

(4.50-5.00 points)

-All background relevant to

hypothesis and clearly leads to

hypothesis

-Hypothesis clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is clear

-Excellent logic and paragraphing

-Introduction is well condensed

-Introduction includes appropriate

schematics

-Avoided long blocks of text

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Used passive voice

-Used past tense

-Clear description of study

-Concise description of study

-Avoids unnecessary details

-Clearly explains design

-Avoided long blocks of text

(7.20-8.00 points)

53


Results

(18 points)

Conclusion and

Discussion

(12 points)

In-text citation

(8 points)

and penalty points

Acknowledgements

(3 points)

References

(8 points)

and penalty points

Experimental Design

and Cohesiveness

(5 points)

Oral presentation

(10 points)

-Not written using active voice and

present tense

-Prose summary of study absent

-Prose summary of study incoherent

-Prose summary includes discussion of

hypothesis

-Prose summary does not cite table(s)

and figure(s)

-Raw data not included

-Inappropriate figure(s) included

-No figure(s) included

-Text too long

(0-13.50 points)

-Text too long

-Incorrectly states that hypothesis was

supported or rejected

-Why hypothesis was supported or

rejected not explained

-Discussion of larger context absent

-Incoherent attempt to place results in

larger context

-Alternative interpretations absent

-Discussion of sources of error absent

-No future studies

(0-9.00 points)

-Fewer than 5 references (-10% each)

-Incorrect citation format (-5% each)

-Non-academic sources (-10% each)

-Background inappropriately located

(0-6.00 points)

-Acknowledgements frivolous or absent

(0-2.25 points)

-Fewer that 5 references (-10% each)

-Literature uses non-CSE or non-APA

format (-5% each)

-Literature cited section absent

-Literature citations ordered not

alphabetically by author (-5% each)

(0-6.00 points)

-Demonstrates little understanding of

study

-Poster incoherent, not logically

consistent, and/or poorly written

(0-3.75 points)

-Attire not acceptable and general

manner not professional

- Illogical and non- orderly presentation

of the information

-Formal presentation too short or too

long ( 7 minutes)

-Poor speaking skills

-Demonstrate little understanding of the

research

-“Take home” message is not

emphasized

-Poor answers to questions

(0-7.50 points)

-Mostly written using active voice

and present tense

-Mostly clear prose summary of

study

-Presents some (not all) raw data -

Includes figure(s) that illustrate

relevant trends/results but are in

some small way inappropriate

-Text somewhat too long

(13.50-16.20 points)

-Text somewhat too long

-Does not explain why hypothesis

was supported or rejected very

clearly

-Results ineffectively placed in

larger context

-Results poorly linked to Intro.

-Alternative interpretations

discussed, but unlikely

-Some significant sources of error

not discussed

-Future studies somewhat discussed

(9.00-10.80 points)

-Minor incorrect citations (place

and format)

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Ackn. rather well written

(2.25-2.70 points)

-Some literature citations in CSE or

APA format, others in inappropriate

format

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Demonstrates some understanding

of the study

-Poster mostly coherent, and

logically consistent

-Paper mostly well written

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Attire and general manner

somewhat acceptable/professional

- Somewhat logical and orderly

presentation of the information

-Formal presentation a little under or

over 6 minutes

-Mediocre speaking skills

-Demonstrate some understanding

-“Take home” message is somewhat

emphasized

-Mediocre answers to questions

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Written using active voice and

present tense

-Clear prose summary of data

-Prose summary cites table(s) and

figure(s)

-Clearly presents raw data

-Includes figure(s) that clearly

illustrate relevant trends/results

-Includes figure(s) that have

appropriately labeled axes and

titles

-Avoided long blocks of text

(16.20-18.00 points)

-Avoided long blocks of text

-Provides a “take home” message

using bullets

-Correctly states that hypothesis

was supported or rejected

-Clearly explains why hypothesis

was supported or rejected

-Results placed in larger context

-Results placed in context of

background outlined in Intro.

-Reasonable alternative

interpretations discussed

-Sources of error discussed

-Future studies discussed

extensively

(10.80-12.00 points)

-At least 5 references

-All sources are academic

-Correctly cited references (place

and format: CSE or APA)

(7.20-8.00 points)

-Acknowledgements well written

(2.70-3.00 points)

-Literature cited present

-Literature uses CSE or APA

format

-Literature citations ordered

appropriately (alphabetically by

author)

(7.20-8.00 points)

-Clearly demonstrates an

understanding of the study

(including background)

-Poster coherent and logically

consistent and well written

(4.50-5.00 points)

-Acceptable dressing attire and

general professional manner

- Logical and orderly presentation

of the information

-Formal presentation in allotted

time (6 minutes)

- Good speaking skills

-Perfect understanding of the

research

-“Take home” message is

emphasized

-Good answers to questions

(9.00-10.00 points)

Grand total: ----------------------------

54


Peer-review (20 points, 2 x 10 points each)

Peer-review of 1 st poster

Reviewer name: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poster authors: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall Format

(10 points)

Title and Names

(3 points)

Abstract

(5 points)

Introduction:

Prose

(10 points)

Materials and

Methods

(8 points)

Results

(18 points)

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

-Panels poorly mounted on poster

board

-Panels carelessly cut and not

organized logically

-Poster uses font that is too small or

too big

-Poster is not viewer-friendly and not

professional

(0-7.50 points)

-Title or names missing

-Title does not include results

-Title does not include affiliation

-Title font is too small

(0-2.25 points)

-Abstract excludes relevance,

methods, hypothesis and results

-Abstract is not coherent

(0-3.75 points)

-Background mostly irrelevant to

hypothesis and does not clearly lead

to hypothesis

-Hypothesis unclear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is not stated or unclear

-Poor logic and paragraphing

-Introduction too wordy

-Introduction does not include

schematics

-Text too long

(0-7.50 points)

-Not written using passive voice

-Not written using past tense

-Unclear, lengthy description of study

-Includes unnecessary details

-Lists materials

-Does not explain experimental design

-Text too long

(0-6.00 points)

-Not written using active voice and

present tense

-Prose summary of study absent

-Prose summary of study incoherent

-Prose summary includes discussion

of hypothesis

-Prose summary does not cite table(s)

and figure(s)

-Raw data not included

-Inappropriate figure(s) included

Approaches expectations

(75-90%)

-Panels somewhat poorly mounted

on poster board

-Panels somewhat carelessly cut

and somewhat organized

illogically

-Poster uses font that is a little too

small or big

-Poster is somewhat viewerfriendly

but not professional

-Poster is not viewer-friendly but

somewhat professional

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Title poorly worded

-Title includes minor error

-Title font is somewhat too small

(2.25-2.70 points)

-Abstract is somewhat wordy and

long in summarizing all of

research

-Abstract is somewhat unclear

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Background mostly relevant to

hypothesis and mostly

clearly leads to hypothesis

-Hypothesis mostly clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is somewhat unclear

-Acceptable logic and

paragraphing

-Introduction somewhat wordy

-Introduction includes

inappropriate schematics

-Text somewhat too long

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Mostly written using passive

voice and past tense

-Mostly clear description

-Includes some needless details

-Explains most important

experimental design aspects

-Text somewhat too long

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Mostly written using active voice

and present tense

-Mostly clear prose summary of

study

-Presents some (not all) raw data -

Includes figure(s) that illustrate

relevant trends/results but are in

some small way inappropriate

-Text somewhat too long

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

-Multiple panels mounted on a

poster board

-Panels precisely cut and

organized logically (see demo.

poster from previous students)

-Poster uses appropriate

subheadings (Intro. and Hyp.,

M&M, Results, Discussion,

Acknowledgment, and

References)

-Poster uses appropriate font

-Poster is viewer-friendly but

yet professional

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Title states conclusion

-Authors appropriately cited

-Title font is appropriate

(2.70-3.00 points)

-Abstract is concise and

summarizes all of research

-Abstract is coherent and clear

(4.50-5.00 points)

-All background relevant to

hypothesis and clearly leads to

hypothesis

-Hypothesis clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is clear

-Excellent logic and

paragraphing

-Introduction is well condensed

-Introduction includes

appropriate schematics

-Avoided long blocks of text

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Used passive voice

-Used past tense

-Clear description of study

-Concise description of study

-Avoids unnecessary details

-Clearly explains design

-Avoided long blocks of text

(7.20-8.00 points)

-Written using active voice and

present tense

-Clear prose summary of data

-Prose summary cites table(s)

and figure(s)

-Clearly presents raw data

-Includes figure(s) that clearly

illustrate relevant trends/results

-Includes figure(s) that have

appropriately labeled axes and

55


Conclusion and

Discussion

(12 points)

In-text citation

(8 points)

and penalty points

Acknowledgements

(3 points)

References

(8 points)

and penalty points

Experimental

Design and

Cohesiveness

(5 points)

Oral presentation

(10 points)

-No figure(s) included

-Text too long

(0-13.50 points) (13.50-16.20 points)

-Text somewhat too long

-Does not explain why hypothesis

was supported or rejected very

clearly

-Results ineffectively placed in

larger context

-Results poorly linked to Intro.

-Alternative interpretations

discussed, but unlikely

-Some significant sources of error

not discussed

-Future studies somewhat

discussed

-Text too long

-Incorrectly states that hypothesis was

supported or rejected

-Why hypothesis was supported or

rejected not explained

-Discussion of larger context absent

-Incoherent attempt to place results in

larger context

-Alternative interpretations absent

-Discussion of sources of error absent

-No future studies

(0-9.00 points)

-Fewer than 5 references (-10% each)

-Incorrect citation format (-5% each)

-Non-academic sources (-10% each)

-Background inappropriately located

(0-6.00 points)

-Acknowledgements frivolous or

absent

(0-2.25 points)

-Fewer that 5 references (-10% each)

-Literature uses non-CSE or non-APA

format (-5% each)

-Literature cited section absent

-Literature citations ordered not

alphabetically by author (-5% each)

(0-6.00 points)

-Demonstrates little understanding of

study

-Poster incoherent, not logically

consistent, and/or poorly written

(0-3.75 points)

-Attire not acceptable and general

manner not professional

- Illogical and non- orderly

presentation of the information

-Formal presentation too short or too

long ( 7 minutes)

-Poor speaking skills

-Demonstrate little understanding of

the research

-“Take home” message is not

emphasized

-Poor answers to questions

(0-7.50 points)

(9.00-10.80 points)

-Minor incorrect citations (place

and format)

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Ackn. rather well written

(2.25-2.70 points)

-Some literature citations in CSE

or APA format, others in

inappropriate format

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Demonstrates some understanding

of the study

-Poster mostly coherent, and

logically consistent

-Paper mostly well written

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Attire and general manner

somewhat acceptable/professional

- Somewhat logical and orderly

presentation of the information

-Formal presentation a little under

or over 6 minutes

-Mediocre speaking skills

-Demonstrate some understanding

-“Take home” message is

somewhat emphasized

-Mediocre answers to questions

(7.50-9.00 points)

titles

-Avoided long blocks of text

(16.20-18.00 points)

-Avoided long blocks of text

-Provides a “take home”

message using bullets

-Correctly states that hypothesis

was supported or rejected

-Clearly explains why

hypothesis was supported or

rejected

-Results placed in larger context

-Results placed in context of

background outlined in Intro.

-Reasonable alternative

interpretations discussed

-Sources of error discussed

-Future studies discussed

extensively

(10.80-12.00 points)

-At least 5 references

-All sources are academic

-Correctly cited references

(place and format: CSE or

APA)

(7.20-8.00 points)

-Acknowledgements well

written

(2.70-3.00 points)

-Literature cited present

-Literature uses CSE or APA

format

-Literature citations ordered

appropriately (alphabetically by

author)

(7.20-8.00 points)

-Clearly demonstrates an

understanding of the study

(including background)

-Poster coherent and logically

consistent and well written

(4.50-5.00 points)

-Acceptable dressing attire and

general professional manner

- Logical and orderly

presentation of the information

-Formal presentation in allotted

time (6 minutes)

- Good speaking skills

-Perfect understanding of the

research

-“Take home” message is

emphasized

-Good answers to questions

(9.00-10.00 points)

56


Peer-review of 2 nd poster

Reviewer name: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poster authors: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall Format

(10 points)

Title and Names

(3 points)

Abstract

(5 points)

Introduction:

Prose

(10 points)

Materials and

Methods

(8 points)

Results

(18 points)

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

-Panels poorly mounted on poster

board

-Panels carelessly cut and not

organized logically

-Poster uses font that is too small or

too big

-Poster is not viewer-friendly and not

professional

(0-7.50 points)

-Title or names missing

-Title does not include results

-Title does not include affiliation

-Title font is too small

(0-2.25 points)

-Abstract excludes relevance,

methods, hypothesis and results

-Abstract is not coherent

(0-3.75 points)

-Background mostly irrelevant to

hypothesis and does not clearly lead

to hypothesis

-Hypothesis unclear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is not stated or unclear

-Poor logic and paragraphing

-Introduction too wordy

-Introduction does not include

schematics

-Text too long

(0-7.50 points)

-Not written using passive voice

-Not written using past tense

-Unclear, lengthy description of study

-Includes unnecessary details

-Lists materials

-Does not explain experimental design

-Text too long

(0-6.00 points)

-Not written using active voice and

present tense

-Prose summary of study absent

-Prose summary of study incoherent

-Prose summary includes discussion

of hypothesis

-Prose summary does not cite table(s)

and figure(s)

-Raw data not included

-Inappropriate figure(s) included

-No figure(s) included

Approaches expectations

(75-90%)

-Panels somewhat poorly mounted

on poster board

-Panels somewhat carelessly cut

and somewhat organized

illogically

-Poster uses font that is a little too

small or big

-Poster is somewhat viewerfriendly

but not professional

-Poster is not viewer-friendly but

somewhat professional

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Title poorly worded

-Title includes minor error

-Title font is somewhat too small

(2.25-2.70 points)

-Abstract is somewhat wordy and

long in summarizing all of

research

-Abstract is somewhat unclear

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Background mostly relevant to

hypothesis and mostly

clearly leads to hypothesis

-Hypothesis mostly clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is somewhat unclear

-Acceptable logic and

paragraphing

-Introduction somewhat wordy

-Introduction includes

inappropriate schematics

-Text somewhat too long

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Mostly written using passive

voice and past tense

-Mostly clear description

-Includes some needless details

-Explains most important

experimental design aspects

-Text somewhat too long

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Mostly written using active voice

and present tense

-Mostly clear prose summary of

study

-Presents some (not all) raw data -

Includes figure(s) that illustrate

relevant trends/results but are in

some small way inappropriate

-Text somewhat too long

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

-Multiple panels mounted on a

poster board

-Panels precisely cut and

organized logically (see demo.

poster from previous students)

-Poster uses appropriate

subheadings (Intro. and Hyp.,

M&M, Results, Discussion,

Acknowledgment, and

References)

-Poster uses appropriate font

-Poster is viewer-friendly but

yet professional

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Title states conclusion

-Authors appropriately cited

-Title font is appropriate

(2.70-3.00 points)

-Abstract is concise and

summarizes all of research

-Abstract is coherent and clear

(4.50-5.00 points)

-All background relevant to

hypothesis and clearly leads to

hypothesis

-Hypothesis clear

-The reason the hypothesis was

proposed is clear

-Excellent logic and

paragraphing

-Introduction is well condensed

-Introduction includes

appropriate schematics

-Avoided long blocks of text

(9.00-10.00 points)

-Used passive voice

-Used past tense

-Clear description of study

-Concise description of study

-Avoids unnecessary details

-Clearly explains design

-Avoided long blocks of text

(7.20-8.00 points)

-Written using active voice and

present tense

-Clear prose summary of data

-Prose summary cites table(s)

and figure(s)

-Clearly presents raw data

-Includes figure(s) that clearly

illustrate relevant trends/results

-Includes figure(s) that have

appropriately labeled axes and

titles

57


Conclusion and

Discussion

(12 points)

In-text citation

(8 points)

and penalty points

Acknowledgements

(3 points)

References

(8 points)

and penalty points

Experimental

Design and

Cohesiveness

(5 points)

Oral presentation

(10 points)

-Text too long

(0-13.50 points) (13.50-16.20 points)

-Text somewhat too long

-Text too long

-Does not explain why hypothesis

-Incorrectly states that hypothesis was

was supported or rejected very

supported or rejected

clearly

-Why hypothesis was supported or

-Results ineffectively placed in

rejected not explained

larger context

-Discussion of larger context absent

-Results poorly linked to Intro.

-Incoherent attempt to place results in

-Alternative interpretations

larger context

discussed, but unlikely

-Alternative interpretations absent

-Some significant sources of error

-Discussion of sources of error absent

not discussed

-No future studies

-Future studies somewhat

discussed

(0-9.00 points)

-Fewer than 5 references (-10% each)

-Incorrect citation format (-5% each)

-Non-academic sources (-10% each)

-Background inappropriately located

(0-6.00 points)

-Acknowledgements frivolous or

absent

(0-2.25 points)

-Fewer that 5 references (-10% each)

-Literature uses non-CSE or non-APA

format (-5% each)

-Literature cited section absent

-Literature citations ordered not

alphabetically by author (-5% each)

(0-6.00 points)

-Demonstrates little understanding of

study

-Poster incoherent, not logically

consistent, and/or poorly written

(0-3.75 points)

-Attire not acceptable and general

manner not professional

- Illogical and non- orderly

presentation of the information

-Formal presentation too short or too

long ( 7 minutes)

-Poor speaking skills

-Demonstrate little understanding of

the research

-“Take home” message is not

emphasized

-Poor answers to questions

(0-7.50 points)

(9.00-10.80 points)

-Minor incorrect citations (place

and format)

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Ackn. rather well written

(2.25-2.70 points)

-Some literature citations in CSE

or APA format, others in

inappropriate format

(6.00-7.20 points)

-Demonstrates some understanding

of the study

-Poster mostly coherent, and

logically consistent

-Paper mostly well written

(3.75-4.50 points)

-Attire and general manner

somewhat acceptable/professional

- Somewhat logical and orderly

presentation of the information

-Formal presentation a little under

or over 6 minutes

-Mediocre speaking skills

-Demonstrate some understanding

-“Take home” message is

somewhat emphasized

-Mediocre answers to questions

(7.50-9.00 points)

-Avoided long blocks of text

(16.20-18.00 points)

-Avoided long blocks of text

-Provides a “take home”

message using bullets

-Correctly states that hypothesis

was supported or rejected

-Clearly explains why

hypothesis was supported or

rejected

-Results placed in larger context

-Results placed in context of

background outlined in Intro.

-Reasonable alternative

interpretations discussed

-Sources of error discussed

-Future studies discussed

extensively

(10.80-12.00 points)

-At least 5 references

-All sources are academic

-Correctly cited references

(place and format: CSE or

APA)

(7.20-8.00 points)

-Acknowledgements well

written

(2.70-3.00 points)

-Literature cited present

-Literature uses CSE or APA

format

-Literature citations ordered

appropriately (alphabetically by

author)

(7.20-8.00 points)

-Clearly demonstrates an

understanding of the study

(including background)

-Poster coherent and logically

consistent and well written

(4.50-5.00 points)

-Acceptable dressing attire and

general professional manner

- Logical and orderly

presentation of the information

-Formal presentation in allotted

time (6 minutes)

- Good speaking skills

-Perfect understanding of the

research

-“Take home” message is

emphasized

-Good answers to questions

(9.00-10.00 points)

58


APPENDIX Ie

Integrative Core: Diversity and Cultural Tradition, RCC 400D RU04, Fall 2011

Medical Anthropology: An Inclusive Approach of Health, Illness and

Healing in the World

10 hours of Community-Based Learning (CBL) Research Required

Marie-dominique Franco, Ph. D.

Department of Biology; Pomponio Science Center, Room #223; mfranco@regis.edu

(This syllabus may be subject to changes throughout the semester)

Cheyenne Medicine Man Jesus as a Healer Neonatal ICU (Biomedicine)

General Information

The seminar sessions meet two times a week on Mondays and Wednesdays from 9:00 am to 10:15 am in

the Pomponio Science Center Room #313 unless otherwise mentioned. My office hours are on

Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 8:00 am to 9:00 am, on Wednesdays from 2:30 to 4:30 pm, and

by appointments. My academic website is http://academic.regis.edu/mfranco/ where you can find a link

to the course and its material. The Center for Service Learning is located in Main Hall Room 214. The

Add/Drop deadline is Tuesday September 6 th , 2011 and the Withdrawal deadline is Friday November

4 th , 2011. Note: All e-mail communications will be sent to your Regis account.

Course Books and Literature

• Brown PJ. 2010. Understanding and Applying Medical Anthropology. Mayfield Publishing

Company/Mountain View, CA.

• Farmer P. 2006. AIDS and Accusation. University of California Press/Berkeley, CA.

• Fadiman A. 1997. The spirit catches you and you fall down. Farrar, Straus and Giroux/New

York.

• Primary research literature (Ong paper) and selected documents will be posted on the course web

site as pdf files.

59


Course Description

The general purpose of the Integrative Core courses is to address several elements of the Core

Philosophy Statement as indicated in the following Intended Learning Outcomes:

• Knowledge of diverse cultures, perspectives, and belief systems

• Knowledge of arts, sciences, and humanities

• Ability to think critically

• Ability to communicate effectively

• Ability to use contemporary technology

• Commitment to ethical and social responsibilities

• Commitment to leadership and service to others

• Commitment to learning as a lifelong endeavor

This course will specifically address Diversity and Cultural Tradition through the study of the diversity

of persons and cultures, their perspectives and views, histories and traditions, and the complexity of

these relationships in the emerging century. In particular, this seminar course will examine the issues of

health, illness and health care in the world in light of cultural, religious and socio-economic diversities.

Health care can be generally defined as the care, services and supplies related to the mental and physical

health of an individual. Health care includes, but is not limited to, preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic,

rehabilitative and counseling services and also includes sale and dispensing of prescription drugs and

medical devices. This seminar will examine the cross-cultural perspectives on health, illness, healing

and religion and will also examine critical issues in global health. The differences and similarities in

health, healing and religion in various countries including the United States of America will be studied

through lectures, reading, research, discussion, writing, and guest speakers.

In addition, students will have to engage with the community through Community-Based Learning

(CBL) research activities that will incorporate experiential assignments grounding student learning in

the context and content of what they encounter in particular community settings. Note: A minimum of

ten hours of CBL activities is required and will be monitored three times during the semester.

Course Objectives

The objectives of this seminar are to:

• Advance students’ understanding of cross-cultural and cross-religious perspectives on health,

illness and healing

• Advance students’ understanding of health care systems diversity in the world by focusing on

geographic and civic data, major disease/condition outbreaks/occurrence, health care provision

and distribution, health care expenditure and health care human resources

• Foster students’ critical analysis of health care systems with respect to human dignity, culture

and religion

• Engage students with the community through Community-Based Learning research activities.

Attendance

This is a discussion-based course; therefore attendance is required and will be taken during each class

period. If you miss three class periods without an official university-sanctioned excuse, your grade will

be reduced by one letter grade and your grade will be reduced by an additional letter grade for each

absence beyond three.

60


Excused Absence

Serious illness documented with health care provider note (not a regularly scheduled appointment),

medical emergencies, family emergencies and NCAA athletic competition are reasons for excused

absences. Assignments missed for an excused absence will be averaged out of your final grade after

providing me with an official letter of explanation. Any unexcused missed assignments will result in a 0

grade for this particular assignment. If you are a member of the NCAA athletic team and must miss an

assignment due date for an athletic competition, you must present me with an official schedule provided

by your coach during the first week of the semester and must remind me of your absence as the date

approaches.

Participation

As a seminar course, it is a basic assumption that students will participate actively in discussions in

class, as non-participation disrupts the class dynamics, therefore participation will be monitored in class.

Students who consistently do not participate will have their final grade reduced by a letter grade at the

end of the semester.

Community-Based Learning (CBL) Research Requirement

A minimum of ten hours of Community-Based Learning research activities is required for this course;

these hours will be monitored by the Office of Center for Service Learning three times during the

semester. Students who fall below this number will have their final grade reduced by a letter grade at

the end of the semester.

Inappropriate Academic Conduct

Academic dishonesty such as plagiarism and cheating will be severely punished as it will result in the

failure of the course (grade F) and the offense will be reported to the Biology Department Chair and to

the Dean’s Office for documentation that could lead to expulsion from Regis College. The following is

an excerpt from the Regis University Bulletin that I will enforce: "Consistent with the College's Academic

Integrity Policy, I will report all violations of this course's academic integrity policy to the Dean's office.

Students who have committed multiple instances of academic dishonesty can be subject to institutional

penalties like probation, suspension, or expulsion, in addition to the penalties for this course." In addition:

• Cell phones use such as texting will result in minus 10 points each time from the grand total

points. Cell phones and pagers should be turned off. If you need to be contacted for an

emergency situation, you should notify me at the beginning of the class period.

• Promptness is mandatory; any late coming will result in minus 10 points each from the grand

total points. Indeed, tardiness is not acceptable as it disturbs class dynamics.

Disability

If you have a documented disability requiring academic adjustments for this course, please contact the

Disability Services Office (303-458-4941, disability@regis.edu). The Disability Services office will

review your documentation with you and determine appropriate, reasonable accommodations.

Following the meeting with Disability Services personnel, please make an appointment with me to

discuss your accommodation request in light of the course requirement.

Regis Writing Center

The Writing Center offers Regis College students immediate and personal feedback on their writing and

answers to questions about grammar, documentation, and formatting. Peer writing consultants help at

61


any point in the writing process, from brainstorming for ideas to organizing a draft to polishing the final

version. The Writing Center is a very popular service, so appointments are strongly recommended.

Drop by Loyola 1 or call (303) 458-4039 for more information. More specifically, I am requesting that

you visit the Writing Center before you turn in you draft paper, a notification of your visit will be sent to

me for points.

Dayton Memorial Library

Reference librarians provide assistance in locating facts, refining a research strategy, focusing a topic,

selecting the appropriate databases or other resources, or interpreting research results. More in-depth

assistance, called a "Research Consultation," is available by appointment for larger research projects.

More specifically, I am requesting that you visit the library before you turn in you draft paper, a

notification of your visit will be sent to me for points.

Grading

Your final course grade will be assigned based on the percentage of points earned out of a total of 700

points. In addition, I may occasionally give pop quizzes. Each of them will be worth a certain amount

of points, to be determined at the end of the course. All assignments due dates are indicated at the

beginning of the semester: therefore you need to make sure you will be on campus these days. Any late

assignment will be automatically down-graded a letter grade per late day.

Entry slips

150 points (15 x 10 points)

Visit to the Library (draft paper)

15 points

Visit to the Writing Center (draft paper) 15 points

Annotated Bibliography Assignment

50 points

Draft Paper Outline

20 points

Final Paper Outline

30 points

Draft Paper

100 points

Peer-Reviews

20 points (2 x 10 points)

Final Paper

200 points

Paper Presentation

50 points

Questions on Presentations

10 points

TBL Peer-evaluation

40 points

--------------

Total points

700 points

Penalty points (deducted from the final grade)

Attendance: One letter grade per three unexcused absences and an additional letter grade for each

additional unexcused absence. Participation: One letter grade removed from your final grade if nonparticipation

is constant. CBL requirement: One letter grade removed from your final grade if you have

less than fifteen hours. Turnitin: Assignments will not be graded (i.e. will receive a zero grade) if not

submitted to Turnitin. Single-sidedness: All assignments MUST be turned-in double-sided NOT singlesided,

assignment will not be graded if single-sided (i.e. will receive a zero grade).

A 100-92.5 % A - 92.4-89.5 % B+ 89.4-85.5 % B- 85.4-82.5 %

B - 82.4-79.5 % C+ 79.4-75.5 % C 75.4-72.5 % C - 72.4-69.5 %

D+ 69.4-65.5 % D 65.4-62.5 % D - 62.4-59.5 % F


Date Topic Reading Home Assignment

Mon. Aug. 29

Wed. Aug. 31

Introduction to the Course including CBL 1 and TBL 1 (Team forming)

Introduction to Paper and CBL topics (Melissa Nix, Curriculum & Intercultural

Programming Director, Center for Service Learning) and Report on ES1

Entry Slip 1 (T: Turnitin)

(personal experience)

Mon. Sep. 05

Wed. Sep. 07

No class: Labor Day

History of Diseases and Current Global Health Slides – Reading Discussion UAMA 2 #1 Entry Slip 2 (T)

Mon. Sep. 12 History of Diseases and Current Global Health Slides – Reading Discussion

UAMA #2, 3 Entry Slip 3 (T)

Wed. Sep. 14 Selection of Paper Topic (Melissa Nix) – Reading Discussion

Mon. Sep. 19 Visit to a GreenLeaf Farm (Damien Thompson, Regis College Sociology Professor) UAMA #9, 10 Entry Slip 4 (T)

Wed. Sep. 21 Workshop on Thesis Construction - (Jan Turner, DML Reference Librarian)

Mon. Sep. 26

Wed. Sep. 28

Health, Culture and Religion Slides – Reading Discussion

Health, Culture and Religion Slides – Reading Discussion

UAMA #12, 13,14

UAMA #15, 16, 17

Entry Slip 5 (T)

Entry Slip 6 (T)

Mon. Oct. 03

Wed. Oct. 05

Mon. Oct. 10

Wed. Oct. 12

Mon. Oct. 17

Wed. Oct. 19

Mon. Oct. 24

Wed. Oct. 26

Mon. Oct. 31

Wed. Nov. 02

Mon. Nov. 07

Wed. Nov. 09

Mon. Nov. 14

Wed. Nov. 16

Mon. Nov. 21

Wed. Nov.24

Mon. Nov. 28

Wed. Nov. 30

Mon. Dec. 05

Wed. Dec. 07

Fri. Dec. 16

Critical Issues in Global Health: America - Reading Discussion

Sections of the Act

(The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 01/15/2010)

Refugees Panel (Melissa Nix)

Reflection on Panel and Papers (Melissa Nix)

Critical Issues in Global Health: Africa - Buruli Movie (30 min) and Reading Discussion UAMA #44

No class: Fall Break

Workshop on Citing Sources (Jan Turner)

Entry Slip 7 (T)

Draft Paper Outline (T)

Final Paper Outline (T)

Entry Slip 8 (T) - CBL Worklog

Annotated Bibliography (T)

Public Health Guest Speaker (Dr. Renee King, Emergency Medicine Physician at UCH)

Critical Issues in Global Health: America - Reading Discussion UAMA #26 Entry Slip 9 (T)

Critical Issues in Global Health: Eastern Mediterranean - Reading Discussion

UAMA #46 Entry Slip 10 (T)

Critical Issues in Global Health: Europe – Reading Discussion

UAMA #45 Entry Slip 11 (T)

Critical Issues in Global Health: South-East Asia – Reading Discussion

Fadiman Book 3 Entry Slip 12 on full book (T)

Critical Issues in Global Health: Western Pacific – Reading Discussion

Ong Paper Entry Slip 13 - CBL Worklog

Globalization and Sustainability – Pachamama Movie (20 min) and Reading Discussion UAMA #18 Entry Slip 14 (T)

Reflection on Papers (Melissa Nix)

Draft Paper (3 copies) - (T)

Paper Conference (Dr. Franco’s Office in the Science Building #223)

No class: Thanksgiving Break

Students’ Presentations (5 presentations of 10’ each and 5’ of questions)

Students’ Presentations (5 presentations of 10’ each and 5’ of questions)

Students’ Presentations (5 presentations of 10’ each and 5’ of questions)

CBL Worklog (needs 10 hours)

Students’ Presentations (5 presentations of 10’ each and 5’ of questions) Farmer Book 3 Entry Slip 15 on full book (T)

Final Paper with Graded Draft and Graded Grid due at 5:00 pm in the Drop-Off Box Outside my Office – Turnitin

1 CBL is the acronym for Community-Based Learning and TBL is the acronym for Team-Based Learning.

2

UAMA is an acronym for the “Understanding and Applying Medical Anthropology” book.

3

Students can read “AIDS and accusation” by Farmer and “The spirit catches you and you fall down” by Fadiman at their own pace. It is only required that these books be fully read at the time of

their respective discussion date.

63


APPENDIX A: INSTRUCTIONS TO ASSIGNMENTS

Entry Slips (10 points each)

Entry slips should include the citation of the paper (using appropriate citation format), a brief (2-3 paragraphs)

summary of the reading/s and 3 questions or opinions based on the reading/s. All entry slips must be wordprocessed,

with your name on top of the page, a Citation section heading with the citation of the paper using

appropriate format, a Summary section heading and a Questions section heading and should not excess one page

in length when associated with one article. If you have read from several articles or book chapters, your entry slip

should be divided accordingly and should then exceed one-page length (e.g., 3 articles would produce an entry

slip with 3 Citation section headings, 3 Summary section headings and 3 Questions section headings).

RCC400D Entry Slip “corresponding number”

“Your name”

Citation: Brown, P.J., Barrett, R.L., and Padilla, M.B. (1998). Medical Anthropology: An Introduction to the

Fields. In: Brown, P., editor. Understanding and Applying Medical Anthropology. Mountain View: Mayfield

Publishing Company. p. 10-19.

Summary:

Write a brief summary (2-3 paragraphs) of the reading.

Questions:

Write 3 questions/opinions based on the reading using bullet format.

The points will be allocated as follows: 2 points for the citation, 5.75 points for the summary, and 2.25 points for

the questions. 20% penalty points will be removed for each direct quote and a zero grade will be assigned if the

Entry Slip is not submitted to Turnitin in addition of being printed for the due date.

Discussion (can only loose points)

The following items are norms and values for discussion:

• Be respectful to the opinions of others in the classroom.

• When disagreeing with a statement, use constructive language opposed to criticism as “that’s wrong”.

Ex: “I disagree or understand but …”

• Be critical, using constructive language.

• Wait your turn to speak as all opinions are equally valid.

• Listen intently when others are speaking.

• Use appropriate language that is not offensive.

What is an Academic Source?

1) Except for some general sources that will be listed later, your paper should only be documented by academic

sources that:

• Are either books or articles (papers) that report original researches.

• Are scholarly sources of information, written by either subject experts or scholars in their fields.

• Are reviewed (refereed) by an editorial board and revised before being accepted for publications.

• These sources can be found in textbooks, articles, encyclopedia or specialized data bases (library

instruction).

2) Although these website sources will not count toward your academic sources quota, you can use them in your

paper for general information such as demographics and statistics:

• WHO (World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/en/).

• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/).

• NIH (National Institutes of Health, http://www.nih.gov/).

• The World Fact Book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/).

• SMA (Society for Medical Anthropology, http://www.medanthro.net/)

• SfAA (Society for Applied Anthropology, http://www.sfaa.net/).

- 64 -


3) You should use one of the two following citation formats throughout your paper (in-text citations and

References):

• APA, based on the recommendations of the American Psychological Association and used by many

journals in Psychology, Education and Social Sciences.

• CSE (name-year system), based on the recommendations of the Council of Science Editors and used by

many journals in Biology, Geology, Medicine, Chemistry, Mathematics and Physics.

Important Note: Remember that each academic source (and the ones I allowed you to use) should be cited twice,

in the body of the text when appropriate and in the References section at the end of the paper.

Important Note: Below your name, you should type the name of the format you are using, in order for me to

review accordingly. If no format is mentioned, you will loose all of the citation points (in-text and References

section).

Important Note: Do not hesitate to make appointments with a Reference Librarian (303-458-4031) and/or a

Writing Center Consultant (303-458-4039).

Important Note: The use of Wikipedia is absolutely forbidden in this course. It is acceptable to visit this site

for general information but you should go to the scholarly sources (when available, that is the problem) at the end

of the article and decide on their validity and pertinence. If you decide then, that these sources are relevant to

your paper, you can cite them.

4) Your interviews should be cited as follows:

• In-text, name of the person you interviewed and date (e.g., Smith M., 2007).

• In the References section, name of the person you interviewed, Personal (Telephone) interview, date (e.g.,

Smith M., Personal interview, August 7, 2007).

Research Paper Outline (20 points)

Your research paper should take a position on an issue related to health, healing, illness or health care in the

world, and should address cultural and religious contexts. The specific topic you choose needs to be approved

before you start your research.

Note: The points will be normalized for the final outline graded out of 30 points. The final outline will receive a

zero grade if both draft proposal and graded rubric are not attached to it.

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

Approaches Expectations

(75-90%)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

Length (1 point) Below 1 page Between 1 and 2 pages 2 pages

Title/Author

(2 points)

Title is short and “catchy” or

unprofessional. Name is missing.

Title is poorly worded

Title is accurate and reflects thesis.

Name appears.

Introduction

(4 points)

Introduction fails to set the stage

for thesis and body text

Introduction is somewhat relevant to

thesis and body text

Introduction clearly sets the stage for

the thesis and body text

Thesis

(7 points)

Paragraphing

(6 points)

Thesis is absent/lacks clarity/focus

The thesis does not seem to reflect

the author’s point of view

Thesis is at the beginning of the

introduction

The paragraphs do not support or

reject the thesis

The paragraphs do not focus on a

single idea (argument or counterargument)

Thesis is somewhat clear/focused

It is not clear that the thesis reflects

the author’s point of view

Thesis appears randomly in the

introduction

Some paragraphs support or reject

the thesis

Some paragraph focus on a single

idea (argument or counter-argument)

while others do not

Thesis is clear and focused and relates

to the introduction

Thesis conveys author’s point of view

Thesis is at the end of the introduction

Each paragraph supports or rejects the

thesis

Each paragraph focuses on a single

idea (argument or counter-argument)

Subtotal Points/20: ---------

--

Additional Penalties

The introduction and thesis do not present the countries you are investigating: -20% -----------

The introduction/thesis does not address cross-cultural and cross-religious issues related to health: -20% -----------

Presence of direct quote: -20% each ----------

Total Points/20: -----------

- 65 -


Annotated Bibliography for six academic sources (50 points)

This is a formal bibliography that includes citations of sources with summary and evaluation information for each

source. Each student will research the paper topic agreed upon, using multiple academic sources. A minimum of

six sources should be used with at least four coming from primary research articles. The citation format should be

in APA only. The emphasis is on finding accurate, reliable sources and providing a clear summary and evaluation

for each source.

Content

(13 points)

Relative

Importance to

Subject

(13 points)

Annotation:

Includes all 6

points. See

explanation on

the following

pages

(12 points)

Conventions:

Proofreading,

Spelling,

Grammar,

APA Style

(12 points)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

Your sources are

interesting and

they are all clearly

related to your

topic.

You select a

variety of

academic sources

that are all written

at the appropriate

level for this

paper’s purpose.

The connection

between your

sources and your

topic are clear.

Your annotation

follows the 6

points and

provides the main

conclusions of

each source.

You correctly cite

at

least 6 sources

using the APA

style.

Approaches Expectations

(75-90%)

Your sources are

interesting and most

are clearly related to

your topic.

You select a variety of

academic sources and

most are written at the

appropriate level for

this paper’s purpose.

In most cases the

connection between

your source and the

topic is clear.

You clearly

summarize the main

conclusions of each of

your sources and

include most of the 6

points for annotations.

You cite at

least 6 sources

using the APA style

and there are a few

errors.

Needs Major Improvement

(50-75%)

Your sources cover your

topic, but they are less

interesting and the

relationship to your paper is

less clear.

The sources you

selected are less varied, but

most are written at the

appropriate level for this

project’s purpose. At times

the connection between the

sources and your topic is

unclear.

You clearly

summarize the main

conclusion of each of your

sources, but fail to include

most of the annotation

points.

You cite at least 6 sources

and try to use APA style,

but have some

difficulty.

Poor

(0-50%)

Few, if any, of your

sources are related

to your topic. You

seem to have no real

interest in your

paper.

You select mostly

one source type (i.e.,

books). Often the

connection is

unclear if there is

one at all.

You try to

summarize your

sources, but have

trouble focusing on

the main idea. You

make little or no

attempt to include

all 6 points for

annotations.

You cite at

least 6 using

your own citation

style or use APA

style but there are

many errors.

Academic

sources number

--

Additional Penalties

-10% per missing

source

-10% per missing source -10% per missing source -10% per missing source

Subtotal Points/50: ---------

Presence of direct quote: -20% each ----------

Total Points/50: ----------

- 66 -


- 67 -


- 68 -


Research Draft Paper (100 points), Bring 3 copies for in-class peer-review and graded

outline

The paper will not be accepted if neither 1) word-processed nor 2) stapled nor 3) one-and-a-half spaced nor 4)

written using an 11.5 font size nor 5) one-sided.

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

Approaches Expectations

(75-90%)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

Body length

• 4 pages (excluding front • 5 pages (excluding front • 6 pages (excluding front page

(5 points max)

page and References

page and References section) and References section)

Any paper below 4

section)

pages will receive a -

50% penalty at the end

Front page

(4 points max)

If citation format is not

cited ALL citation

points will be removed

Introduction

(5 points max)

Thesis

(7 points max)

Paragraphing

(25 points max)

Critical thinking

and analysis

(15 points max)

Community-based

research (CBL)

(8 points max)

• Title is short and “catchy”

or unprofessional

• Name is missing

• Introduction fails to set the

stage for thesis and body

text and does not present

countries to be investigated

• Thesis is absent or lacks

clarity and focus

• The thesis does not reflect

the author’s point of view

• Thesis is at the beginning of

the introduction

• The paragraphs do not

support or reject the thesis

• The paragraphs are not

supported by academic

sources

• The paragraphs do not

focus on a single idea

(argument or counterargument)

• The discussion and support

of ideas are not clearly

organized and are

incoherent

• The transitions are abrupt

and illogical

• The author does not provide

concrete example but rather

remains very vague and

general

• The author does not address

potential objections to ideas

• The author fails to analyze

problems and remained

superficial

• Main arguments or counterarguments

are not

supported by CBL

components

• CBL components are

irrelevant to ideas presented

• Title is poorly worded • Title is accurate and reflects

thesis

• Name

• Citation format is clear (CSE

or APA)

• Introduction is somewhat

relevant to thesis and body

text and not fully present

countries to be investigated

• Thesis is somewhat clear and

focused

• It is unclear thesis reflects

the author’s point of view

• Thesis appears randomly in

the introduction

• Some paragraphs support or

reject the thesis

• Some paragraphs are

supported by academic

sources

• Some paragraph focus on a

single idea (argument or

counter-argument) while

others do not

• The discussion and support

of ideas are somewhat

clearly organized and

coherent

• Some transitions are abrupt

and illogical

• The author provides some

concrete examples

• The author somewhat

answers potential objections

to ideas

• Some personal opinions are

supported by academic

sources

• The author makes an effort

to analyze problems

• Some main arguments or

counter-arguments are

supported by CBL

components

• Some CBL components are

relevant to ideas presented in

• Introduction clearly sets the

stage for the thesis and body

text and present countries to

be investigated

• Thesis is clear and focused

and relates to the introduction

• Thesis conveys the author’s

point of view

• Thesis is at the end of the

introduction

• Each paragraph supports or

rejects the thesis

• Each paragraph is supported

by one or several academic

sources

• Each paragraph focuses on a

single idea (argument or

counter-argument)

• The discussion and support of

that idea are clearly organized

and coherent

• The transitions between each

paragraph are smooth and

logical

• The author provides concrete

examples

• The author answers potential

objections to ideas

• Personal opinions are

supported by academic

sources

• The author clearly analyzes

problems rather than

summarizing them

• Most main arguments or

counter-arguments are

supported by CBL

components

• CBL components are relevant

to ideas presented in

- 69 -


Direct quotes

(5 points max)

Conclusion

(4 points max)

Academic sources

number

(10 points max)

Academic sources

citation format

(12 points max)

in paragraphs

• CBL components are not

integrated in paragraphs but

rather condensed at the end

of the paper or random

• Paper is a succession of

quotes

-10% per quote

• Quotes are not commented

on

• Quotes are not

appropriately cited

• Quotes are not integrated in

the text

• The conclusion does not

parallel the thesis

• The conclusion does not

generate any new thoughts

paragraphs

• Some CLB component are

completely integrated in

paragraphs

• Paper contains too many

quotes

• Some quotes are commented

on

• Quotes are mainly

appropriately cited

• Quotes are somewhat

integrated in the text

• The conclusion somewhat

parallels the thesis

• The conclusion generates

some new thoughts

• -10% per missing source • -10% per missing source • At least 6

• -10% per in-text citation

cited incorrectly

• -10% per citation cited

incorrectly in the

References section

• 10% per in-text citation

cited incorrectly

• -10% per citation cited

incorrectly in the

References section

paragraphs

• CLB component are

completely integrated in

paragraphs

• Quotes are sparse and only

used when absolutely

necessary

• Quotes are commented on

• Quotes are appropriately cited

(refer to instructions on your

specific citation format)

• Quotes are well integrated in

the text

• The conclusion parallels the

thesis

• The conclusion generates new

thoughts

• All in-text citations are

following the chosen citation

format

• All citations in the References

section are following the

chosen citation format

Subtotal Points/100: ----------------------------------

Additional Penalties

The introduction does not address cross-cultural and cross-religious issues related to health: -20% -----------

Paper exceeding the page limit excluding the front page and the References section: -20% -----------

Incorrect spelling, grammar or word choice: -2% each ----------

Did not bring 3 copies: student lose peer-review points ----------

Total Points/100: --------------------------------------

- 70 -


Final Paper (200 points), Bring graded draft and grading grid

The paper will not be accepted if neither 1) word-processed nor 2) stapled nor 3) one-and-a-half spaced nor 4)

written using an 11.5 font size and nor 5) one-sided.

In addition this paper will not be accepted if both graded draft and graded grid are not attached.

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

Approaches Expectations

(75-90%)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

Body length

• 8 pages (excluding front • 9 pages (excluding front • 10 pages (excluding front page

(3 points max)

page and References

page and References section) and References section)

Paper below 8 pages section)

will receive a -50%

penalty

Front page

(4 points max)

If citation format is not

cited ALL citation

points will be removed

Introduction

(10 points max)

Thesis

(10 points max)

Paragraphing

(50 points max)

Critical thinking

and analysis

(25 points max)

Community-based

research (CBL)

(25 points max)

• Title is short and “catchy”

or unprofessional

• Name is missing

• Introduction fails to set the

stage for thesis and body

text and does not present

countries to be investigated

• Thesis is absent or lacks

clarity and focus

• The thesis does not reflect

the author’s point of view

• Thesis is at the beginning of

the introduction

• The paragraphs do not

support or reject the thesis

• The paragraphs are not

supported by academic

sources

• The paragraphs do not

focus on a single idea

(argument or counterargument)

• The discussion and support

of ideas are not clearly

organized and are

incoherent

• The transitions are abrupt

and illogical

• The author does not provide

concrete example but rather

remains very vague and

general

• The author does not address

potential objections to ideas

• The author fails to analyze

problems and remained

superficial

• Main arguments or counterarguments

are not

supported by CBL

components

• CBL components are

• Title is poorly worded • Title is accurate and reflects

thesis

• Citation format is clear (CSE

or APA)

• Introduction is somewhat

relevant to thesis and body

text and not fully present

countries to be investigated

• Thesis is somewhat clear and

focused

• It is unclear thesis reflects

the author’s point of view

• Thesis appears randomly in

the introduction

• Some paragraphs support or

reject the thesis

• Some paragraphs are

supported by academic

sources

• Some paragraph focus on a

single idea (argument or

counter-argument) while

others do not

• The discussion and support

of ideas are somewhat

clearly organized and

coherent

• Some transitions are abrupt

and illogical

• The author provides some

concrete examples

• The author somewhat

answers potential objections

to ideas

• Some personal opinions are

supported by academic

sources

• The author makes an effort

to analyze problems

• Some main arguments or

counter-arguments are

supported by CBL

components

• Some CBL components are

• Introduction clearly sets the

stage for the thesis and body

text and present countries to

be investigated

• Thesis is clear and focused

and relates to the introduction

• Thesis conveys the author’s

point of view

• Thesis is at the end of the

introduction

• Each paragraph supports or

rejects the thesis

• Each paragraph is supported

by one or several academic

sources

• Each paragraph focuses on a

single idea (argument or

counter-argument)

• The discussion and support of

that idea are clearly organized

and coherent

• The transitions between each

paragraph are smooth and

logical

• The author provides concrete

examples

• The author answers potential

objections to ideas

• Personal opinions are

supported by academic

sources

• The author clearly analyzes

problems rather than

summarizing them

• Most main arguments or

counter-arguments are

supported by CBL

components

• CBL components are relevant

- 71 -


Direct quotes

(5 points max)

Conclusion

(8 points max)

Academic sources

number

(20 points max)

Academic sources

citation format

(20 points max)

Revision

(20 points max)

irrelevant to ideas presented

in paragraphs

• CBL components are not

integrated in paragraphs but

rather condensed at the end

of the paper or random

• Paper is a succession of

quotes

-10% per quote

• Quotes are not commented

on

• Quotes are not

appropriately cited

• Quotes are not integrated in

the text

• The conclusion does not

parallel the thesis

• The conclusion does not

generate any new thoughts

relevant to ideas presented in

paragraphs

• Some CLB component are

completely integrated in

paragraphs

• Paper contains too many

quotes

• Some quotes are commented

on

• Quotes are mainly

appropriately cited

• Quotes are somewhat

integrated in the text

• The conclusion somewhat

parallels the thesis

• The conclusion generates

some new thoughts

to ideas presented in

paragraphs

• CLB component are

completely integrated in

paragraphs

• -10% per missing source • -10% per missing source • At least 10

• -10% per in-text citation

cited incorrectly

• -10% per citation cited

incorrectly in the

References section

• Final paper not

substantially different

(inappropriately) from

drafts

• Few/no comments

addressed

• 10% per in-text citation

cited incorrectly

• -10% per citation cited

incorrectly in the

References section

• Final paper substantially

different (as appropriate)

from draft

• Most substantive comments

addressed

• Quotes are sparse and only

used when absolutely

necessary

• Quotes are commented on

• Quotes are appropriately cited

(refer to instructions on your

specific citation format)

• Quotes are well integrated in

the text

• The conclusion parallels the

thesis

• The conclusion generates new

thoughts

• All in-text citations are

following the chosen citation

format

• All citations in the References

section are following the

chosen citation format

• Final paper substantially

different (as appropriate) from

draft

• All substantive comments

addressed

Subtotal Points/200: --------------------------------

Additional Penalties

Paper exceeding the page limit excluding the front page and the References section: -20% ----------

-

Incorrect spelling, grammar or word choice: -2% each ----------

Total Points/200: --------------------------------------

- 72 -


Peer-reviews of Draft Paper (20 points, 2 x 10 points each)

Peer-review 1: You can also make corrections on the paper you are reviewing

Reviewer Name: ________________________

Paper First Author: _____________________

Body length: Is the length of the paper appropriate?

Front Page: Is the front page present? Is the citation format indicated? Is the title accurate and does it reflect the

thesis? If not, provide a new title for the author.

Introduction: Does the introduction clearly set the stage and provide enough background information for the

thesis? If not, suggest to the author what needs to be addressed.

Does the introduction present and compare countries and health issues to be addressed in cross-cultural and/or

cross-religious manners?

Thesis: Is the thesis clear and focused? Does it relate to the background information provided in the

introduction? Does it address cross-cultural and/or cross-religious health issues? If not, provide a new thesis for

the author in light of the paper’s introduction.

Paragraphing: Do the paragraphs support or reject the thesis? Are the paragraphs supported by academic

sources? Does each paragraph focus on a single idea (argument or counter-argument)? Are the transitions

between paragraphs smooth and logical? If not suggest a different order for the paragraphs.

- 73 -


Critical thinking and analysis: Does the author clearly analyze problems/issues rather than just summarizing

them? Are personal opinions supported by academic sources?

Community-based learning research: Are most main arguments or counter-arguments supported by CBL

components? Are the CBL components relevant to the ideas presented in the paragraphs? Are the CBL

components completely integrated in the paragraphs rather than standing alone? If not suggest where the CBL

components should appear.

Direct quotes: Does the paper contain too many quotes? Does the author make good use of quotes? Are the

quotes commented on?

Conclusion: Does the conclusion parallel the thesis? Does the conclusion contain new thoughts?

Academic sources number: Does the paper contain enough academic sources (at least 5)?

Academic sources citation format: Does the author use an appropriate citation format?

Incorrect spelling, grammar or word choice: Does the author need to proofread his/her paper?

Generally, describe the quality of the writing in this paper. Does the author clearly take a stand on an issue

related to health, healing, illness or health care in the world? Does the author address cultural and religious

contexts? Does the body of the paper clearly relate to the thesis?

- 74 -


Peer-review 2: You can also make corrections on the paper you are reviewing

Reviewer Name: ________________________

Paper First Author: _____________________

Body length: Is the length of the paper appropriate?

Front Page: Is the front page present? Is the citation format indicated? Is the title accurate and does it reflect the

thesis? If not, provide a new title for the author.

Introduction: Does the introduction clearly set the stage and provide enough background information for the

thesis? If not, suggest to the author what needs to be addressed.

Does the introduction present and compare countries and health issues to be addressed in cross-cultural and/or

cross-religious manners?

Thesis: Is the thesis clear and focused? Does it relate to the background information provided in the

introduction? Does it address cross-cultural and/or cross-religious health issues? If not, provide a new thesis for

the author in light of the paper’s introduction.

Paragraphing: Do the paragraphs support or reject the thesis? Are the paragraphs supported by academic

sources? Does each paragraph focus on a single idea (argument or counter-argument)? Are the transitions

between paragraphs smooth and logical? If not suggest a different order for the paragraphs.

- 75 -


Critical thinking and analysis: Does the author clearly analyze problems/issues rather than just summarizing

them? Are personal opinions supported by academic sources?

Community-based learning research: Are most main arguments or counter-arguments supported by CBL

components? Are the CBL components relevant to the ideas presented in the paragraphs? Are the CBL

components completely integrated in the paragraphs rather than standing alone? If not suggest where the CBL

components should appear.

Direct quotes: Does the paper contain too many quotes? Does the author make good use of quotes? Are the

quotes commented on?

Conclusion: Does the conclusion parallel the thesis? Does the conclusion contain new thoughts?

Academic sources number: Does the paper contain enough academic sources (at least 5)?

Academic sources citation format: Does the author use an appropriate citation format?

Incorrect spelling, grammar or word choice: Does the author need to proofread his/her paper?

Generally, describe the quality of the writing in this paper. Does the author clearly take a stand on an issue

related to health, healing, illness or health care in the world? Does the author address cultural and religious

contexts? Does the body of the paper clearly relate to the thesis?

- 76 -


Power Point Paper Presentation (50 points), Bring a paper copy of your presentation

The oral presentation will be a 10-minute talk with 5 minutes for questions. When preparing for you presentation, follow your written

research paper as a general guideline; however, you will have to condense the information, as you will not have enough time and visual

support to present the entire content of your paper. The discussion/questions time that follows your talk will then allow you to develop

certain points.

Front Slide

(2 points max)

Introduction

(4 points max)

Thesis

(4 points max)

Paragraphing

(10 points max)

Critical Thinking

and Analysis

(8 points max)

Community-Based

Learning (CBL)

(4 points max)

Direct Quotes

(2 points max)

Conclusion

(4 points max)

Acknowledgements

(2 points max)

Academic Sources

(2 points max)

Visual Aids

(4 points max)

Speaker Skills

(4 points max)

Questions

(4 points max)

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

• Title is short and “catchy”

or unprofessional

• Introduction is not a heading

• The introduction does not

set the stage for the thesis

• Thesis in not a heading

• The thesis is unclear and not

personal

• Statements is not a heading

• Paragraphs do not support

or reject the thesis

• Paragraphs are not

supported by academic

sources - -10% per missing

source

• Transitions are illogical

• The speaker fails to analyze

problems and remains

superficial

• Main ideas are not

supported by CBL research

• CBL is irrelevant to ideas

• CBL is not incorporated

Approaches Expectations

(75-90%)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

• Title is poorly worded • Title is accurate and reflects

thesis

• The introduction is somewhat

relevant to the thesis

• The thesis is somewhat clear

and focused

• Some paragraphs support or

reject the thesis

• Some paragraphs are

supported by academic

sources - -10% per missing

source

• Transitions are somewhat

logical

• The speaker makes an effort to

analyze problems

• Some main ideas are

supported by CBL research

• CBL is somewhat relevant

• CBL is rather incorporated

• Word Introduction is a heading

• The introduction is clear and sets

the stage for the thesis

• Word Thesis is a heading

• Thesis is clear and focused

• Author is taking a stand

• Word Statements is a heading

• Each paragraph supports or

rejects the thesis

• Each paragraph is supported by

academic sources - At least 5

• The transitions between

paragraphs are smooth and

logical

• The speaker clearly analyzes

problems rather than just

summarizing them

• Most main ideas are supported

by CBL research

• CBL is relevant to ideas

• CBL is incorporated

• Too many quotes • Some unnecessary quotes • Quote are spare and only used

when necessary

• Conclusion is not a heading

• Conclusion does not parallel

thesis and does not expand

• Acknowledgement is not a

heading

• Speaker fails to

acknowledge appropriate

• References is not a heading

• Academic sources are not

correctly cited

• -10% per missing source

• The visual aids are of poor

quality

• The visual aids fail to

effectively convey ideas

• The speaker is neither

confident nor professional

• The speaker fails to answer

questions

• Conclusion rather parallels the

thesis and brings some new

thoughts

• Speaker acknowledges some

individuals

• Some academic sources are

correctly cited

• -10% per missing source

• The visual aids are of

mediocre quality

• The visual aids somewhat

effectively convey ideas

• The speaker is somewhat

confident and professional

• The speaker answers some

questions

• Word Conclusion is a heading

• The conclusion parallels the

thesis and brings new thoughts

• Word Acknowledgements is a

heading

• Speaker acknowledges

appropriate individuals

• Word References is a heading

• All academic sources used in the

text are correctly cited

• At least 5

• The visual aids are of good

quality

• The visual aids are effective at

conveying ideas

• The speaker is confident (faces

audience, does not read notes, is

audible) and professional

• The speaker correctly answers

all questions

Subtotal Points/50: -----------------

Additional Penalties

Talk is either too long (>12 minutes) or too short (


APPENDIX B: RECEIPTS

The following receipts should be detached prior to your visits. The Reference Librarian and the Writing

Consultant will fill those and then mail them to me.

Visit to the DML library

Name of the course: RCC400D RU04 (Medical Anthropology) – Fall 2011

Name of the Student: -----------------------------

Date: -------------------------------------------------

Raison for visit:

Problems:

Name and signature of the Reference Librarian

Visit to the Writing Center

Name of the course: RCC400D RU04 (Medical Anthropology) – Fall 2011

Name of the Student: -----------------------------

Date: -------------------------------------------------

Raison for visit:

Problems:

Name and signature of the Reference Librarian

- 78 -


APPENDIX If

Genetics Lecture, BL414, Spring 2013

Marie-dominique Franco, Ph. D.

Department of Biology, Science Building #223; Tel: 303-458-4198

mfranco@regis.edu

(This syllabus may be subject to changes throughout the semester)

GENERAL INFORMATION

The lecture sessions meet three times a week on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 10:30 am to 11:30 pm

in Loyola Hall Room #5. My office hours are on Mondays and Wednesdays from 8:00 am to 10:30 am and by

appointments. My academic website is http://academic.regis.edu/mfranco/ where you can find a link to the course

and its material. The Add/Drop deadline is January 22 nd , 2013 and the Withdrawal deadline is March 22 nd , 2013.

Note: All e-mail communications will be sent to your Regis account.

COURSE DESCRIPTION/GOALS

This course explores the concepts of heredity, including the structure, replication, transmission and expression of

genes from the DNA of chromosomes. The course also interprets genetic phenomena at different levels of

organization, including prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Also, students will synthesize ideas and data from

multiple sources to communicate information about selected genetic disease through the preparation of an

annotated bibliography and a pamphlet. Students are expected to know the material presented in the Principles of

Biology: Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture and laboratory courses (BL260 and BL261) as these two courses

are pre-requisites to the Genetics lecture and laboratory courses.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completion of this course, successful students should be able to:

a. Demonstrate understanding of the basic processes of heredity, from Mendelian to chromosomal, with

emphasis on important experimental organisms and human genetics.

b. Apply knowledge of the molecular basis of information flow from DNA to understand how alterations in

genes or regulation cause disease, how genome sequencing permits detection of genetic disease, and how

model organisms constructed with specific mutations help elucidate the molecular basis of disease.

c. Appreciate the historical context and the major contributors to the modern field of genetics.

d. Investigate the social and ethical implications of genetic advances, including questions of genetic privacy,

of gene therapy, and of genetically-modified organisms.

e. Employ critical thinking and expand communication skills by preparing a pamphlet on a human genetic

disease or genetic trait that translates complex scientific information and data into a format accessible to

an audience with introduction to Biology background.

READING

Weekly assigned reading will include appropriate sections of the textbook, Genetics: Analysis of Genes and

genomes 8 th edition by Hartl, DL., and Ruvolo, M. (2012) Jones & Bartlett Learning, and from the Power Point

lecture notes that will be available to you on the course web site. Please, bring a printed version of the notes in

class for addition of your personal notes. I will provide handouts and papers for specific topics when necessary.

Also, you will need for the pamphlet the Writing Papers in the Biological Sciences, 5 th ed. by V.E. McMillan

(2012). Bedford St. Martin’s (an older edition is OK; you should all own one copy from BL261 and BL263).

HOW TO STUDY FOR THIS COURSE

This course is an in-depth upper division course that requires a lot of work. All topics build on each other and you

- 79 -


need to comprehend the early material in order to follow. In order to succeed in this course you need to:

• Read assigned chapters before lecture sessions

• Come to class with your printed PowerPoint lecture notes

• Ask questions in class if you don’t understand

• Spend a minimum of 3 hours of study time for 1 hour of lecture

• Work in group and quiz yourselves. If you realize you still don’t understand, come to me for explanations

ATTENDANCE

Attendance is required, although you will not be penalized if you miss class on occasional times. Attendance will

be taken at every class period; students who miss two full weeks of lectures (6 periods) for any reason (excused

and unexcused) will have their letter grade reduced by one letter at the end of the semester and students who miss

three full weeks of lectures (9 periods) for any reason (excused and unexcused) will fail the course.

If you must miss either quizzes or exams for athletic competition (NCAA team) or medical or family emergency,

you must notify me and provide an official letter of explanation and an Excused Absence Form (attached at the

end of syllabus) and the missed assignment will be averaged out of the grand total. There is no make-up TBL,

quizzes or exams for excused missed ones; your final grade will be calculated averaging the assignments if you

have an excused absence or you will receive a “0” grade for all unexcused missed assignments. In any case, the

grade will appear as “0” until the official letter of explanation and the Excused Absence Form are turned in. The

final exam cannot be excused, all students need to take it during the official time period; students not taking the

final exam (for any reason) will receive a “0” grade.

DISABILITY

If you have a documented disability requiring academic adjustments for this course, please contact the Disability

Services Office (303-458-4941, disability@regis.edu). The Disability Services office will review your

documentation with you and determine appropriate, reasonable accommodations. Following the meeting with

Disability Services personnel, please make an appointment with me to discuss your accommodation request.

INNAPROPRIATE ACADEMIC CONDUCT

From the Regis University Bulletin: “Our collective academic honesty is a simple prerequisite for the pursuit of

knowledge. In particular, the Jesuit principles that underlie the Regis College mission statement and core

philosophy, with their call to ethical inquiry and care of the whole person, demand students commit to academic

integrity in their pursuit of a Regis College education. Students and faculty are expected to adhere to standards of

good academic conduct: being responsible for one’s own academic work, participating with good faith in

academic discussions, acknowledging the work of others. Regis College takes very seriously violations of

academic integrity, including but not limited to: plagiarism, cheating, duplicate submission of work, collusion,

submitting false information, unauthorized use of computers or other electronic devices (e.g., during an exam),

theft and destruction of property, and unauthorized possession of materials.” In the unlikely event that academic

misconduct occurs, the consequences will be severe.

• A first offense of academic misconduct that the instructor judges to be of lesser severity will minimally

result in a 0% score on the assignment/quiz/exam AND the formal report of the infraction to the Chair of

the Biology Department and the Regis College Dean’s Office.

• Academic misconduct that the instructor judges to be severe, vandalism, or any second offense of

inappropriate academic conduct any type, will result in immediate failure of the course (grade = F) AND

the formal report of the infraction to the Chair of the Biology Department and the Regis College Dean’s

Office (which may result in separate institutional punishment).

In addition, during testing periods, personal calculators will not be permitted, hat brims will need to be turned

backward and, all personal items will be stored in the front of the room. Students will not be able to leave the

classroom during testing periods (of any kind).

Cellular Phones, Text Messaging, Laptops, Tablets, and Other Computerized Devices

- 80 -


In general, these may not be used in class, so turn these off. If you have a special need to use one of these in class,

you must obtain the instructor’s permission. The instructor also may allow a student to use a computerized device

in class as long as it will not distract or impair other students or the instructor. Please give the class your full

attention. Any use of such devices will result in minus 10 points each time from the grand total points.

TBL (Team-Based Learning) Activities

The main purpose of TBL is to change the classroom experience from acquiring course content and concepts in a

lecture‐based format to applying course content and concepts in a team format. In other words, students spend

their classroom time applying course material rather than simply acquiring it. During our TBL activities,

classroom learning will occur in teams of 5 to 7 students. Prior to the TBL activity, students will be study

assigned class material (lecture notes, readings, website tutorials, video demonstrations, etc.).

During the first class session of a TBL unit students take an individual readiness assessment test (iRAT) over the

assigned material. The iRAT will consist of 10 multiple choice questions (1pt/correct answer; 10 pts total). Right

after this individual test, students retake the same test as a team (tRAT), using the immediate feedback assessment

technique (IF-AT). The IF-AT testing system enables students to be provided immediate feedback about the

accuracy of their answers and also allows students to continue answering a question until they discover the correct

answer. Teams that correctly answer the tRAT question on the first try will receive 1 pt (1pt/correct answer on

first try; 10 points total); teams that correctly answer on their second try will receive 0.5 pt, teams that correctly

answer on their third try will receive 0.25 pt, teams unable to correctly answer by the third try will be required to

continue until they answer correctly but will not be awarded any points. Both iRAT and tRAT grades are counted

in terms of final grade calculations. The individual tests hold students accountable for learning the material before

class and the team tests provide an exciting opportunity for students to learn from one another while working

together on the test.

The class following the readiness assessment process (or just after iRAT/tRAT), each team is assigned the same

application exercises to solve. Application exercises are designed such that students use the material they learned

inside and outside of class to solve challenging problems. Each team reveals their answer to the application

exercise simultaneously, resulting in energetic conversation between teams, as each teams seeks to justify their

answer. Teams are held accountable for their work by writing an explanation for their answer to application

exercises which is later graded by the course instructors. Each time block of application exercises is worth a total

of 20 points. Following some application exercise class period students will assess each team member’s

performance in a peer evaluation exercise (10 pts/assessment).

(Modified from TBL: An Alternative to Lecture-Based Learning, School of Pharmacy, Regis University, 2010).

Regis Writing Center

The Writing Center offers Regis College students immediate and personal feedback on their writing and answers

to questions about grammar, documentation, and formatting. Peer writing consultants help at any point in the

writing process, from brainstorming for ideas to organizing a draft to polishing the final version. The Writing

Center is a very popular service, so appointments are strongly recommended. Drop by or call (303) 458-4039 for

more information.

Dayton Memorial Library

Reference librarians provide assistance in locating facts, refining a research strategy, focusing a topic, selecting

the appropriate databases or other resources, or interpreting research results. More in-depth assistance, called a

"Research Consultation," is available by appointment for larger research projects.

GRADES

Turnitin

Turnitin is a Web-based service that can find and highlight matching or unoriginal text in a written assignment. It

uses data-mining to compile a large database of electronic academic materials which it indexes and stores. Faculty

can send their students' assignments to the Turnitin database or else set up to allow students to send their own

- 81 -


assignments to the service for checking. Turnitin basically checks the assignment against its database of materials

to look for matches or near-matches in strings of text. Turnitin then generates an Originality Report online. The

Originality Report summarizes and highlights matching text. For all assignments sent to Turnitin, assignments

may minimally receive a grade of “0” if the percentage of similarity is high (as defined by the instructor);

assignment with higher percentage of similarity may lead to the failure of the course (F grade). The course ID is

5922276 and the password is genetics2013.

Team-Based Learning

There will eight TBLs in the semester, it is imperative that you do not miss these sessions as you are part of a

team.

General Biology Competency Quiz

Students must receive a grade of 72.5% or higher (at least C grade) to be able to continue receiving grades in the

course. Students receiving less than 72.5% at their first attempt will be able to retake the quiz two more times.

The highest grade will be recorded for the grand total.

Exam

There will be a total of four exams that will cover material from the lectures, the textbook, TBL and any other

documents I may give you. All but the first exam are comprehensive. Once the exams are distributed, students

will not be able to leave the room unless an emergency arises. The final exam cannot be averaged out (for any

reason) and students who miss it will receive a grade of “0”.

Annotated Bibliography

This is a formal bibliography that includes citations of sources with summary and evaluation information for each

source. Each student will research the paper topic agreed upon, using multiple academic sources. A minimum of

six sources should be used with at least four coming from primary research articles. The citation format should be

in APA or CSE only. The Assignment will need to be submitted to Turnitin.com by the due date; if not submitted

the assignment will receive a “0” grade.

Disease Pamphlet

Each student will create a disease pamphlet which they will present in Genetics Laboratory course (BL415) on

Thursday May 2 nd and submit to Turnitin.com by April 1 st at 5:00 pm (if not submitted the assignment will

receive a “0” grade). The presentation is worth 50 points (these points will be integrated into the laboratory

grade) and the pamphlet itself is worth a total of 100 points. This assignment is designed to help you:

• Explore the background and causes of a disease or inherited genetic anomaly of particular interest.

• Integrate factual information from the genetic and physiological perspectives.

• Analyze and summarize an area of relevant recent research from the primary (experimental, peerreviewed)

scientific literature.

• Communicate your deep understanding of the disease to an educated but not expert audience. Imagine

presenting your knowledge on the disease in an introductory level collegiate biology course.

All pamphlets will be entered into a class competition; the 5 best pamphlets will receive 50 points of Bonus

Points and will need to be presented using a poster format on Monday April 22 nd from 5:00 to 6:00 pm at the

Poster Session of the Department of Biology Spring 2013 Seminar Series.

Possible Grading Inaccuracies

If you think that something was mistakenly graded as incorrect, please notify your instructor. Wait at least one

day and resubmit the test or assignment to your instructor with a brief written explanation of why you think the

grading was in error. No grading re-consideration requests for assignments (other than the final exam) will be

accepted after the final exam.

Your final course grade will be assigned based on the percentage of points earned out of a total of 1115 points. In

addition, I may occasionally give pop quizzes. All the testing sessions are scheduled at the beginning of the

semester; therefore you need to make sure you will be on campus these days. There will be no make-up

- 82 -


assignments or exams; any missed assignments or exam will result in a “0” for this particular test. If you must

miss an assignment or exam for either athletic competition or medical emergency or family emergency, you must

provide an official letter of explanation and Excused Absence Form within a week of the scheduled assignment.

Competency quiz

25 points

Exam I

100 points

Grading Scale

Comprehensive Exam II 130 points

A 100-92.5 % C .4-72.5 %

A

Comprehensive Exam III 150 points

- 92.4-89.5 % C - 72.4-69.5 %

B+ 89.4-85.5 % D+ 69.4-65.5 %

Comprehensive Final Exam 200 points

Annotated Bibliography 50 points

B 85.4-82.5 % D 65.4-62.5 %

Disease pamphlet

100 points

B - 82.4-79.5 % D - 62.4-59.5 %

C+ .4-75.5 % F


ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (50 POINTS)

This is a formal bibliography that includes citations of sources with summary and evaluation information for each

source. Each student will research the pamphlet topic agreed upon, using multiple academic sources. A

minimum of six sources should be used with at least four coming from primary research articles and two from

review articles. The citation format should be in APA or CSE formats only. The emphasis is on finding

accurate, reliable sources and providing a clear summary and evaluation for each source. Both the Writing Center

and the DML can help you with references. Use of Wikipedia or any such popular site will result in a “0” grade

for the assignment.

Mention your citation format (APA or CSE) on top of the page; otherwise the assignment will not be graded.

Meets Expectations Approaches Expectations Needs Major Improvement

Poor

(90-100%)

(75-90%)

(50-75%)

(0-50%)

Content

(13 points)

Relative

Importance to

Subject

(13 points)

Annotation:

Includes all 6

points. See

explanation on

the following

pages

(12 points)

Conventions:

Proofreading,

Spelling,

Grammar,

APA Style

(12 points)

Academic

sources number

Your sources are

interesting and

they are all clearly

related to your

topic.

You select a

variety of

academic sources

that are all written

at the appropriate

level for this

paper’s purpose.

The connection

between your

sources and your

topic are clear.

Your annotation

follows the 6

points and

provides the main

conclusions of

each source.

You correctly cite

at least 6 sources

using either APA

or CSE style.

-10% per missing

source

Your sources are

interesting and most

are clearly related to

your topic.

You select a variety of

academic sources and

most are written at the

appropriate level for

this paper’s purpose.

In most cases the

connection between

your source and the

topic is clear.

You clearly

summarize the main

conclusions of each of

your sources and

include most of the 6

points for annotations.

You cite at least 6

sources using either

APA or CSE style but

there are a few errors.

Your sources cover your

topic, but they are less

interesting and the

relationship to your paper is

less clear.

The sources you selected

are less varied, but most are

written at the appropriate

level for this project’s

purpose. At times the

connection between the

sources and your topic is

unclear.

You clearly summarize the

main conclusion of each of

your sources, but fail to

include most of the

annotation points.

You cite at least 6 sources

and try to use either APA or

CSE style, but have some

difficulty.

Few, if any, of your

sources are related

to your topic. You

seem to have no real

interest in your

paper.

You select mostly

one source type (i.e.,

books). Often the

connection is

unclear if there is

one at all.

You try to

summarize your

sources, but have

trouble focusing on

the main idea. You

make little or no

attempt to include

all 6 points for

annotations.

You cite at least 6

using your own

citation style or use

either APA or CSE

style but there are

many errors.

-10% per missing source -10% per missing source -10% per missing source

Subtotal Points/50: -----------

Additional Penalties

Presence of direct quote: -20% each -----------

Total Points/50: -----------

- 84 -


- 85 -


DISEASE PAMPHLET (100 POINTS) (The pamphlet needs to be double-sided, color printed and dropped by

my office before the due date, otherwise it will not be graded, also the pamphlet needs to be submitted to

Turnitin.com, otherwise it will not be graded.

Instructions

This assignment is designed to help you:

• Explore the background and causes of a disease or inherited genetic anomaly of particular

interest.

• Analyze and summarize an area of relevant recent research from at least seven primary

(experimental, peer-reviewed) scientific literature with the exception of at least three review

papers.

• Communicate your deep understanding of the disease to an educated but not expert audience as

you would to an introductory level course in Biology (not the general public).

Your pamphlet should follow this Language and Readability requirements:

• Must be clear and concise. Avoid wordiness and redundancy. See grammar handbook for examples.

• Must be grammatically correct. Use correct punctuation and spelling. Avoid run-on or incomplete

sentences.

• The active voice is preferred to the passive voice: “Smith (2006) found that dogs like treats” is preferred

to “In the experiments of Smith (2006), it was found that…”

• Must use words correctly. Be careful with words like “amount/number”, “affect/effect” and scientific

terms.

• No quotes are needed or permitted in short papers such as these. Restate complex sentences and phrases

in your own words and cite the author; be careful to avoid plagiarism.

• All species names need to be correctly spelled and italicized.

Your pamphlet should follow this General Format:

The pamphlet should demonstrate your ability to synergize the knowledge and facts you acquired preparing the

bibliography and your ability to communicate information. As your model, take a look at pamphlets at a doctor’s

or dentist’s office or clinic. Creativity in presentation and format is acceptable and encouraged. The pamphlet

will start with a clear, descriptive title and your name will be included in a header at the top of the page. The

pamphlet may contain no more than two photos (2x2 with reference and clear explanation of what the photo

demonstrates) and the overall format may be:

• Tri-fold pamphlets (encouraged)

• Bi-fold pamphlets

• Standard format newsletter style documents

In addition the pamphlet should be three complete pages (two pages for the pamphlet and one page for the

references) using a 1) single-spaced, 2) 11 point font (Times New Roman or other standard font), 3) 0.5 inch

margins (not the default setting), 4) an indent, rather than a line space between paragraphs and 5) justified left.

Your pamphlet should contain the following headings and subheadings to show a good Organization:

Utilize major section headings (bold or underlined) to clearly indicate organizational sections and the subheadings

should also be identifiable for the general text.

Background and History of the Disease

General Introduction

This section introduces the general topic by describing the gene, enzyme, cellular defect and

inheritance pattern (e.g. chromosome deletion, recessive or dominant, sex-lined or autosomal,

sporadic, etc…) and general symptoms. Also, this section gives basic statistics such as incidence,

carrier percentage and also mentions the major areas of recent research.

- 86 -


Then this section adds more details about the molecular basis of the disease and the connections

between errors at the gene level and the phenotype of the person. For some diseases, there may be

many different types of mutations to explain.

History

This section briefly retraces the history of the trait/disease with: its discovery or discoverers, current

estimates of the incidence in the U.S. and/or worldwide, the types of diagnostic tests available

(enzymes, PCR, etc…).

Pathology and Molecular Basis

This section describes the disease pathology or the clinical consequences of the trait/disease. It

includes connections from the molecular and cellular angles to what we understand for the whole

organism. This section may also ask the following questions: Do people with this disease have a

shortened life expectancy? Can they have children? What types of clinical problems do they have?

Screening and Treatment

This section gives an overview of current treatment and screening and the possibility of cure or

increasing life expectancy. This section may also ask the following questions: Are there any social or

ethical concerns about these treatments, diagnosis or screening methods?

Review of Current Research and Clinical Trails

Current Research

This section summarizes and compares current primary research papers that report research on this

trait/disease and that have been published in peer-reviewed journals over the last few years.

Depending on your topic, these articles should probably be from 2008 to the present. You should

choose a particular theme from the current research and draw together a set of findings that you will

summarize, compare and synthesize. For example, depending on your own interests and the available

current research, you may focus on basic research to understand the molecular aspects of the disease,

focusing on treatment and/or screening

Clinical Trials

This section should tell the reader where trends are heading.

Conclusion

This section should give one or two concluding remarks on the current status of the disease and treatment options.

Your pamphlet should follow basic scientific References rules:

Most of the references in your pamphlet should come from your Annotated Bibliography (at least four primary

research articles and two review articles). The References section page should be paper-clipped to the pamphlet

when you drop your printed version by my office. All references should be cited in the text using the Name-Year

(CSE or APA) format.

- 87 -


Rubric for the Disease Pamphlet (100 points)

Name:

Citation format

(Penalty points

only)

Language and

Readability

(7 points)

Pamphlet Format

(7 points)

Organization

(7 points)

Reference Page

(14 points)

Poor/Needs Improvement

(0-75%)

The citation format (APA or CSE) is

not mentioned below name.

50% penalty

-Jumbled language, disconnected, no

clear direction.

-Redundant and/or overly wordy.

-Major or multiple grammatical errors,

poor punctuation, run-on or

incomplete sentences, misspellings.

-Passive voice used extensively, word

misuse.

-Quotes are used.

(0-5.25 points)

-Pamphlet is less than 2 complete,

double sided print pages.

-not single spaced, 11 point legible

font or 0.5” margins.

-Too many photos of the wrong size,

exceptions not approved, or irrelevant

photos.

-Too much spacing between

paragraphs.

-Title missing or unclear, name of

student missing.

-References not cited.

(0-5.25 points)

-Poorly organized, no clear section

heading or subheading.

-Major section headings are not used

appropriately.

-Sloppy presentation.

-Paragraphs lack topic sentences, good

flow and do not connect the

information presented to the reader.

(0-5.25 points)

-Not in alphabetical order.

- Not according to CSE or APA style

type.

- Missing multiple data points.

-Punctuation is dramatically off

standard

-Inconsistent.

-Multiple spelling and grammatical

errors.

(0-10.50 points)

Approaches expectations

(75-90%)

The citation format (APA or CSE)

is not mentioned below name.

50% penalty

-Generally readable, but minor

distractions and inconsistencies.

-Some minor areas of wordiness or

redundancy.

-Minor mistakes in grammar,

spelling or punctuation.

-Some usage of passive voice and

one or two word misusages.

(5.25-6.30 points)

-Pamphlet is 3 pages, but not

complete pages or double sided

-Margins, font and spacing are

close, but not as expected.

-Photos are not quite the right size

or not perfectly relevant.

-Name present.

-Title poorly worded or

abbreviated

-References cited, but not in

proper format.

(5.25-6.30 points)

-One section heading or

subheading is missing: Disease

History and Background,

Screening and Treatment, Current

research and etc …

-Section headings and subheadings

are used but unclear.

-Neatly presented but not in

logical order

-Some paragraphs have topic

sentences. There is a moderate

flow and the text somewhat

connects the information presented

to the reader.

(5.25-6.30 points)

-Minor deviations from CSE or

APA style type.

-Missing one data point.

-Punctuation is generally on

standard.

-Generally consistent

-One or two spelling and

grammatical errors

(10.50-12.60 points)

Meets Expectations

(90-100%)

The citation format (APA or

CSE) is mentioned below name.

-Fluidly written, completely

consistent in style, no

distractions

-No wordiness or redundancy

-No errors in grammar, spelling

or punctuation.

-No usage of passive voice or

word problems.

-No quotes are used.

(6.30-7.00 points)

-Pamphlet is 3 full pages, double

sided (2 pages pamphlet and one

page References).

-Margins are 0.5”, font is clear

and 11 point, paragraph spacing

is correct.

-Photos are absolutely relevant

and correct size (2x2).

-Name is present.

-Title lists disease or anomaly

completely, is descriptive and

clear.

-References cited in name/year

format.

(6.30-7.00 points)

-All section headings and

subheadings are present.

-All are presented in a clear

order.

-Paragraphs have distinct topic

sentences, good flow and

connect the information

presented to the reader.

(6.30-7.00 points)

-Complete adherence to style

type.

-Completely consistent.

-No punctuation, grammatical or

spelling errors

(12.60–14.00points)

- 88 -


References

Number

(Penalty points

only)

Background and

History

(40 points)

Review of Current

Research and

Clinical Trials

(20 points)

Conclusion

(5 points)

For each missing article, 20% of the

points will be removed.

-No or few headings or subheading

present.

Demonstrates little understanding of

subject.

-Does not at all describe the gene,

enzyme, cellular defect and

inheritance pattern.

-No detail present about the molecular

basis of the disease and the

connections between errors at the gene

level and the phenotype of the person.

-No history of the trait/disease.

-Does not describe the pathology or

the clinical consequences.

-No symptoms or problems listed.

-No overview of treatment, screening

and prognosis possibilities or ethical

concerns.

(0-30.00 points)

-No or few subheading present

-Demonstrates little understanding of

subject

-No theme selected, or theme is off

base.

-No connection to other information

presented.

-Articles selected do not reflect a fit

into student’s topic

-Articles selected are not primary

research papers, or they are older than

2008.

(0-15.00 points)

-The conclusion does not summarize

medical progress toward finding a

cure and does not relate to the general

introduction.

(0-3.75 points)

For each missing article, 20% of

the points will be removed.

-Some headings and subheadings

present.

-Demonstrates general

understanding of subject.

-Somewhat describes the gene,

enzyme, cellular defect and

inheritance pattern.

-Some detail present about the

molecular basis of the disease and

the connections between errors at

the gene level and the phenotype

of the person.

-Brief history of the trait/disease.

-Somewhat limited description of

the pathology or the clinical

consequences.

-Limited symptoms or problems

listed.

-Some, but not comprehensive

overview of treatment, screening

and prognosis possibilities or

ethical concerns.

At least 7 peer-reviewed primary

research articles and 3 peerreviewed

review articles.

-At least a total of 10 peerreviewed

articles.

-All headings and subheadings

are present 9see instruction

above).

-Demonstrates a comprehensive

understanding of subject

-Describes well the chromosome,

gene, enzyme, cellular defect and

inheritance pattern.

-Good detail present about the

molecular basis of the disease

and the connections between

errors at the gene level and the

phenotype of the person.

-Well summarized brief history

of the trait/disease.

-Describes the pathology and the

clinical consequences.

-Comprehensive symptoms and

problems listed.

-Excellent overview of treatment,

screening and prognosis

possibilities, explains ethical

concerns well.

(30.00-36.00 points)

(36.00-40.00 points)

-Some subheading present. -All subheadings are present (see

-Some minor logic gaps in instruction above).

understanding of subject.

-Demonstrates comprehensive

-Theme selected is generally on understanding of subject.

topic.

-Theme selected is clear and on

-Basic connection to other topic.

information presented.

-Clear connection to other

-Articles selected reflect a general information presented.

fit into student’s topic

-Articles selected reflect a good

-Most articles selected are primary fit into student’s topic

research papers and are newer than -All articles selected are primary

2008.

research papers and are newer

than 2008.

(15.00–18.00 points)

(18.00-20.00 points)

-The conclusion somewhat -The conclusion concisely

summarizes medical progress summarizes medical progress

toward finding a cure and

toward finding a cure and relates

somewhat relates to the general to the general introduction.

introduction.

(3.75-4.50 points)

(4.50-5.00 points)

Subtotal Points/100: __________

Additional Penalties

The citation format is not mentioned below name: 50% ---------

Each quote will be penalized I addition to the loss of points in the rubric: 10% each ---------

Missing academic reference (primary of review): 20% each ---------

Pamphlet not printed: “0”

grade

Pamphlet not submitted to Turnitin: “0”

grade

Final Total Points/100: ____________

- 89 -


SUGGESTED DISEASES and GENERAL CATEGORIES (Other diseases must first be cleared by me)

Autosomal recessive:

Familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Tay Sach's

Friedreich ataxia

Xeroderma pigmentosum

B-thalassemia (anemia)

Albinism

Double-muscled (myostatin)

Myotonic dystrophy

Nieuman-Pick Disease A, B or C

Deafness

Gaucher disease

Autosomal dominant:

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH, receptor form) Marfan syndrome

Machado-Joseph disease

Neurofibromatosis

Achondroplasia (dwarfism)

ALS amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Amelogenesis imperfecta (teeth enamel) Polycystic kidney disease

X-linked recessive:

Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Icthyosis

Lesch-Nyan syndrome

Fabray disease

Color blindness

Agammaglobulinemia

X-SCID (severe combined immune deficiency)

X-linked dominant:

Hypophosphetemia (vitD-resistant rickets) Rett syndrome

CGH (congenital hypertrichosis)

Y gene mutations:

SRY (determines sex)

AZF (azoospermia factor)

Chromosomal:

Down's syndrome (trisomy 21)

Cri du chat

XXY syndrome (Kleinfelter’s)

Burkitt’s lymphoma

Promyelocytic leukemia

XO syndrome (Turner’s)

Imprinting:

Prader-Willi syndrome

Angelman syndrome

Mitochondrial:

LHON (Leber’s heredity optic neuropathy) MELAS (mitochondrial myopathy)

Inherited cancer syndromes and others

Familial melanoma (p16)

Progeria

BRCA1 breast cancer familial

Retinoblastoma

FOP (fibro dysplasia ossificans progressiva) HNPCC – hereditary colon cancer

Bcr/Abl leukemia (Philadelphia chromosome) Alzheimers (APP)

PALB2 (binds BRCA2)

Ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM)

Gliobastoma multiforme (GBM and IDH1 gene)

DO NOT CHOOSE (because your text covers them in detail, and we will study these in lectures)

Autosomal recessive: Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia and phenylketonuria

Autosomal dominant: Huntington's

Mitochondrial: MERFF

X-linked: Fragile X syndrome, hemophilia A

Familial cancer: Li-Fraumeni

- 90 -


SEMESTER SCHEDULE (This schedule may be subject to changes throughout the semester)

DATE TOPIC READING/ASSIGNMENT

1- Mon. Jan 14 Introduction to the course, TBL Teams Assignment and General Biology Competency Quiz

1- Wed. Jan. 16 Gene, Genomes and Genetic Analysis Ch. 1

1- Fri. Jan. 18 Gene, Genomes and Genetic Analysis Ch. 1

2- Mon. Jan 21 Martin Luther King Day: No Class

2- Wed. Jan 23 TBL 1

2- Fri. Jan. 25 DNA Structure and Genetic Variation Ch. 2

3- Mon. Jan. 28 DNA Structure and Genetic Variation Ch. 2

3- Wed. Jan. 30 TBL 2 (peer-evaluation 1)

3- Fri. Feb. 1 Transmission Genetic: The Principles of Segregation Ch. 3

4- Mon. Feb. 4 Chromosomes and Sex-Chromosomes Inheritance Ch. 4

4- Wed. Feb. 6 TBL 3

4- Fri. Feb. 8 Exam I

5- Mon. Feb. 11 Genetic Linkage and Chromosome Mapping Ch. 5

5- Wed. Feb. 13 Genetic Linkage and Chromosome Mapping Ch. 5

5- Fri. Feb. 15 Mol. Bio. of DNA Replication and Recombination Ch. 6

6- Mon. Feb. 18 Mol. Bio. of DNA Replication and Recombination Ch. 6 and Disease selection due

6- Wed. Feb. 20 TBL 4 (peer-evaluation 2)

6- Fri. Feb. 22 Molecular Organization of Chromosomes Ch. 7

7- Mon. Feb. 25 Human Karyotypes and Chromosomes Behavior Ch. 8

7- Wed. Mar. 27 Human Karyotypes and Chromosomes Behavior Ch. 8

7- Fri. Mar. 1 TBL 5 (TBL Conference, CA)

8- Mon. Mar. 11 Review for Exam II based on Students’ Questions Bibliography to Turnitin only by 10:30 am

8- Wed. Mar. 13 Exam II

8- Fri. Mar. 15 Molecular Biology of Gene Expression Ch. 10

9- Mon. Mar. 18 Molecular Mechanisms of gene Regulation Ch. 11

9- Wed. Mar. 20 Molecular Mechanisms of gene Regulation Ch. 11

9- Fri. Mar. 22 TBL 6 (peer-evaluation 3)

10- Mon. Mar. 25 Genomics, Proteomics and Transgenics Ch. 12

10- Wed. Mar. 27 Genomics, Proteomics and Transgenics Ch. 12

10- Fri. Mar. 29 Easter Break: No Class

11- Mon. Apr. 1 TBL 7

11- Wed. Apr. 3 Genetic Control of Development Ch. 13

11- Fri. Apr. 5 Review for Exam III based on Students’ Questions

12- Mon. Apr. 8 Exam III

12- Wed. Apr. 10 Mol. Mechanisms of Mutations and DNA Repair Ch. 14

12- Fri. Apr. 12 Mol. Mechanisms of Mutations and DNA Repair Ch. 14

13- Mon. Apr. 15 Molecular Genetics of the Cell Cycle and Cancer Ch. 15

13- Wed. Apr. 17 Molecular Genetics of the Cell Cycle and Cancer Ch. 15

13- Fri. Apr. 19 TBL 8 (peer-evaluation 4)

14- Mon. Apr. 22 Mitochondrial DNA and Extranuclear Inheritance Ch. 16

14- Wed. Apr. 24 Population Genetics Ch. 17

14- Fri. Apr. 26 The Genetic Basis of Complex Inheritance Ch. 18

Friday May 3 8:00 to 10:00 am Final Exam

Disease pamphlet due (Color Printed &

Turnitin by 5:00 pm)

- 91 -


BL 414 EXCUSED ABSENCE FORM

Name __________________

date of absence___________________

This form must be filled out to request an absence from class not be counted. A photocopy of

documentation of the absence, such as a note from a health care provider or a photocopy of a funeral

card/program must be stapled to this form for it to be accepted. The instructor reserves the right to

follow up with the Office of Student Life or other sources to verify excused absences.

If this form is not received, the missed assignment will be graded as a 0%.

This form is for the following class period/ assignment: (indicate below):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

This excused absence if for the following reason (circle one):

Illness NCAA game/forensic Serious injury of close relative or friend

competition

Serious injury Death or close relative or friend Other

Include Brief explanation of the reason for the excused absence below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----

I the undersigned certify that this was an excused absence of the nature indicated above and request that

the indicated assignment be treated as resulting from an excused absence.

Signature:________________________

date: __________________

- 92 -


APPENDIX Ig

Regis College, Department of Biology

Biomedical Genetics Lecture (BL 614)

Fall 2012 (This syllabus may be subject to changes throughout the

semester)

Marie-dominique Franco, Ph. D. (mfranco@regis.edu)

Office hours are on Mondays from 8:00 to 10:00 am, on Wednesdays

from 8:00 to 9:30 am, on Fridays from 8:00 to 9:30 am, and by

appointments in my office: Pomponio Science Center #223.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meeting Time

Lecture periods meet three times a week on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 1:30 am to 2:20

pm in Claver Hall, room 204 unless specified otherwise such as for integrative TBL.

General Information

My academic website is http://academic.regis.edu/mfranco/ where you can find a link to the course and

its material. Note: All e-mail communications will be sent to your Regis account.

Lecture Materials

Weekly assigned readings will include appropriate sections from the textbook:

• Thompson &Thompson: Genetics in Medicine 7 th Ed. by Nussbaum, McInnes, and Willard (2007),

Ed. Saunders Elsevier (see schedule for assigned page chapters).

• Specific peer-reviewed articles will be distributed or posted on line for printing throughout the

semester.

Course Description and Objectives

This course will develop student knowledge of molecular genetics and human genetics and will

introduce biomedical ethical controversies with roots in genetics and molecular biology.

Student Learning Outcomes

Students should be able to:

• Know: Recall and correctly explain the terms used in molecular and human genetics.

• Comprehend: Explain and apply the major concepts of molecular and human genetics including

patterns of inheritance, gene expression, replication, and patterns of disease causation.

• Apply: Analyze genetic data to diagnose genetic disorders or determine the likelihood of

inheritance of particular genetic disorders.

• Analyze: Recognize and decide on their own position concerning ethical controversies with roots

in genetics and molecular biology. Apply critical thinking in primary papers reading.

TBL (Team-Based Learning) Activities

The main purpose of TBL is to change the classroom experience from acquiring course content and

concepts in a lecture‐based format to applying course content and concepts in a team format. In other

words, students spend their classroom time applying course material rather than simply acquiring it.

- 93 -


During our TBL activities, classroom learning will occur in teams of 5 students. Prior to the TBL

activity, students will be study assigned class material (lectures, textbook chapters, scientific research

papers, website tutorials, video demonstrations, etc.).

During the first class session of a TBL unit, students take an individual readiness assessment test (iRAT)

over the assigned material. The iRAT will consist of 10 multiple choice questions (2pts/correct answer;

20 pts total). Right after this individual test, students retake the same test as a team (tRAT), using the

immediate feedback assessment technique (IF-AT). The IF-AT testing system enables students to be

provided immediate feedback about the accuracy of their answers and also allows students to continue

answering a question until they discover the correct answer. Teams that correctly answer the tRAT

question on the first try will receive 3 pts (3pts/correct answer on first try; 30 points total); teams that

correctly answer on their second try will receive 2 pts, teams that correctly answer on their third try will

receive 1 pt, teams unable to correctly answer by the third try will be required to continue until they

answer correctly but will not be awarded any points. Both iRAT and tRAT grades are counted in terms

of final grade calculations. The individual tests hold students accountable for learning the material

before class and the team tests provide an exciting opportunity for students to learn from one another

while working together on the test.

The class following the readiness assessment process, each team is assigned the same application

exercises to solve. The application exercises will integrate information from the readiness assessment

quizzes in BL 614, BL 616 and BL 618 courses, BL 613A (when applicable). And contents from prestudied

research articles in a combined 3-hour time block. Application exercises are designed such that

students use the material they learned inside and outside of class to solve challenging problems. Each

team reveals their answer to the application exercise simultaneously, resulting in energetic conversation

between teams, as each teams seeks to justify their answer. Teams are held accountable for their work

by writing an explanation for their answer to application exercises which is later graded by the course

instructors. Each 3-hour time block of application exercises is worth a total of 50 points (the same

points will be distributed in each of the three classes). Following the application exercise class period

students will assess each team member’s performance in a peer evaluation exercise (10 pts/assessment).

Standard Course Policies

Refer to the Student Handbook for the M.S. in Biomedical Sciences Standard Course Policies from page

18 to page 21. Course-specific policies are given in the following paragraphs.

Specific Course Policies

For excused absences, you must provide an official letter of explanation and an Excused Absence Form

(attached at the end of syllabus) within a week of the missed class; failure will result in a “0” grade.

Professionalism is expected and you will start the semester with 45 points from which point deduction

will occur (5 points per infraction such as wearing inappropriate attire in class).

Points Distribution

Your final course grade will be assigned based on the percentage of points earned out of a total of 1200

points. In addition, I may occasionally give pop quizzes worth varying points. All assignments are

scheduled at the beginning of the semester; therefore you need to make sure you will be on campus on

these days; there will be no make-up assignments. Therefore and for all excused absences; your final

- 94 -


grade will be calculating averaging assignments you completed. For all unexcused absences, any missed

assignments will result in a “zero” grade. All exams are comprehensive.

iRAT

tRAT

Application exercises

Peer-evaluation scores

Exam I

Exam II

Exam III

Final exam

Assessment quiz

Professionalism

Exercises

80 (20 x 4) points (each 10 questions at 2 points per question)

120 (30 x 4) points (each 10 questions at 3 points per question)

200 (50 x 4) points

40 (10 x 4) points

100 points

125 points

150 points

200 points

20 points

45 points

120 (20 x 6) points

------------

1200 points

- 95 -


WEEK TOPIC READING

1- M Aug. 27 Introduction / Assessment / The Human Genome and Chromosomal Basis of Heredity I Chap.2

1- W Aug. 29 The Human Genome and Chromosomal Basis of Heredity II Chap.2

1- F Aug. 31 The Human Genome: Gene Structure and Function I Chap.3

2- M Sept. 03 No class: Labor Day

2- W Sept. 05 The Human Genome: Gene Structure and Function II Chap3

2- F Sept. 07 Tools of Human Molecular Genetics I Chap.4

3- M Sept. 10 Tools of Human Molecular Genetics II Chap.4

3- W Sept. 12 Exercises 1 on Tools of Human Molecular Genetics

3- F Sept. 14 Exam I

4- M Sept. 17 Specific TBL1 individual- and team- Readiness Assessment Test (iRAT/tRAT)*

4- W Sept.19 Clinical Cytogenetics I Chaps.5 and 6

4- F Sept. 21

Integrative TBL1 Application (Genetics-Biochemistry-Physiology)

(Thalassemia major, Cystic fibrosis and mitotic non-disjunction colon cancer)

5- M Sept. 24 Clinical Cytogenetics II Chaps.5 and 6

5- W Sept. 26 Clinical Cytogenetics III Chaps.5 and 6

5- F Sept. 28 Exercises 2 on Clinical Cytogenetics

6- M Oct. 01 Patterns of Single-Gene Inheritance I Chap.7

6- W Oct. 03 Patterns of Single-Gene Inheritance II Chap.7

6- F Oct. 05 No class: Fall Faculty Conference

7- M Oct. 08 Specific TBL2 individual- and team- Readiness Assessment Test (iRAT/tRAT)*

7- W Oct. 10 Exercises 3 on Patterns of Single-Gene Inheritance

7- F Oct. 12

Integrative TBL2 Application (Genetics-Biochemistry-Physiology)

(Tay Sach’s, Huntington’s disease and LHON disease)

8- M Oct. 15 No Class: Fall Break

8- W. Oct. 17 Exam II

8- F Oct. 19 Genetics of Common Disorders with Complex Inheritance I Chap.8

9- M Oct. 22 Genetics of Common Disorders with Complex Inheritance II Chap.8

9- W. Oct. 24 Exercises 4 on Common Disorders with Complex Inheritance

9- F Oct. 26 Genetic variation in Individuals and Populations: Mutation and Polymorphism I Chap.9

10- M Oct. 29 Genetic variation in Individuals and Populations: Mutation and Polymorphism II Chap.9

10- W Oct. 31 Human Gene Mapping and Disease Gene Identification I Chap.10

10- F Nov. 02 Human Gene Mapping and Disease Gene Identification II Chap.10

11- M Nov. 05 Specific TBL3 individual- and team- Readiness Assessment Test (iRAT/tRAT)*

11- W Nov. 07 Exercises 5 on Genetic Variation (Chap.9) and Human Gene Mapping (Chap.10)

11- F Nov. 09

Integrative TBL3 Application (Genetics-Biochemistry-Physiology)

(Achondroplasia, Diabetes Type 1, Familial hypercholesterolemia and congenital heart defect)

12- M Nov. 12 Basis of Genetic Diseases and The Treatment of Genetic Diseases I Chaps.11, 12 and 13

12- W Nov. 14 Basis of Genetic Diseases and The Treatment of Genetic Diseases II Chaps.11, 12 and 13

12- F Nov. 16 Exercises 6 on Basis of Genetic Diseases and The Treatment of Genetic Diseases

13-M Nov. 19 Developmental Genetics, Birth Defects and Prenatal Diagnosis Chaps.14 and 15

13- W Nov. 23 No Class: Thanksgiving Break

13- F Nov. 25 No Class: Thanksgiving Break

14- M Nov. 26 Exam III

14- W Nov. 28 Cancer Genetics and Genomics Chap.16

14- F Nov. 30 Personalized Genetic Medicine and Pharmacogenetics/Pharmacogenomics Chaps. 17 and 18

15- M Dec. 03 Specific TBL4 individual- and team- Readiness Assessment Test (iRAT/tRAT)*

15- W Dec. 05 Genetic Counseling, Risk Assessment and Ethical Issues

15- F Dec. 07

M Dec. 10

Chaps.19 and 20

Henrietta Lacks book

Integrative TBL4 Application (Genetics-Biochemistry-Physiology)

(Androgen-insensitivity, Klinefelter regular and mosaic and Breast cancer susceptibility BRCA1/BRCA2)

Final Exam with Graded Assessment Quiz at 10:10 am (2 hours)

- 96 -


BL 614 EXCUSED ABSENCE FORM

Name __________________

date of absence___________________

This form must be filled out to request an absence from class not be counted. A photocopy of

documentation of the absence, such as a note from a health care provider or a photocopy of a funeral

card/program must be stapled to this form for it to be accepted. The instructor reserves the right to

follow up with the Office of Student Life or other sources to verify excused absences.

If this form is not received, the missed assignment will be graded as a 0%.

This form is for the following class period/ assignment: (indicate below):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------

This excused absence if for the following reason (circle one):

Illness NCAA game/forensic Serious injury of close relative or friend

competition

Serious injury Death or close relative or friend Other

Include Brief explanation of the reason for the excused absence below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------

I the undersigned certify that this was an excused absence of the nature indicated above and request that

the indicated assignment be treated as resulting from an excused absence.

Signature:________________________

date: __________________

- 97 -


APPENDIX II

- 98 -


- 99 -


APPENDIX III

- 100 -


- 101 -


- 102 -


- 103 -


- 104 -


- 105 -


- 106 -


- 107 -


- 108 -


- 109 -


- 110 -


- 111 -


- 112 -


- 113 -


- 114 -


- 115 -


- 116 -


- 117 -


- 118 -


- 119 -


- 120 -


- 121 -


- 122 -


- 123 -


- 124 -


- 125 -


- 126 -


- 127 -


- 128 -


- 129 -


- 130 -


- 131 -


- 132 -


- 133 -


- 134 -


- 135 -


- 136 -


- 137 -


APPENDIX IV

Courses Outcomes Assessments for BL260, BL261, and BL261H (Principles of

Biology: Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture and laboratory courses)

Spring 2009, Marie-dominique Franco

Principles of Biology: Molecular and Cellular Biology lecture course (BL260, RU01 and

RU02 sections)

Course Goals (as written in the syllabus):

This course introduces students to Natural Science; particularly the hypothesis testing and data analysis

used in contemporary Molecular and Cellular Biology. In addition, this course develops student

knowledge of the terms and concepts of Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology, and will also

highlight social and ethical issues.

Learning Outcomes (as written in the syllabus):

a. Generally explain how science differs from other ways of knowing

b. Define the major terms used in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology

c. Explain the major organizing concepts in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology

d. Recognize the social and ethical relevance of content covered in Genetics and Biotechnology

Assessment Instrument:

The assessment instrument used to evaluate the aforementioned learning outcomes was a multiple-choice

question quiz. This quiz was given at the beginning of the course, and again at the end of the course in

both sections (Appendix A). In an effort to synchronize and better relate the two semesters of Principles

of Biology courses (Dr. Ghedotti teaches the first-semester course BL263: Organismic Biology), the first

five questions of this assessment quiz were similar to the ones Dr. Ghedotti used in his course assessment.

The questions in the assessment quiz given in BL260 can be categorized by learning outcomes as

illustrated in Table I.

Table I: Correlation between multiple choice questions and learning outcomes

Question Number and Topic

Learning Outcome

1- Solution making

5- Testable hypothesis recognition

2- Gene expression

3- Natural section (not covered in BL260 but in the

previous semester of Principles of Biology BL262)

4- Cell structure

6- Macromolecules

7- Metabolism

8- Mitosis/meiosis

9- Genetics

10- Gene regulation

None

a- Generally explain how science differs from

other ways of knowing

b- Define the major terms used in Cell Biology,

Genetics, and Molecular Biology

c- Explain the major organizing concepts in Cell

Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology

d- Recognize the social and ethical relevance of

content covered in Genetics and Biotechnology

Assessment Results and Analysis:

For all quizzes and in both sections, the numbers of correct answers per question were counted at the

beginning and at the end of the course, and the raw numbers were converted into percentages (Table II).

138


The initial correct answers correspond to correct answers in quizzes given at the beginning of the course

and the final correct answers correspond to correct answers in quizzes given at the end of the semester.

Overall, students’ correct answers changed from 59% to 72.3%, corresponding to a 13.3% increase,

indicating that, in general students learned and retained contents over the course of the semester.

Although this number indicates that the learning outcomes have been achieved, a closer analysis needs to

be conducted to further assess each of the learning outcomes independently.

Table II: Comparison of initial and final scores obtained in the assessment quiz (n=61, this number

excludes students that did not take the assessment quiz both at the beginning and end of the course in both

sections RU01 and RU02)

Question number and topic

Initial correct Final correct

answers (%) answers (%)

Correct answers changes (%)

1- solution making 24.6 32.8 +8.2

2- gene expression 78.7 85.2 +6.5

3- natural selection 88.5 83.6 -4.9

4- cell structure 67.2 65.6 -1.6

5- testable hypothesis 98.4 95.1 -3.3

6- macromolecules 67.2 96.7 +29.5

7- metabolism 57.4 54.1 -3.3

8- mitosis/meiosis 45.9 77.0 +31.1

9- genetics 31.1 86.3 +52.5

10- gene regulation 31.1 49.2 +18.1

Total 59.0 72.3 +13.3

The assessment of the learning outcome “a- Generally explain how science differs from other ways of

knowing” used questions numbers 1 and 5.

Question #1 that addresses content specifically covered in this course shows an 8.2% increase in

correct answer, while question #5 that addresses content covered in both introductory courses (BL262

and BL260) but greatly emphasized in the first semester of Biology shows a 3.3% decrease in correct

answer. Overall, this learning outcome has barely been met (+2.45%).

The assessment of the learning outcome “b- Define the major terms used in Cell Biology, Genetics, and

Molecular Biology” used questions numbers 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Questions #2 and 6 that address contents specifically covered in this course show respective increases

of 6.5% and 29.5%, while question #4 that addresses content covered in both introductory courses

(BL262 and BL263) but emphasized in the second semester of Biology shows a 1.6% decrease and

question #3 that addresses content only covered in the first semester of Biology shows a 4.9%

decrease. Overall, this learning outcome has been met (+7.37%).

The assessment of the learning outcome “c- Explain the major organizing concepts in Cell Biology,

Genetics, and Molecular Biology” used questions numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10.

All the questions address contents specifically covered in this course. Overall, this learning outcome

has been met (+24.6%).

Since the learning outcome “d- Recognize the social and ethical relevance of content covered in

Genetics and Biotechnology” was not assessed, no analysis can be drawn from it.

The data and analysis show that students generally retain biological content between semesters. Indeed,

even though the data show a little decrease in performance, the percentages of correct answers remain

high (e.g. 98.4% vs. 95.1%). Also, the data and analysis show that students performed much better when

tested on explanation of concepts (outcome #d) than when tested on terminology (outcome #c).

139


From these results and from the proposal for the distributive core revision, the following changes are

proposed.

Changes to be Implemented in this Course for the Next Academic Year (2009-2010)

• I will reiterate essential concepts that students have learned in the first semester of Biology

(BL262), and thus in collaboration with Dr. Ghedotti.

• I will strengthen and add material to more specifically address the learning outcome “a- Generally

explain how science differs from other ways of knowing”. Although my lectures heavily rely on

experimental data to explain theories, students often do not consciously recognize the

importance/relevance of this mode of knowledge.

• I will work at better defining terminology to more specifically address outcome “b- Define the

major terms used in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology”. For example, I will type

lists of biological terms and their corresponding definitions, will ask students to study with them,

and will specifically test them on selected terms.

• I will better explain two main biological concepts, cell structure/function and metabolism

(questions #4 and 7), and their integration with contents presented in the first semester of Biology.

The topic of cell structure/function is introduced in the first semester of Biology where students

clearly learned the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells (44.04% increase).

However, the same question displayed a 1.6% decrease when asked in the second semester of

Biology after the topic of cell structure/function was greatly expanded on. The topic of

metabolism was tested using a question that integrated both semester of Biology (question #7).

• I will further address outcome “c- Explain the major organizing concepts in Cell Biology,

Genetics, and Molecular Biology” by developing more problem-solving exercises.

• In order to assess the outcome “d- Recognize the social and ethical relevance of content covered

in Genetics and Biotechnology”, I will propose the following changes:

o Students already have to solve genetics and biotechnology problems. These problems sets

do not currently address either social or ethical relevance of the afore-mentioned biological

topics. I will modify these problems sets by transforming them into case studies that

integrate variations in the genetic material of various ethnic groups. The results of these

problems will be discussed not only in light of biological concepts previously learned but

also in light of ethnic diversity.

o I will modify my lectures on biotechnology to present students with targeted prevention

and implementation of medical treatments for specific ethnic groups.

Principles of Biology: Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory course (BL261, RU01

to RU04 sections and BL261H, RU01 section)

Course Goals (as written in the syllabus):

This course will introduce students to scientific study design, use of primary literature, basic laboratory

skills, data interpretation, and presentation of scientific results. These exercises will be implemented

through the performing of experiments, including DNA recombination, designed to reinforce lecture

content. Each laboratory session will start with about 15 minutes of laboratory lecture, then students will

perform experiments, and finally the results of the experiments will be discussed.

Learning Outcomes (as written in the syllabus):

a. Generally explain how science differs from other ways of knowing

b. Propose, design, and execute a simple but rigorous scientific study/investigation

c. Analyze primary data to correctly test hypotheses in Molecular and Cellular Biology

d. Compose a clear, concise, and accurate primary research paper

140


e. Define the major terms used in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology

f. Explain the major organizing concepts in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular Biology

Assessment Instrument:

The assessment instrument used to evaluate the aforementioned learning outcomes was a multiple-choice

question quiz. This quiz was given at the beginning of the course, and again at the end of the course in all

sections (Appendix B). The questions in the assessment quiz given in BL261 and BL261H can be

categorized by learning outcomes as illustrated in Table III.

Table III: Correlation between multiple choice questions and learning outcomes

Question Number and

Learning Outcome

Topic

7- Solution making a- Generally explain how science differs from other ways of knowing

b- Propose, design, and execute a simple but rigorous scientific

None

study/investigation

8- Testable hypothesis c- Analyze primary data to correctly test hypotheses in Molecular and

recognition

Cellular Biology

4- Primary research paper

d- Compose a clear, concise, and accurate primary research paper

title

1- Pipette

2- Calculation

e- Define the major terms used in Cell Biology, Genetics, and Molecular

3- Molecular equipment

Biology

5- Cellular equipment

9- Model organisms

6- Osmosis

10- Recombinant DNA

f- Explain the major organizing concepts in Cell Biology, Genetics, and

Molecular Biology

Assessment Results and Analysis:

For all quizzes and in all sections (BL261 and BL261H), the numbers of correct answers per question

were counted at the beginning and at the end of the course, and the raw numbers were converted into

percentages (Table IV). The initial correct answers correspond to correct answers in quizzes given at the

beginning of the course and the final correct answers correspond to correct answers in quizzes given at the

end of the semester. Overall and in both BL261 and BL261H, students’ correct answers increased by

19.9% and 18.8% respectively, indicating that, in general students learned and retained contents over the

course of the semester.

Table IV: Comparison of initial and final scores obtained in the assessment quiz for (n=66 for BL261 and

n=13 for BL261H, these numbers exclude students that did not take the assessment quiz both at the

beginning and end of the course)

Question number and topic

Initial

correct

answers

(%)

BL261 (RU01-RU04)

Final correct

answers (%)

Correct

answers

changes (%)

Initial correct

answers (%)

BL261H

Final correct

answers (%)

Correct

answers

changes (%)

1- pipetting 68.2 90.9 +24.7 100 84.6 -15.4

2*- solution making N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

3- equipment use 1 57.6 81.8 +24.1 100 100 0

4- paper writing 53 72.7 +19.7 46.2 100 +53.8

5- equipment use 2 68.2 78.8 +10.6 69.2 84.6 +15.4

6- osmosis 42.4 71.2 +28.8 38.5 69.2 +30.7

7- testable hypothesis 87.9 81.8 -6.1 92.3 100 +7.7

8- graphing 84.8 93.9 +9.1 84.6 84.6 0

141


9- model organism 77.3 98.5 +21.2 100 100 0

10- DNA recombination 33.3 81.8 +48.5 15.4 92.3 +76.9

Total 63.6 83.5 +19.9 71.8 90.6 +18.8

*Question #2 will not be analyzed as the initial assessment quiz contained an error.

As seen in the lecture course, the data show that students (whether those enrolled in BL261 or BL261H)

performed best when asked to explain the major organizing concepts in Cell Biology, Genetics, and

Molecular Biology (learning outcome #f). Also, students enrolled in BL261H were better prepared

(beginning of semester) and performed better (end of the semester) than students enrolled in the regular

sections (BL261 RU01-RU04).

Changes to be Implemented in this Course for the Next Academic Year (2009-2010)

• I will reiterate essential concepts that students have learned in the first semester of Biology

(BL263), and thus in collaboration with Dr. Ghedotti.

• I will design a quiz that generally better address all learning outcomes.

• I will emphasize some of the major biological concepts such as osmosis (question #6). Although

students generally learned and retained the information, I will ensure that most students can

analyze osmosis data at the end of the semester.

Conclusions

This series of formal outcomes assessments was the first I had done since I first joined Regis in 2001. I

found some information generated by these quizzes to correlate with 1) my informal evaluations of these

courses and 2) my formal students’ evaluations. However, I found that these quizzes did not completely

address and/or reflect the full extent of both my teaching and students learning. Nonetheless, I believe

these outcomes assessments can be very valuable tools and will implement appropriate modifications to

further evaluate the quality of my teaching.

142


Molecular and Cellular Biology Lecture (BL260, Spring 2009)

Assessment Quiz (2 points each question, 20 points total)

1) Which of the following is how to make a 2.5% agar

solution?

a. Add H 2 O to 0.25g agar to make 100ml

b. Add H 2 O to 2.50g agar to make 100ml

c. Add H 2 O to 25.00g agar to make 100ml

d. Add H 2 O to the molecular weight of agar in grams to

make 100ml

e. Add 0.25g agar to 100ml H 2 O

f. Add 2.50g agar to 100ml H 2 O

g. Add 25.00g agar to 100ml H 2 O

h. Find the molecular weight of agar, and then add that

many grams to 100ml H 2 O

2) Which of the following is the result of the processes

of transcription and translation?

a. A bacterium takes in a loop of DNA from the

environment

b. DNA information is used to construct a protein

molecule

c. Energy in the C-C bonds in a glucose molecule is

transferred to the phosphate-phosphate bond of ATP

d. Light energy is captured and stored in the C-C bonds

in a glucose molecule

e. None of the above

3) In natural selection, which of the following

determines which allele(s) cause greater reproduction by

individuals?

a. Chance

b. Environment

c. Level of inbreeding/outbreeding

d. Population size

e. None of the above

4) Which of the following is absent in a prokaryotic

cell?

a. Cytoplasm

b. DNA

c. Mitochondria

d. Plasma membrane

e. None of the above (all these are present)

5) Which of the following is a testable scientific

hypothesis?

a. An invisible and undetectable soul exists in each

human body

b. “g” is the abbreviation for the mass unit gram

c. I like toast

d. Men wash their hands less than women

e. None of the above (none are hypotheses)

Name

6) The four main types of macromolecules that

characterize living organisms are:

a. Monomers, polymers, DNA and RNA

b. Proteins, carbohydrates, DNA and RNA

c. Nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids

d. Monosaccharides, disaccharides, polysaccharides

and proteins

7) Which of the following sequences of events is correct

concerning abundant synthesis of ATP in autotrophic

organisms?

a. Glycolysis, pyruvate oxidation, Krebs cycle,

oxidative phosphorylation, and photosynthesis

b. Photosynthesis, glycolysis, pyruvate oxidation,

Krebs cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation

c. Photosynthesis, lactate fermentation, and alcoholic

fermentation

d. Glycolysis, fermentation, and photosynthesis

8) In eukaryotic cells, mitosis --- , while meiosis ---:

a. Allows for the formation of four daughter cells,

allows for the formation of two daughter cells

b. Allows for the formation of two daughter cells,

allows for the formation of four daughter cells

c. Allows for the formation of daughter cells with half

the genetic material as the parent cell, allows for the

formation of daughter cells with identical genetic

material as the parent cell

d. Allows for formation of daughter cells with identical

genetic material as the parent cell, allows for the

formation of daughter cells with half the genetic

material as the parent cell

e. a and c are correct

f. b and d are correct

g. a and c are correct

9) In humans, which of the following genotypes will

induce a “diseased” phenotype as it relates to a genetic

disorder that is autosomal dominant?

a. Either male or female AA

b. Either male or female Aa

c. Female aa

d. Male aa

e. a and b are correct

f. a and c are correct

10) As it relates to a transcription initiation complex,

which of the following associations is incorrect?

a. Enhancer-activator

b. Silencer-repressor

c. Promoter-basal transcription factor

d. Promoter-repressor

143


Molecular and Cellular Biology Laboratory (BL261/H, Spring 2009)

Assessment Quiz (3 points each question, 30 points total)

1) Which of the following pipettes would you

use to pipet 23µl?

a. A 10ml glass pipette

b. A 1000µl micropipetor

c. A 100µl micropipetor

d. A 10µl micropipetor

2) Which of the following corresponds to 87µg?

a. 0.087mg

b. 0.87mg

c. 87,000ng

d. 8,70ng

e. a and c are correct

f. a and d are correct

3) Which of the following devices would you use

to form a pellet and a supernatant?

a. A vortex

b. A stirring plate

c. A centrifuge

d. A heat block

4) Which of the following would be an

appropriate research paper title?

a. The macromolecules content in food

b. Proteins are more abundant in chicken than

in bread

c. The macromolecules content in bread versus

chicken

d. All of the above are appropriate

5) Which of the following devices would be the

most appropriate to observe mitochondria?

a. A dissecting microscope

b. Naked eyes

c. A compound microscope

d. A spectrophotometer

6) When a cell is placed in a hypertonic solution,

osmosis will induce the cell to:

a. Swell

b. Shrink

c. Remain normal

d. All above situations can happen

Name

The hypothesis is: Alcoholic fermentation in

yeast incubated at 37 o C produces more alcohol

than alcoholic fermentation in yeast incubated at

20 o C.

Table 1. Alcohol percentage from alcoholic

fermentation in yeast incubated at 37 o C and

25 o C. The data are not paired. P-value for

comparison = 0.0012

37 o C 12 15 14 16 16 12

25 o C 11 10 12 10 10 9

7) For these data and this hypothesis what type

of graph would be most appropriate?↑

a. Bar graph of means

b. Bar graph of samples

c. Histogram

d. Line Graph

e. Scatter Plot

8) The hypothesis is --- ↑

a. Rejected

b. Supported

c. This cannot be determined with these data

9) Which of the following animal model

organisms is the most commonly used to study

inheritance in general?

a. The chick Gallus gallus

b. The Amphibian Xenopus laevis

c. The sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus

d. The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster

10) You are cutting a DNA plasmid of a total of

1800bp with a restriction enzyme that cuts at

position 200bp and position 1300bp. Which of

the following represents the correct number of

fragments and correct fragment sizes?

a. 1300bp

b. 200bp

c. 1100bp

d. 700bp

e. 1100bp and 700bp

144


Courses Outcomes Assessments for BL412 and BL413 (Developmental Biology

lecture and laboratory courses)

Fall 2008, Marie-dominique Franco

Developmental Biology lecture course (BL412)

Course Goals (as written in the syllabus):

This course will examine the organismal, cellular, genetic and molecular aspects of development in a

variety of animal model organisms (invertebrates and vertebrates). The principles for the current

knowledge of the developmental processes will be presented during the lectures and the laboratories will

allow you to investigate these processes using different model organisms.

Learning Outcomes (as written in the syllabus):

a. To provide an understanding of the different steps leading to the formation of a variety of fully

functional organisms by mainly focusing on the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in

generating these organisms

b. To gain an appreciation for the species-specific diversity of the processes involved in generating fully

functional organisms

c. To gain an appreciation for the scientific method

Assessment Instrument:

The assessment instrument used to evaluate the aforementioned learning outcomes was a multiple-choice

question quiz. This quiz was given at the beginning of the course, and again at the end of the course in

both sections (Appendix A). Since only the first five questions are multiple-choice questions, only these

are being analyzed. The questions in the assessment quiz given in BL412 can be categorized by learning

outcomes as illustrated in Table I.

Table I: Correlation between multiple choice questions and learning outcomes

Question Number and Topic Learning Outcome

1-Early development

a- To provide an understanding of the different steps leading to the formation of a

3- Germ layer

variety of fully functional organisms by mainly focusing on the cellular and molecular

4- Gastrulation

mechanisms involved in generating these organisms

5-Hox genes

b- To gain an appreciation for the species-specific diversity of the processes involved in

2- Genome

generating fully functional organisms

None

c- To gain an appreciation for the scientific method

Assessment Results and Analysis:

For all quizzes, the numbers of correct answers per question were counted at the beginning and at the end

of the course, and the raw numbers were converted into percentages (Table II). The initial correct

answers correspond to correct answers in quizzes given at the beginning of the course and the final correct

answers correspond to correct answers in quizzes given at the end of the semester. Overall, students’

correct answers changed from 65.9% to 89.4%, corresponding to a 23.5% increase, indicating that, in

general students learned and retained contents over the course of the semester.

More specifically, it is clear that students come to this course with an excellent background as illustrated

by the initial scores of 100% and 82.3% for questions #1 and #3 respectively. The content of the first

question is introduced in the first semester of Principles of Biology: Organismic Biology (BL262), and

the content of the second question is introduced in other upper-division biology courses such as Human

and Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy (BL406). Students either retained the maximum scoring (100%) or

145


perform faultlessly at the end of the semester (100%) for these two questions. Also, students were able to

perform excellently (question #4) or poorly (question #5) at the end of the semester when tested on new

material.

Table II: Comparison of initial and final scores obtained in the assessment quiz (n=17, this number

excludes students that did not take the assessment quiz both at the beginning and end of the course)

Question number and topic

Initial correct Final correct

answers (%) answers (%)

Correct answers changes (%)

1- Early development 100 100 0

2- Genome 64.7 94.1 +29.4

3- Germ layer 82.3 100 +17.7

4- Gastrulation 41.2 100 +58.8

5- Hox genes 41.2 52.9 +11.7

Total 65.9 89.4 +23.5

Changes to be Implemented in this Course for the Next Academic Year (2009-2010)

• I will ensure all questions are multiple-choice questions for complete and impartial analysis.

• I will develop a separate lecture on Hox genes. These genes are currently explored sporadically

when used in the patterning of body axes.

• I will add one or two questions addressing the outcome c- To gain an appreciation for the

scientific method.

Developmental Biology laboratory course (BL413)

Course Goals (as written in the syllabus):

This course will examine the organismal, cellular, and molecular aspects of development in a variety of

animal model organisms (invertebrates and vertebrates) and will incorporate both classical and modern

experimental techniques. The principles for the current knowledge of the developmental processes will be

presented during the lectures and the laboratories will allow for the investigation of those processes using

different model organisms. The laboratory contents will not always correlate with the lectures’ materials,

therefore it is essential that you read your manual before each laboratory session. Although each

experiment is designed to be completed in 2 hours and 40 minutes, you will have to sometimes observe

and record developing organisms over the course of a week, following initial experimentations.

Learning Outcomes (as written in the syllabus):

a. To provide an understanding of the different steps leading to the formation of fully functional

organisms by mainly focusing on the molecular and cellular mechanisms

b. To gain an appreciation for the scientific method, to develop skills in critical analysis of

observations, data and scientific information

c. To develop skills on how to communicate scientific data

Assessment Instrument:

The assessment instrument used to evaluate the aforementioned learning outcomes was a multiple-choice

question quiz. This quiz was given at the beginning of the course, and again at the end of the course in

both sections (Appendix B). Since only the first seven questions are multiple-choice questions, only these

are being analyzed. The questions in the assessment quiz given in BL413 can be categorized by learning

outcomes as illustrated in Table III. This table shows that this quiz was not correctly designed to assess

the learning outcomes for this course. Thus the data generated do not permit a complete and precise

analysis of these learning outcomes. Many changes in the design of this quiz need to be implemented for

following years.

146


Table III: Correlation between multiple choice questions and learning outcomes

Question Number and Topic Learning Outcome

5-Early development culture

parameters

None

a- To provide an understanding of the different steps leading to

the formation of fully functional organisms by mainly focusing on

the molecular and cellular mechanisms

b- To gain an appreciation for the scientific method, to develop

skills in critical analysis of observations, data and scientific

information

7- Primary research paper title c- To develop skills on how to communicate scientific data

Assessment Results and Analysis:

For all quizzes, the numbers of correct answers per question were counted at the beginning and at the end

of the course, and the raw numbers were converted into percentages (Table IV). The initial correct

answers correspond to correct answers in quizzes given at the beginning of the course and the final correct

answers correspond to correct answers in quizzes given at the end of the semester. Overall, students’

correct answers changed from 58.0% to 71.4%, corresponding to a 13.4% increase, indicating that, in

general students learned and retained contents over the course of the semester. Except for question #4,

the increase is numbers of correct answers remain very low, hence the need for much revision in the way

the biological content is presented to the students, and in the way students are tested.

Table IV: Comparison of initial and final scores obtained in the assessment quiz (n=16, this number

excludes students that did not take the assessment quiz both at the beginning and end of the course)

Question number and topic

Initial correct Final correct

answers (%) answers (%)

Correct answers changes (%)

1- Pipette 100 100 0

2- Equipment use 87.5 81.2 -6.3

3- Model organism 1 43.7 62.5 +18.8

4- Model organism 2 50 93.7 +43.7

5- Early development culture 18.7 31.2 +12.5

6-Molecular technique 18.7 31.2 +12.5

7-Primary research paper title 87.5 100 +12.5

Total 58.0 71.4 +13.4

Changes to be Implemented in this Course for the Next Academic Year (2010-2011)

• I will ensure all questions are multiple-choice questions for complete and impartial analysis.

• I will fully redesign the assessment quiz to accurately correlate with all learning outcomes.

Conclusions

This series of formal outcomes assessments was the first I had done since I first joined Regis in 2001. I

found some information generated by these quizzes to correlate with 1) my informal evaluations of these

courses and 2) my formal students’ evaluations. However, I found that these quizzes did not completely

address and/or reflect the full extent of both my teaching and students learning. Nonetheless, I believe

these outcomes assessments can be very valuable tools and will implement appropriate modifications to

further evaluate the quality of my teaching. In general and pleasingly, upper-division students:

• Are better prepared than lower-division students

• Learn and retain more biological information than lower-division students

• Greatly benefit from a Biology curriculum that has been designed, so that our graduating students

will be well prepared for graduate-level instruction.

147


Appendix A:

Developmental Biology (BL 412, Fall 2008)

Assessment Quiz (30 points)

1) Which of the following sequences is the

appropriate sequence of developmental stages (2

points)?

a. Zygote, gastrula, morula, blastula and neurula

b. Zygote, morula, blastula, gastrula and neurula

c. Morula, zygote, neurula, blastula and gastrula

d. Zygote, blastula, morula, blastula and neurula

2) Which of the following genomic ploidies is the

most appropriate for generating transgenic organisms

(2 points)?

a. Diploidy

b. Triploidy

c. Tetraploidy

d. Pentaploidy

3) Most vertebrates organisms are formed through the

differentiation of three germ layers: the endoderm,

the mesoderm and the ectoderm. Which of the

following associations is/are not correct (2 points)?

a. Ectoderm - epidermis

b. Ectoderm - central nervous system

c. Ectoderm - epidermis and central nervous

system

d. Ectoderm - most muscles

e. Mesoderm - most muscles

f. Mesoderm - lining of the digestive tube

g. Endoderm - lining of the digestive tube

h. Endoderm - most muscles and lining of the

digestive tube

i. d and f

j. d, f, and h

Name

4) Gastrulation is one of the most important

processes during development. Which of the

following mechanisms is associated with gastrulation

(2 points)?

a. Intensive cell division

b. Formation of the three germ layers: endoderm,

mesoderm and ectoderm

c. Fertilization of the egg by a spermatozoan

d. Formation of the blastocoel

5) Which of the following gene families is involved

in patterning body axes (2 points)?

a. Gene segments encoding immunoglobulins

b. Genes encoding basic transcription factors

c. Hox genes

d. All of the above

6) Explain the difference between genes and proteins (5 points) and explain how these two types of molecules are

related (5 points) (10 points total).

Difference:

Relation:

7) Development generates cellular diversity. Thus, one of the main fundamental questions in Developmental

Biology is: 1) how does a fertilized egg give rise to the adult body? In your own words, propose molecular- and

cellular-level processes to answer this question (10 points). Note: You can list your answers and use the back of

this page if necessary.

148


Developmental Biology (BL 413, Fall 2008)

Assessment Quiz (30 points)

1) Which of the following pipettes is the most

appropriate to pipet 15µl (2 points)?

a. A 10ml glass pipette

b. A 1000µl micropipetor

c. A 200µl micropipetor

d. A 20µl micropipetor

2) Which of the following devices would be the most

appropriate to observe a spermatozoan (2 points)?

a. A dissecting microscope

b. Naked eyes

c. A compound microscope

d. A spectrophotometer

3) Which of the following animal model organisms is

the most commonly used to study fertilization in general

(2 points)?

a. The chick Gallus gallus

b. The Amphibian Xenopus laevis

c. The sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus

d. The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster

4) Which of the following animal model organisms is

the most commonly used to study metamorphosis (2

points)?

a. The chick Gallus gallus

b. The Amphibian Xenopus laevis

c. The sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus

d. The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster

Name

5) When growing early embryos (regardless of the

species), which of the following considerations is not

crucial to ensuing proper development (2 points)?

a. Adequate amount of food

b. Unsoiled growing medium

c. Density of individuals

d. Temperature

e. All are crucial

6) You need to investigate protein expression directly

during development. Which of the following techniques

would you use (2 points)?

a. Polymerase Chain Reaction

b. In situ hybridization

c. Western Blot

d. Northern blot

7) Which of the following titles is an appropriate

research paper title (2 points)?

a. Thyroid hormone and Xenopus laevis

b. Xenopus laevis embryos grown in thyroid hormone

at 37 o C

c. Thyroid hormone induces accelerated

metamorphosis in Xenopus laevis

d. Thyroid hormone induces accelerated

metamorphosis

8) You want to prepare 450ml of a solution of LiCl at 1.5M in dH 2 O. Knowing that the molecular weight of LiCl is

42.39g, how much solute would you need (4 points) and how much solvent would you need (4 points) to prepare your

solution (8 points total)? Note: you need to show your calculation for full credit.

9) In general, explain what a standard curve is used for (4 points) and using the following standard curve tell what

molecular weight fragment size (bp) corresponds to a migration at 20 mm (4 points) (8 points total).

Definition:

Fragment size:

- 149 -


APPENDIX V

Genetics BL414, Spring 2013

Team Name

Application TBL (#4: Linkage, DNA Synthesis and Recombination))

20 points (variable points per question)

Question 1 (8 points):

You are doing a three-point cross with Drosophila melanogaster investigating the follow genes v+, cv+

and ct+ where the mutant and recessive alleles are:

.v, vermilion eyes (bright red)

.cv, crossveinless wings

.ct, cut wing edges

The test cross is as follows: v+ cv ct X v cv ct

v cv+ ct+ v cv ct

(Note that the genes are organized in an arbitrary order at that point)

The following table shows gametes of the progeny with corresponding numbers

gametes Numbers of offspring Phenotype

v cv+ ct+ 580

v cv+ ct 3

v cv ct+ 45

v+ cv+ ct 40

v cv ct 89

v+ cv+ ct+ 94

v+ cv ct+ 5

v+ cv ct 592

a. In column 3 enter the corresponding phenotypes (1 point).

b. What is the order of the genes? Explain your rational for full credit (3 points).

c. Map the genes on the chromosome. Shaw all calculations for full credit (4 points).

- 150 -


Question 2 (4 points):

Two linked genes are separated by a distance such that exactly 4 percent of the cells undergoing meiosis

have one crossover between the genes and 96 percent have no crossover.

a. What is the percent recombination between the genes? You need to show your calculations (2

points).

b. Are the genes linked? Unlinked? Explain (1 point).

c. What distance separates the two genes (1 point)?

Question 3 (8 points):

The following electropherograms show the sequences of exon 3 of the gene WNT10 that has been

associated with ectodermal dysplasia; condition in which the development of skin, teeth hair, nails is

impaired. More specifically, exon 3 in a control individual (top), one parent (middle), and an affected

patient (bottom) are shown. (Color code: G is black, A is green, C is purple and T is red)

a. For each individual read the sequence and tell

the corresponding genotype (hint: the

sequences show only one allele for

homozygous individuals and only different

nucleotide for the heterozygous individual). (3

points).

b. Assuming the reading frame start at the first base in the sequence, give the corresponding amino

acid sequence for both control and affected individual (3 points).

c. From your answers above, tell whether ectodermal dysplasia is an autosomal recessive,

autosomal dominant or sex-linked disorder (2 points).

- 151 -


APPENDIX VI

- 152 -


- 153 -


- 154 -


- 155 -


- 156 -


- 157 -


- 158 -


- 159 -


- 160 -


- 161 -


- 162 -


- 163 -


- 164 -


APPENDIX VII

- 165 -


APPENDIX VIII

Alexandra Lynch

Dr. Marie-Dominique Franco

Tri-Beta Research Scholarship Application

8 September 2011

Indirect Immunofluorescence to Investigate the Role of Hairy Protein, Encoded by a Pair-Rule

Abstract:

Gene, in the Development of the Central Nervous System in Drosophila melanogaster

Pair rule genes, a type of segmentation gene in Drosophila melanogaster, have been found to be

expressed in specific regions of the head and specific cells of the Central Nervous System in Drosophila

embryos. Specifically, the pair rule gene Hairy is used in this project. Preliminary protein expression

analysis shows specific staining present within the region extending from the brain to the anal pad, with

an especially intense area within the developing brain and the first cord pair. The working hypothesis

for the continuation of this project is that the Hairy protein is not only involved in body segmentation,

but also in the development of the Central Nervous System. The hypothesis will be investigated through

employment of indirect immunofluorescence protocol, using the antibody Elav as a positive control.

Outline of Proposed Project:

Segment polarity genes found in Drosophila melanogaster are expressed in the cellular embryo,

enabling individual cells to interact with one another. Segment polarity genes serve to reinforce

parasegmental periodicity, as well as establish cell-fate within each parasegment through cell-cell

communication; the diffusion of certain proteins across each parasegment create morphogen gradients

that then determine cell fate (Larsen et al., 2008). Segment polarity genes are a type of segmentation

gene; others include: maternal effect genes, gap genes, homeotic selector genes, and pair rule genes.

Pair rule genes in particular divide the embryo into fourteen parasegments. Pair rule genes are

expressed along the anterior-posterior axis in seven alternate bands. The expression of pair rule genes

begins in syncytial embryos during the thirteenth mitosis event. High levels of certain pair rule proteins

- 166 -


activate the expression of certain segment polarity genes, while low levels of other pair rule proteins

activate the expression of different segment polarity genes; the two are co-dependent.

Previous RT-PCR experiments have shown that the following pair rule genes: giant, button-head, evenskipped,

fushi tarazu, and labial are expressed at all stages of Drosophila development: embryo, larvae,

pupae, and adult (Personal communication: Dr. Franco). More precisely, pair rule genes have been

found to be expressed in specific regions of the head and specific cells of the Central Nervous System,

indicating a potential role of pair rule genes within the Central Nervous System (Gutjahr et al., 1993).

To better decipher the location, and thus role, of these genes, protein expression analysis was performed

using an antibody against the protein encoded by the pair rule gene Hairy (Figure 1). The expression of

Hairy solely within embryos was investigated. The discrepancy between the nature and identity of the

gene investigated was forced by the inaccessibility of many antibodies; this dictated the usage of Hairy.

Indirect immunofluorescence was performed, using the primary antibody Hairy, and the secondary

antibody Dylight 488-conjugated AffiniPure Donkey Anti-Mouse IgG (green fluorochrome).

Anal

Pad

Spinal

Cord:

faint

staining

Brain:

cord

pair

Figure 1: Hairy Protein Expression in Segmented Drosophila Embryo

*Note: Non-specific staining for anal pad

- 167 -


The result shows specific staining present within the region extending from the brain to the anal pad,

with an especially intense area within the developing brain and the first cord pair. These results suggest

that Hairy protein is specifically expressed within the Central Nervous System of Drosophila embryos.

Thus, this project aims to focus upon the Central Nervous System in particular, and the presence, or

perhaps role, of Hairy within that development.

The working hypothesis for the continuation of this project is that the Hairy protein is not only involved

in body segmentation, but also in the development of the Central Nervous System. In order to address

this question experimentally, indirect immunofluorescence protocol will be followed. Initially, the

embryos will be raised, then dechorionated, and fixed via methanol. Following methanol fixation, the

embryos will undergo rehydration. Then, the primary unlabeled antibody, Anti-Hairy, 1 µg/ml, will be

added, followed by a PBST wash. Prior to the wash, the secondary, labeled, antibody, Donkey-Anti-

Mouse, 1.5 mg/ml, will be added. The embryos will then be mounted onto a slide, and analyzed using

immunofluorescent microscopy. To more thoroughly investigate the hypothesis, this protocol will also

be performed with an antibody known to be present within the Central Nervous System of Drosophila,

Elav, serving as a positive control and basis of comparison. Elav is detected at the birth of the first

neurons within the developing embryonic nervous system of Drosophila (Robinow and White, 1991).

The pattern of expression will then be compared amongst the two antibodies. Previous research

suggests that the Elav expression pattern will parallel that of Hairy, supporting the hypothesis.

References:

Gutjahr, T., Frei, E., Noll, M. (1993). Complex regulation of early paired expression: initial activation

by gap genes and pattern modulation by pair-rule genes. Development. 117:609-623.

Larsen, C., Bardet, P.L., Vincent, J.P., and Alexandre C. (2008). Specification and positioning of

parasegment grooves in Drosophila. Developmental Biology. 321: 310-312.

Robinow, S. and White, K. (1991). Characterization and spatial distribution of the Elav protein during

Drosophila melanogaster development. Journal of Neurobiology. 22:443-461.

- 168 -


APPENDIX IX

SPARC: Student Research Fund Proposal

Immunocytochemical Analysis of the Fascin Protein Expression as a Tool to Investigate

Changes in Microvillar Expression in Developing Sea Urchin Embryos

Non-Technical Summary:

The aim of this proposal is to analyze the changes in expression of microvilli, microscopic hairlike

structures expressed at the surface of cells as an extension of the plasma membrane, in developing

sea urchin embryos Lytechinus variegatus. More specifically, this proposed research seeks to report the

spatio-temporal expression of the protein fascin, specifically expressed in the microvilli, as a means to

investigate the redistribution of these microvilli during early development in sea urchins. The detection

of the fascin protein will be performed using indirect immunofluorescence with a mouse anti-fascin

primary antibody and a Dylight 488 donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (green fluorescence). Note:

This proposal is a resubmission of a proposal sent on May 05, 2011. The proposal was not funded, and

we believe this modified version addresses all SPARC committee comments.

Proposal Narrative:

Introduction

In sea urchins, the early stages of development comprise several periods that can be divided into

five different stages. The zygote stage refers to the newly fertilized egg through the completion of the

first cell cycle. The cleavage stage refers to an intense regular mitotic division period, from which, as

the egg divides, a solid sphere of cells or morula is generated. The blastula stage refers to the formation

of a hollow sphere of cells surrounding a central cavity called blastocoel. The gastrula stage refers to

the formation of three germ layers: the ectoderm, the mesoderm, and the endoderm, all giving rise to a

prism. Finally, the early larval stage refers to a swimming, food-seeking individual or pluteus larva

- 169 -


(Figure 1). The proposed study seeks to investigate microvillar expression from the zygote stage (to

establish a baseline and confirm previous findings with our technology) to the prism stage when the

larva becomes a food-seeking individual (to complete current knowledge and add molecular precision).

Figure 1: Early developmental stages of the

sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus showing (A)

unfertilized egg, (B) 2-cell stage embryo, (C)

4-cell stage embryo, (D) morula, (E) early

blastula, (F) gastrula, (G) early pluteus larva

or prism, and (H) more differentiated pluteus

larva. (A-F) 20X original phase contrast

micrographs and (G, H) 20X original bright

field micrographs taken with Leica DM2500

optics (Franco, 2009).

The eukaryotic cell’s intracellular structure is maintained by mostly three types of protein fibers,

each specifically contributing to the formation, maintenance and movement of the cell’s cytoskeleton.

From larger to smaller, the microtubules are composed of polymerized tubulin proteins that are mainly

involved in cell shape and movement of organelles within the cells. The intermediate filaments are

composed of various polymerized proteins that are mainly involved in maintaining the overall structure

of the cell by anchoring all organelles. Finally the microfilaments are composed of polymerized actin

proteins that are mainly involved in cellular movement including gliding, contraction and cytokinesis

(cytoplasmic division of a cell following the division of the nucleus). These smallest protein fibers, the

microfilaments, can further organize themselves either into networks when cross-linked by filamin

cross-linkers or into cables (bundles) when cross-linked by fascin, villin, or myosin cross-linkers.

In sea urchin, actin microfilaments play a central role in the fertilization process (Otto et al.,

1980), the formation of the contractile ring during cytokinesis to cleave the zygote into several

blastomeres (Mabuchi, 1994), and the relative spatial relationship of these blastomeres within the

fertilization envelope during early development (Showman and Foerder, 1979). While the formation of

the contractile ring involves the actin-bundling protein myosin, the formation of the fertilization cone,

- 170 -


the formation of the fertilization envelope, as well as the

establishment of the precise spatial relationship of

blastomeres during early development involve the actinbundling

protein fascin, distinctively localized in thousand

of microvilli or microscopic hair-like structures (Figure 2).

This proposal seeks to investigate the spatio-temporal

expression of the fascin protein molecules as a tool to

specifically analyze the changes in microvillar expression

in developing sea urchin embryos. Indeed, coupled with

the specific structure of microvilli, fascin is an ideal

Figure 2: Scanning electron micrographs

of a fertilized sea urchin egg showing

microvilli (a and b) and transmission

electron micrographs of these microvilli (c

and d) (Burgess and Schroeder, 1977).

molecular marker to investigate the redistribution of microvilli during sea urchin development.

Objectives

Although attention has been given to the redistribution and elongation of microvilli during

fertilization with the formation of the fertilization cone that allows for the engulfment of the sperm cell

after fusion of the two gametes (Tilney and Jaffe, 1980) and the formation of the fertilization envelope

leading to the formation of the hyaline layer (Burgess and Schroeder; 1977, Otto et al., 1980; Begg et

al., 1982), only one study has reported the presence and redistribution of these microvilli during the

cleavage phase of early development (Showman and Foerder, 1979). Thus, this proposal seeks to

further explore microvillar expression by using the specific molecular tracking of the fascin protein

through fluorescent microscopy and by extending the range of development stages passed the cleavage

phase of development. We believe that the proposed research will greatly contribute to a better

understanding of the role of microvilli not only in early development but also in later morphogenesis,

after the embryos have hatched from their fertilization envelope past the blastula stage. Based on the

- 171 -


current knowledge, we hypothesize that the fascin tracking will reveal a complex microvillar dynamics

during early development of sea urchins. In addition, we hope that the following proposed experiments

will serve as pilot experiments to be included in the next Developmental Biology laboratory course

(BL413) taught by Dr. Franco.

Methodology

In order to obtain live sea urchin embryos of various stages, fertile male and female adult sea

urchins are needed to induce fertilization events that will generate all embryos. Our previous proposal,

sent on May 05, 2011, included the establishment and maintenance of a sea urchin colony in the Biology

Department, so that fertilization events could be performed at any time without relying on external

supply of live sea urchins, which had been standard protocol in the Biology Department. After receiving

SPARC comments on the unlikeness to succeed in establishing such a colony, we decided that indeed,

our effort will be best spent performing and repeating the experiments, thus we decided to order fertile

adult sea urchins Lytechinus variegatus (Item #1 in budget) as we did in the past and set up as many

fertilization events as possible in one day, to generate all necessary embryos. The embryos will be then

fixed and stored at desired stages for immunocytochemistry experiments that will be performed

throughout the Fall 2011 Semester.

Male and female sea urchins gametes will be collected by injecting 1-2ml of 0.5M KCl into the

coelomic cavity surrounding the mouth on the oral (flat) surface of each sea urchin This sudden

increase in intracellular potassium will cause the smooth muscles of the gonads to contract, releasing

gametes from the gonopores located on the aboral (rounded) surface of each individual. Once the

gametes are collected, in vitro fertilization will proceed by setting a specimen glass dish with 100ml of

sea water and 5ml of the previously collected egg suspension. Then, 1ml of freshly activated (diluted)

sperm suspension will be added to the dish that will be placed into an environmental chamber set at

- 172 -


25 o C (Franco, 2009). The newly generated embryos will be collected at various stages (as mentioned

earlier) in separate glass vials and fixed in by immersion into –20°C, 90% MeOH/50 mM EGTA, pH 6.0

for at least 10 minutes (Harris,1986).

For the immunfluorescent spatio-temporal analysis of the fascin protein, fixed embryo samples at

various stages of development will be rehydrated in PBS on separate coverslips, incubated in blocking

buffer (5% milk in PBST) for 4 hours at room temperature in a humidified chamber, followed by an

overnight incubation with mouse anti-fascin primary antibody (Item #2 in budget) at 4°C in a humidified

chamber. Coverslips will be washed in PBST and the embryos will be then incubated with Dylight 488

donkey anti-mouse secondary antibody (green fluorescence) for one hour at 37°C and washed in PBST

prior to mounting on microscopic slides (Schnackenberg and Marzluff, 2002). Fluorescent micrographs

will be then taken with a Leica DM2500 optics microscope located in the Biology Department and

analyzed for the spatio-temporal expression of the fascin protein in developing sea urchin embryo to

investigate microvillar expression.

References

Begg, D.A., Rebhun, L.I., and Hyatt, H. (1982) Structural organization of actin in the sea urchin egg

cortex: Microvillar elongation in the absence of actin filament bundle formation. J. Cell Bio. 93:24-32.

Burgess, D.R. and Schroeder, T.E. Polarized bundles of actin filaments within microvilli of fertilized sea

urchin eggs. J. cell Bio. 74:1032-1037.

Franco, M-d. (2009) From Molecules to Organisms: An Investigative approach to the Developmental

Biology Laboratory. Reno, NV: Bent Tree Press.

Harris, P.J. (1986) Cytology and Immunocytochemistry. Methods Cell Bio. 27:243-262.

Otto, J.J, Kane, R.E. and Bryan, J. (1980) Redistribution of actin and fascin in sea urchin eggs after

fertilization. Cell Motility. 1:3-40.

Mabuchi, I. (1994) Cleavage furrow: timing and emergence of contractile ring actin filaments and

establishment of the contractile ring by filament bundling in sea urchin eggs. J. Cell Sci. 107:1853-

1862.

Showman, R.M. and Foerder, C.A. (1979) Removal of the fertilization membrane of sea urchin embryos

employing aminotriazole. Exp. Cell Res. 120(2):253-255.

Schnackenberg, B.J. and Marzluff, W.F. (2002) Novel localization and possible functions of cyclin E in

early sea urchin development. J. Cell Sci. 115:113-121.

Tilney, L.G., and Jaffe, L.A. (1980) Actin, microvilli, and the fertilization cone of sea urchin eggs. J.

Cell Bio. 87(3):771-782.

- 173 -


Benefits of the Project to Regis University, the Biology Department, and the Student Meghan Moroze

University: This research would benefit Regis University by enabling students to grow and learn

independently from a classroom setting. This will provide value to Regis University because it will

broaden the spectrum for which students will be able to acquire knowledge in the future. This research

project better prepares students for real laboratory experience after graduation in all biology fields.

Department: One of the benefits of the aforementioned experiments to the Biology Department

is the opportunity to develop further support for similar proposals and enhanced recognition from the

Regis community as an even more outstanding department. In addition, this particular project will serve

as a pilot project to develop experiments to be included in the next Developmental Biology laboratory

course (BL413) taught by Dr. Franco. Also, I will be conducting this research as part of the TriBeta

Biological Honor Society, thus helping grow the undergraduate research program in the Department.

Student: This research project will be of great value to me. It will give me an experience to work

in a laboratory independently, which I have not had previously. It also will allow me to further explore

the specific field of Developmental Biology. Because I have not taken this course yet, it will give me a

hands-on experience of how development occurs in organisms. I will be able to relate the knowledge

gained from this project to future job opportunities, classes and other research projects. I plan on

furthering my career in biology by pursuing medical school or another graduate degree. Conducting this

research will help me understand the importance of biology and how it relates to other aspects of life.

Statement of Support from the Faculty Sponsor Marie-dominique Franco

I fully support this project and the Biology Department has all necessary supplies/equipment

except the ones we asked for in the budget to conduct the proposed experiments. In addition, I have

extended experience working with sea urchins and fluorescent microscopy.

- 174 -


Budget:

Item # Item Vendor Item # Unit Price

Total

Price

1

Sea Urchin

Embryology

Live Set

(14 fertile male

and female adult

sea urchins)

Carolina Biological

Supply Company

http://www.carolina.com

162500

$102.60

$44.95 for

Freight and

Handling (see

attached quote)

$102.60

$44.95

2

Fascin Primary

Antibody

abcam

http://www.abcam.com

Ab78487 $325.00 $325.00

Grand Total $472.55

- 175 -


APPENDIX X

- 176 -


APPENDIX XI

SPARC Faculty Fund Cover Sheet

Date: August 23, 2007

Principal Investigator(s):

Name: Marie-dominique Franco

Department: Biology

School: Regis College

Telephone: 303-458-4198

Email: mfranco@regis.edu

Name: _________________________________________________________

Department: ____________________________________________________

School: ________________________________________________________

Telephone: _____________________________________________________

Email: _________________________________________________________

Project Title: Scholarships of Teaching and Application: Developmental Biology Laboratory

Manual

Amount Requested: $4,999.16

Project Abstract (one paragraph):

Developmental Biology is the study of the process by which multicellular organisms grow

and develop, from the union of male and female gametes (spermatozoon and egg) to the

formation of an adult individual. Developmental Biology is a multidisciplinary field that includes

Embryology (study of embryos), Cytology (study of cellular structure and function), Genetics

(study of inheritance), Molecular Biology (study of the molecules of life) and Evolution. As a

Developmental Biologist and since I joined Regis College in the Fall of 2001, I have taught

both lecture and laboratory courses three times (BL412/143). Teaching a laboratory course

requires the need of a laboratory manual, specific textbook that contains various experiments

for students to complete and analyze. The first year I taught this course, out of two published

laboratory manuals that I considered most relevant to my course, I selected the one I found

most appropriate to teach my students important experimental designs and concepts in the

field of Developmental Biology. I soon realized that this textbook was not measuring to my

expectations as it did not address the multidisciplinary level mentioned above and I started to

write my own laboratory manual. I have worked on this project over the years and have

already used this partial manual in my laboratory course. However, this manual is not

- 177 -


completed and needs to be professionally published. In order to finish and publish this manual

I will be dedicating my upcoming sabbatical leave, in the Spring of 2008, to this project.

Indeed, my sabbatical leave proposal has been accepted by Regis College and I also have a

contract with Bent Tree Press publisher with a deadline of May 15, 2007.

According the guidelines distributed by the Regis College Rank and Tenure Committee and

according to Glassick et al., (1997), the writing of this laboratory manual falls into the

categories of both scholarship of teaching and scholarship of application. It falls into the

category of scholarship of teaching because I have and will continue to write various

experiments that have been and will continue to be tested in class, therefore allowing me to

refine pedagogical goals and it falls into the category of scholarship of application as well

because this manual will serve Regis College and undergraduate students at-large.

This grant proposal is to request fund 1) to obtain the necessary material to perform the

experiments that will be incorporated in the laboratory manual, 2) to obtain the necessary

material to illustrate the laboratory manual and, 3) to provide a modest stipend for my research

assistant, Patrick Oakes, candidate for a Master of Arts, Master of Biological Illustration from

the School for Professional Studies (SPS), Regis University.

Current and Pending Support for the Proposed Project: None

Title: _________________________________________________________________

Sponsor: ______________________________________________________________

Amount Awarded or Requested: _______________________

Title: __________________________________________________________________

Sponsor:

_____________________________________________________________

Amount Awarded or Requested: ___________________________________________

- 178 -


Regis University

SPARC

Faculty Fund Budget

Personnel $500.00

Fringe $0.00

Travel $0.00

Supplies and Materials $4,499.16

Equipment

$(included above)

Other $0.00

Total $4,999.16

Preferred method of budget management (Please check one of the following boxes):

□ Faculty member is issued the check, keeps track of receipts, and submits them with any other

appropriate forms (e.g., Convention Travel). The student submits them to either the Budget

Manager or Academic Grants Office. Receipts are considered proof of expenditures. Any funds

not expended must be returned to Regis University.

X SPARC funds are transferred to the Program or Departmental budget. The Program/Department

responsible for disbursing funds and collecting receipts for the business office.

Revised 8/07

- 179 -


Regis University Faculty Fund Proposal for October 1 st , 2007

Deadline

Scholarships of Teaching and Application: Developmental Biology

Laboratory Manual

Marie-dominique Franco

Associate Professor of Biology, Regis College

Marie-dominique Franco

Regis University

Department of Biology, Mail code D-8

3333 Regis Boulevard

Denver, CO 80221

Tel: 303-458-4198

Fax: 303-964-5480

mfranco@regis.edu

- 180 -


I) Lay Summary

Developmental Biology is the study of the process by which multicellular organisms grow and

develop, from the union of male and female gametes (spermatozoon and egg) to the formation of an

adult individual. Developmental Biology is a multidisciplinary field that includes Embryology (study of

embryos), Cytology (study of cellular structure and function), Genetics (study of inheritance), Molecular

Biology (study of the molecules of life) and Evolution. As a Developmental Biologist and since I joined

Regis College in the Fall of 2001, I have taught both lecture and laboratory courses three times

(BL412/143). Teaching a laboratory course requires the need of a laboratory manual, specific textbook

that contains various experiments for students to complete and analyze. The first year I taught this

course, out of two published laboratory manuals that I considered most relevant to my course, I selected

the one I found most appropriate to teach my students important experimental designs and concepts in

the field of Developmental Biology. I soon realized that this textbook was not measuring to my

expectations as it did not address the multidisciplinary level mentioned above and I started to write my

own laboratory manual. I have worked on this project over the years and have already used this partial

manual in my laboratory course. However, this manual is not completed and needs to be professionally

published. In order to finish and publish this manual I will be dedicating my upcoming sabbatical leave,

in the Spring of 2008, to this project. Indeed, my sabbatical leave proposal has been accepted by Regis

College and I also have a contract with Bent Tree Press publisher with a deadline of May 15, 2007.

According the guidelines distributed by the Regis College Rank and Tenure Committee and

according to Glassick et al., (1997), the writing of this laboratory manual falls into the categories of both

scholarship of teaching and scholarship of application. It falls into the category of scholarship of

teaching because I have and will continue to write various experiments that have been and will continue

to be tested in class, therefore allowing me to refine pedagogical goals and it falls into the category of

scholarship of application as well because this manual will serve Regis College and undergraduate

students at-large.

This grant proposal is to request fund 1) to obtain the necessary material to perform the experiments

that will be incorporated in the laboratory manual, 2) to obtain the necessary material to illustrate the

laboratory manual and, 3) to provide a modest stipend for my research assistant, Patrick Oakes,

candidate for a Master of Arts, Master of Biological Illustration from the School for Professional Studies

(SPS), Regis University.

- 181 -


II) List of Current and Pending Support for the Proposal and most Recent SPARC

Funding

The research project associated with this grant proposal does not have any other support whether

active or pending.

My only and most recent SPARC funding for the proposal entitled “Functional Relationship

Between Pax-6 Protein Expression in the Olfactory Epithelia and Habitats of Selected Amphibians”, was

granted on May 06, 2004 for the amount of $4,500.00.

- 182 -


III) Narrative

A- Objectives, Qualifications, and General Plan of Work with Time-Line

Objectives and Qualifications

In essence, the writing of a scientific textbook, in this particular case, a laboratory manual requires:

1) The survey of existing published laboratory manuals.

2) An extensive academic literature review and selection of content materials that best illustrate the

overall field in both historical and current perspectives.

3) The design of scientific experiments that best exemplify concepts while requiring critical

analysis of data in light of past and current knowledge.

4) The performing and troubleshooting of the experiments to ensure their efficient running.

5) The professional writing and illustration of these experiments.

6) The dissemination which entails the publication of the laboratory manual by a reputable scientist

publisher.

In the following paragraphs, I will address each point individually and tell how my qualifications will

allow me to complete this project.

1) Survey of existing published laboratory manuals.

Prior to first teaching my Developmental Biology laboratory course, I had extensively reviewed

available laboratory manuals, concentrating on both concepts and techniques. Although the thorough

examination of the two manuals I had pre-selected left me unsatisfied, I chose the one I considered the

most appropriate to teach my first Developmental Biology laboratory course. During the course of the

semester, it became very apparent to my students and I that the concepts presented were too focused on

historical embryology, therefore lacking in current knowledge, and that the scientific techniques were

too obsolete. Students were only partially able to correlate concepts presented in lectures to experiments

they conducted, as current information was not investigated. Also, students were not exposed to current

biological techniques used in professional research laboratories. As a scientific instructor and scholar, I

believe it is my responsibility to not only give students an historical perspective but also provide them

with modern and current information (theory and practice) as scientific research, in general and by

definition, is an ever-evolving field. Thus, I started to developed my own laboratory manual and have

been using it since. This laboratory manual is only partially written and is not suited yet for professional

publication, hence this proposal.

I am well qualified to assess the validity of existing Developmental Biology laboratory manuals

because this field is my field of expertise and because I have used them in the past while teaching my

laboratory course.

2) Extensive academic literature review and selection of content materials that best illustrate the

overall field in both historical and current perspectives.

In the process of developing this laboratory manual, I spent a tremendous amount of time during

both academic years and summers reviewing textbooks, laboratory manuals, peer-reviewed review

articles and peer-reviewed primary research articles pertaining to the field of Developmental Biology.

The dichotomy between availability of modern conceptual information and unavailability of modern

laboratory experiments, even more substantiated the need for a contemporary laboratory manual. The

topics I selected for inclusion into my manual reflect both the progression and the multidisciplinary

aspect of the field of Developmental Biology. The laboratory manual starts with classical experiments

pertaining to the sub-field of Embryology, continues on with state-of-the-art experiments pertaining to

the sub-field of Molecular Developmental Biology and will end with experiments pertaining to the

- 183 -


flourishing sub-field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo). Although I already have a

draft outline of the sequence of the experiments I want to include in the manual, much remains to be

completed.

I am well qualified to review academic literature in the field of Developmental Biology because, as

mentioned above, this field is my field of expertise and I have been reading, editing and writing articles

on Developmental Biology for the past 12 years.

3) Design of scientific experiments that best exemplify concepts while requiring critical analysis of

data in light of past and current knowledge.

Although some experiments have already been designed and implemented, here again, much remains

to be completed (see a sample of chapters in Appendix B). Thus far, experiments exploring classical

Developmental Biology using anatomical and cellular approaches have already been designed and

implemented twice. These experiments investigate the processes of fertilization using live sea urchins

(Lytechinus variegatus) and amphibians (Xenopus laevis) and also investigate the processes of early

development in these selected animal species. Experiments exploring modern Molecular Developmental

Biology using molecular genetic approaches have also already been designed and implemented once.

These experiments investigate the processes of gene regulation leading to precise spatio-temporal

expression of proteins necessary for differentiated cells to perform their functions; These experiments

are also conducted in live animals, here developing chick embryos (Gallus gallus). Dissimilarly to the

previous sets of experiments, these latter need to be refined and trouble shot as discussed in the

following section. Experiments exploring the fairly new area of Evolutionary Developmental Biology

have not been designed yet. All experiments included in this manual will use live and developing model

organisms in order to best train students to “real” research experience. In addition, assignments such as

simple interpretation of results to the writing of scientific papers will be included at the end of each

laboratory to allow students to analyze data and to present them in a professional scientific format.

I am well qualified to design scientific experiments in the field of Developmental Biology because,

as mentioned above, this field is my field of expertise and I have been conducted these types of

experiments for the past 12 years. Also, because I have taught a laboratory course in this field many

times already, I know how to customize experiments to allocated time and to undergraduate academic

level.

4) Performing and troubleshooting of the experiments to ensure their efficient running.

A large amount of my sabbatical period will be spent performing and trouble shooting the designed

experiments. At this point in time, half of the experiments remained to be performed and trouble shot.

Last semester, Chelsea Ruller (Junior Biology major enrolled in BL491, Undergraduate Research in

Biology), was working in my laboratory running experiments focusing on Molecular Developmental

Biology. We were investigating the pattern of Pax-6 and β-catenin protein expressions in developing

chick embryos using Western blot analysis. More specifically fertilized chick eggs were being

incubated to reach critical developmental stages to allow dissection of developing brain, heart and

muscles. Total proteins from these organs were being extracted, quantified and separated using

polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, where antibodies specific to Pax-6 and β-catenin were being

incubated, thus revealing expression of these proteins. These particular proteins were being investigated

because of their role in the morphogenesis of brain and heart and muscle was used as a negative control

as these proteins do not participate in the muscle development (Figure 1). The result of these

experiments provided a solid basis for the refinement of this section of the manual. During my

sabbatical period I will need to reconduct these experiments for image captioning and will also need to

- 184 -


perform experiments pertaining to the sub-field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology. I am confident

I will finish these experiments in the allocated time as I have been performing similar ones as part of my

own research program. Indeed, part of my research program focuses on the evolution of olfactory

epithelium in amphibians. More specifically I am interested in proteins responsible for sensing either

water or airborne sensing odorants in developing olfactory epithelia of aquatic and terrestrial

amphibians. The experiments I propose to include in my laboratory manual will investigate expression

of mRNA encoding Pax-6 and Distal-less proteins using in situ hybridization technique and the

amphibians I propose to use are: the Oriental fire bellied toad (terrestrial, Bombina orientalis), the

African dwarf toad (aquatic, Hymenochirus curtipes) and the Japanese fire newt (aquatic, Cyanops

pyrrhogaster).

Figure1: Xin expression in the fusion of left and right primordia in

chicken embryo (stage 9, B and 10, C). The cells fated to become the

myocardium are stained positive for Xin mRNA (Wang et al., 1999).

I am well qualified to perform and troubleshoot Developmental Biology experiments because I have

published many peer-reviewed articles in the field of Developmental Biology (Franco et al., 2007,

Franco et al., 2001 and Vogt et al., 2002) and because the new science building will be outfitted with

state-of-the-art facilities and equipments.

5) Professional writing of these experiments.

Although some experiments have already been written, here again, much remains to be completed.

All experiments have already been and will continue to be written using scientific laboratory manual

standards. I am well aware that publishers have their own specific requirements and I will edit my

manual accordingly. The following represents the general sequence I have used for each laboratory

experiment:

• Background information on the topic to be investigated, including citation of academic

literature.

• Background information on the scientific techniques to be used, including citation of

academic literature.

• Protocol leading students, step by step, to the completion of the experiment.

- 185 -


• Assignments for data analysis (exercise or writing of scientific research paper).

• Illustrations requiring either drawings or photographs of developmental series and protein

expression in selected tissues of developing embryos.

Illustrations of scientific textbooks are generally used to better convey both concepts and procedures.

My current laboratory manual contains such illustrations as shown in Appendix B, however I will not be

able to use the current illustrations because of copyright laws. Indeed, using the current images that I

found in various sources was not a problem as long as the manual was not professionally published, but

using these same images for professional publication is forbidden by copyright laws. Therefore, I will

need to de novo generate all illustrations (photographs and drawings).

I am well qualified to professionally write Developmental Biology experiments because I have

published many peer-reviewed articles in the field of Developmental Biology and because the use of the

partial manual in my course have already proven to be very well received by my students (Franco et al.,

2007, Franco et al., 2001 and Vogt et al., 2002, Appendices A and B). Also my Research Assistant

Patrick Oakes, candidate for a Master of Arts, Master of Biological Illustration from SPS at Regis

University, is well qualified to generate scientific illustrations under my supervision.

6) Dissemination which entails the publication of the laboratory manual by a reputable scientist

publisher.

After peer-analysis, I believe that this finished Developmental Biology laboratory manual will be

very unique in its progressiveness; indeed its concept has already gained the interest of many publishing

companies. After being in contact with these publishing companies, I have signed a contract with Bent

Tree Press in which the final manuscript is to be delivered on May 15 of 2007 (see contract in Appendix

C).

General Plan of Work with Time-Line

For the Fall of 2007, I have been granted a course release as my Individual Component of the faculty

workload will be dedicated to starting on the project associated with this proposal (Faculty Status

Agreement, Regis University and the Chapter, 2006-2008 section 12.5.3). During this time I intend to

primarily work with my Research Assistant Patrick Oakes on the professional drawing of developmental

series of the species that will be used in the manual, namely the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus, the

frog Xenopus laevis and the chicken Gallus gallus. These developmental series will be purchased as

sectioned and fixed microscope slides and will not involve wet experiments as the Biology Department

will use retrofitted classrooms as laboratories during this time period. Indeed, I will not be able to start

the wet experiments until the Spring 2008 when the renovation of the science building will be

completed.

During the Spring of 2008 and while on sabbatical leave, I intend to perform all of the experiments

necessary to complete the project, to write them in a format suited for publication and to illustrate them.

The experiments will be conducted on live animals species namely the frogs Xenopus laevis, Bombina

orientalis and Hymenochirus curtipes, the newt Cyanops pyrrhogaster and the chicken Gallus gallus.

All of these tasks will be performed simultaneously, per chapter to insure better time management.

The deadline for the delivery of the final manuscript to Bent Tree Press is May 15, 2007 and I am

confident my Research Assistant and myself can meet this deadline. Patrick and I have already started

to work toward this project during the summer of 2007.

- 186 -


B- Expected Significance

The significance of the proposed work is three-folded. It will greatly benefit Regis College students

as the laboratory manual mirror principles I develop in lectures and it will also greatly benefit

undergraduate students at-large as the textbook I use in lectures is also used by most Developmental

Biologist instructors. In addition this manual will improve the Developmental Biology experience at

Regis College, therefore improving the Biology Department academic curriculum.

C- Relation to my Longer-Term Goals and Scholarship in my Discipline

While my scholarly activities will always, to some extent, include activities in the category of the

scholarship of discovery, theses past two years I decided to shift some of my efforts to the categories of

the scholarship of teaching and the scholarship of application. As Glassick et al., (1997) state, “Lessons

learned in the application of knowledge can enrich teaching, and new intellectual understanding can

arise from the very act of application” (p. 9). The scholarly project I have started in the Spring of 2006

in collaboration with Brandi Trujillo, at the time Biology major senior, completely embraces this form

of scholarship. With the aim of developing and implementing state-of-the-art experiments in my

Developmental Biology laboratory course, I developed a set of experiments using chemical reagents that

had not been previously tested on developing chick embryos. More specifically, Brandi and I sought to

explore the reactivity of various antibodies (used to detect the presence or absence of corresponding

proteins) on a range of developing chick tissues. The results of our experiments will allow me to use the

positively reacting antibodies in my Developmental Biology laboratory course. The results of our

findings will be incorporated in my laboratory manual and I also intend to submit our findings for

publication in the technical bulletin issued by Abcam®, the Biotechnology Company that manufactures

the antibodies we used.

D- Relation to the Present State of Knowledge in the Field

As mentioned earlier, the experiments included in this laboratory manual fall into three categories;

experiments pertaining to the historical sub-field of Embryology, to the ever-progressing sub-field of

Molecular Developmental Biology and to the emerging and flourishing sub-field of Evolutionary

Developmental Biology. While the first category of experiments are based on concepts and theories that

have been discovered this past century but still remain correct, the two other categories of experiments

rely on concepts and theories that are currently investigated. The extensive literature review of the subfields

of Molecular Developmental Biology and Evolutionary Developmental Biology has already

allowed me to select principles that I will develop with the proposed experiments. Therefore, this

manual will parallel current knowledge in the field of Developmental Biology.

IV) References Cited

Franco M.D, Bohbot J, Fernandez K, Hanna J, Poppy J and Vogt R. (2007) Sensory Cell Proliferation

within the Olfactory Epithelium of Developing Adult Manduca sexta (Lepidoptera). PLoS ONE 2(2):

e215. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000215.

Franco M.D., Pape M.P., Swiergiel, J.J. and Burd G.D. (2001) Differential and overlapping expressions

patterns of X-dll3 and Pax-6 genes suggest distinct roles in the olfactory system development of the

African clawed frog Xenopus laevis. Journal of Experimental Biology, 204:2049-2061.

Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T. and Maeroff, G.I. (1997) Scholarship Assessed. Evaluation of the

Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Vogt, R.G., Rogers, M.E., Franco M.D. and Sun, M. (2002). A Comparative Study of Odorant Binding

Protein Genes: Differential Expression of the PBP1 - GOBP2 Gene Cluster in Manduca sexta

- 187 -


(Lepidoptera) and the organization of OBP genes in Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera). Journal of

Experimental Biology, 205:719-744.

Wang, D-Z., Reiter, R.S., Lin, J., Wang, Q., Williams, H.S., Krob, S.L., Schultheiss, T.M., Evans, S.,

and Lin, J. (1999). Requirement of a novel gene, Xin, in cardiac morphogenesis. Development 126,

1281-1294.

V) Explanation of the Benefits of the Project to Regis University, the Biology

Department and Myself

Some of the benefits of the project to Regis University at-large are the publicity and recruitment tool

that the Admission offices can use. Indeed, prospective students often look at books/articles published

by faculty members in order to asses the level of scholarship schools possess. Another benefit to Regis

University at-large is the collaboration between Regis College and the School for Professional Studies,

indeed my Research Assistant Patrick Oakes (candidate for a Master of Arts, Master of Biological

Illustration from SPS) will be able to use the work he will be doing on this project as part of the

requirement for his Master degree.

One of the benefits to the Biology Department and as mentioned earlier, is that this manual will

improve the Developmental Biology experience at Regis College, therefore improving the Biology

Department academic curriculum. Also, the acquisition of several small pieces of equipment will be

used in upper-division teaching laboratories and will also be shared among the Biology faculty

members, thereby increasing the overall infrastructure for research and education.

One of the benefits to myself lies in the process of developing this manual as I will be able to

dedicate an entire semester to the field of Developmental Biology and acquire current knowledge.

Another benefit to myself is that, when published, the use of the manual will allow me to teach a

smoother and more professional laboratory course.

- 188 -


VI) Budget

Most of the items listed below are consumable chemicals or live animals that cannot be reused, and the

Biology Department cannot cover their cost as they will solely be used for this scholarly project. The

other items are not actually possessed by the Biology Department and will need to be purchased for the

completion of this project, here again these items cannot not be covered by the Biology Department.

Item/explain. Vendor Unit Price Quantity Shipping Total

These items will be used to perform the proposed experiments

Sea urchin embryology composite Ward’s

microscope slide

#92W8330

$6.80 2 $8.00 $21.60

Sea urchin Pluteus larva

Ward’s

microscope slide

#92W8331

$4.60 2 N/A $9.20

Preserved frog developmental Ward’s

stage

#69W2278

$46.50 1 N/A $46.50

Ward’s

#92W9010 (12h)

#92W9015 (18h)

#92W9020 (21h)

#92W9025 (24h)

#92W9040 (33h)

$9.50

$10.00

$8.80

$12.70

$12.30

1

1

1

1

1

Chicken development microscope

slides at different developmental

#92W9055 (40h)

#92W9060 (48h)

$12.30

$12.30

1

1 $16.00 $220.10

stages

#92W9065 (48h)

#92W9080 (72h)

#92W9085 (72h)

#92W9090 (96h)

#92W9095 (96h)

#92W9096 (composite

cs)

$24.70

$12.30

$25.80

$21.50

$25.80

$16.10

1

1

1

1

1

1

Xenopus laevis proven breeders

(male and female).

NASCO

#LM00456M $60.00 1 $60.00 $120.00

Tadpoles stages 40 to 47

NASCO

#LM00460M

$20.60 2 $20.00 $61.20

Tadpoles stages 48 to 55

NASCO

#LM00450M

$34.00 2 $20.00 $88.00

Tadpoles stages 56 to 63

NASCO

#LM00452M

$27.80 2 $20.00 $75.60

Adult Xenopus brittle

NASCO

#SA02764(LM)M

$5.00 1 $5.00 $10.00

Tadpole Xenopus brittle

NASCO

#SA05964(LM)M

$5.00 1 $5.00 $10.00

Post-metamorphic Xenopus brittle

NASCO

#SB29027(LM)M

$5.00 1 $5.00 $10.00

Bombina orientalis frog Pets’ mart $10.00 5 N/A $50.00

Hymenochirus curtipes frog Pets’ mart $10.00 5 N/A $50.00

Cyanops pyrrhogaster newt Pets’ mart $10.00 5 N/A $50.00

Instant Ocean synthetic sea salt Pets’ mart $9.29 1 N/A $9.29

AquaSafe water conditioner that

needs to remove chlorine and

chloramine

MS-222 (tricaine methane

sulfonate, for anesthesia)

Human chorionic Gonadotropin to

induce eggs laying

Pets’ mart $5.00 1 N/A $5.00

Sigma

#E1,052-1

Sigma

#C1063

$13.80 1 $15.00 $28.80

$23.85 1 $22.00 $45.80

- 189 -


3,3’,5-triiodo L thyronine (T3) to ICN Biomedicals

accelerate metamorphosis #02152171.1

$19.55 1 $15.00 $34.55

Fertile unincubated eggs CBT Farms $0.85 20 $80.00 $97.00

BSA

Sigma

#A-7906

$31.10 1 N/A $31.10

Protein assay dye reagent Bio-Rad

concentrate

#500-0006

$78.00 1 $10.00 $88.00

Pre-stained SDS-PAGE standards Bio-Rad

(broad range)

#161-0318

$90.00 1 $15.00 $105.00

Ready gel Tris-HCl (4-20% linear

Bio-Rad

gradient, 10 wells with 50 l

#161-1159

each) for Western analysis

$8.00 30 $15.00 $255.00

Plastic cuvettes (for protein

quantification) spectrophotometer

(polystyrene, 10mm, 1.5 ml)

VWR

#14-385-952

$84.19

1 case

(500)

$10.00 $94.19

Tris-HCl pH= 6.8

Sigma

$54.80

#93347

(250g)

1 $10.00 $64.80

Glycerol

Sigma

#G5516

$41.30 1 $10.00 $51.30

SDS

Sigma

#L4390

$42.80 1 $10.00 $52.80

Glycine

Sigma

#241261

$30.00 (50g) 1 $10.00 $40.00

Methanol

Sigma

#M3641

$29.00 (1L) 1 $80.00 $109.00

Acetic Acid

Ward’s

$47.60

#971W1008

(2.5L)

1 $50.00 $97.60

Nitrocellulose membrane

Bio-Rad

#162-0212

$107.00 1 $15.00 $122.00

Egg candler to stage embryos in Strombergs' Chicks

the shell

#DC

$175.00 1 N/A $175.00

Normal donkey serum

Sigma

$17.90

#D9663

(10 ml)

4 $5.00 $76.60

Anti-Pax-6 antibody

Covance

#PRB-278P

$157.00 1 $20.00 $177.00

Anti-Xin antibody

BD Biosciences

Pharmigen

$195.00 1 $20.00 $215.00

#611524

Donkey anti-rabbit HPR antibody

Jackson

ImmunoResearch $84.00 2 $15.00 $183.00

#711-035-152

Donkey anti-mouse HPR antibody

Jackson

ImmunoResearch $84.00 2 $15.00 $183.00

#715-035-150

DAB enhanced liquid substrate Sigma

system

#D 6815

$166.50 1 $20.00 $186.50

Gel drying system

Ward’s

#36W3247

$89.00 1 $5.00 $94.00

Fine-point forceps

Ward’s

#14W0541

$1.99 5 $5.00 $14.95

Medium-point forceps

Ward’s

#14W1001

$1.99 5 $5.00 $14.95

Watchmaker forceps

Ward’s

#14W1400

$5.95 5 $5.00 $34.75

Surgical scissors Ward’s $4.25 5 $5.00 $26.25

- 190 -


#14W0980

Polyethylene dissecting pan set

Ward’s

#18W3665

$9.50 2 $5.00 $24.00

Sub-total $3,558.43

These items will be used to illustrate the proposed experiments

Intuitos3 (9x12) pen tablet for Wacom

digital drawing of images #PTZ930

$449.95 1 $50.00 $499.95

Abobe Illustrator software for John Twigg, ITS, Regis

digital montages

University

$75.00 1 N/A $75.00

Adobe Acrobat for creation of John Twigg, ITS, Regis

PDF files

University

$71.00 1 N/A $71.00

E197FP 19 inch Flat Panel LCD

Monitor to be able to

Dell

$262.00

$212.00 1 $50.00

simultaneously work with text and # 320-5003

images

Strathmore Series 400 Drawing

Paper 18in x 24in pad, Smooth

Surface

Amazon

# B000KNI8XS

$13.89 2 $5.00 $32.78

Sub-total $940.73

Stipend for my Research Assistant Patrick Oakes

I am requesting a lump sum of $ 500.00 for Patrick’s work during the period encompassing the entire 2007-2008

academic year. I did not use the Student Payroll rates because Patrick will work more than the allocated hours.

Note: Patrick is and will still be employed by Regis University as an Administrative Coordinator in the Registrar

Office.

Sub-total $500.00

Grand

Total

$4,999.16

- 191 -


VIII) Appendices

Appendix B: Sample of Chapters to be Included in the Manual

Sea Urchin Gametes, Fertilization and Early Development

I) INTRODUCTION

The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes,

egg and sperm cell. This fusion, called fertilization stimulates the egg to begin development by first

producing the formation of a zygote or 1-cell embryo. The early stages of development comprise

several periods that can be divided into five different stages. The Zygote stage refers to the newly

fertilized egg through the completion of the first cell cycle. The Cleavage stage refers to an intense

regular mitotic division period generating a solid sphere of cells or morula. The Blastula stage refers

to the formation of a hollow sphere of cells surrounding a central cavity called blastocoel. The

Gastrula stage refers to the formation of three germ layers; the ectoderm, the mesoderm and the

endoderm, and finally the Early Larval stage that refers to a swimming, food-seeking individual or

pluteus (in the case of sea urchin). In the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus, the eggs are isolecithal,

containing sparse and evenly distributed yolk, and the cleavage is holoblastic or complete and radial. A

series of the different early development stages and timing in Lytechinus variegatus are represented in

Figures 1, 3 and table I.

Sea Urchins have been a favorite system for studying various problems in classical embryology

and modern developmental biology. Like many marine organisms, fertilization in sea urchins is

external. Usually a female will release or spawn her eggs into the seawater, which will trigger males

and other females nearby to spawn as well. This intense spawning of many individuals, together with

the fact that hundreds of millions of eggs and billions of sperm cells are released by female and male

urchins respectively, assure that fertilization will be successful. For the biologist this is very important

as it means that vast quantities of gametes can be obtained for analysis of development and that the onset

of fertilization can be controlled by mixing the gametes together at the appropriate time. Today we will

first demonstrate the procedure for obtaining gametes. Then, you will study the gametes and observe

fertilization and early development and will begin some simple experiments with gametes and embryos.

Figure 1: Lytechinus variegatus viewed from the side. Panel A, 1-cell zygote; the fertilization envelope is visible

as a large halo around the embryo and the arrow points to the site of sperm penetration. Panel B, 2-cell embryo.

Panel C, 8-cell embryo. Panel D, 16-cell embryo. Panel E, 32-cell embryo or morula showing macromeres and

micromeres. Panel F, G and H respectively represent the blastula, gastrula (showing blastocoel, mesenchyme

cells and blastopore) and larval pluteus stages. This figure has been modified from Hardin and Morill, U of W (G

and H).

- 192 -


Table I: Timing of early development and cell types in Lytechinus variegatus. The timing is highly temperaturedependent

and under the microscope at warmer temperature, cell divisions are faster. This figure has been

modified from worms.zoology.wisc.edu/urchins/SUcleavage_stages.html.

Early developmental stages

Time in seconds, minutes,

hours and days at 25 o C

Cell types and germ layers

Fertilization

Insemination

Exocytosis of cortical granules

Initiation of the fertilization membrane elevation

Completion of cortical granules exocytosis

Completion of the fertilization membrane elevation

Hyaline layer is formed

Fertilization membrane is hardened

0 second

30-40 seconds

35-50 seconds

60-70 seconds

65-80 seconds

2 minutes

5 minutes

Zygote stage 5 minutes Undifferentiated

Starts at 30 minutes (2-cell Mesomeres, macromeres and

Cleavage stage

stage)

micromeres

Blastula stage Starts at 24 hours Blastomeres

Gastrula stage

Starts at 48 hours

Endoderm, mesoderm and

ectoderm layers

Early larval stage Starts at 5 days Various cell types

II) PROCEDURES

A- Obtaining Male and Female Gametes

Several species of sea urchins could be used for our experiment but we are at the mercy of the

normal cycles of gametogenesis in these animals. We will work with the species Lytechinus variegatus

as it produces good eggs and sperm cells from May through September. Lytechinus variegatus is a pink

and white Florida sea urchin with short spines. Under natural condition, the cold temperature of the

seawater prevents the animals from spawning until that time. In the laboratory, we will trigger spawning

by injecting 1-2 ml of 0.5 M KCl into the coelomic cavity of the adults. This sudden increase in

intracellular potassium will cause the smooth muscle of the gonads to contract, releasing gametes from

gonopores on the aboral (rounded) surface of the animal (Figure 2). Eggs are pigmented yellow-orange

and are collected by inverting the female over a small beaker of seawater. Eggs are shed directly into

the seawater and are allowed to settle to the bottom of the beaker. Once the eggs settle to the bottom,

we will decant the old seawater and wash the eggs twice with fresh seawater. The sperm suspension is

white and is collected dry by simply pipetting off the sperm from the aboral surface and place it into a

clean Eppendorf tube. The sperm must be kept on ice and concentrated until it is needed for

fertilization.

Figure 2: Bottom (A) and top (B) views respectively showing the oral and aboral surfaces of a sea urchin test.

Side view of the internal sea urchin anatomy (C).

- 193 -


Figure 3: Early development of Lytechinus variegatus at 25 o C showing an unfertilized egg at 0 second post

fertilization (Panel A), a fertilized egg at 5 minutes post fertilization (Panel B), a first cleavage (Panel C), a 2-cell

stage embryo at 25 minutes post fertilization (Panel D), a 4-cell stage embryo at 45 minutes post fertilization

(Panel E and F), a 8-cell stage embryo (Panel G), a morula stage (Panel H) and a blastula stage (panel I). This

figure has been modified from http://www.usp.br/cbm/artigos/ourico/prancha.jpg.

- 194 -


B- Observation of Sea Urchin Gametes

1) Activate the sperm by diluting 1 drop of the dry sperm suspension into 10 ml of seawater into a

16 x 100 mm screw cap glass tube. Mix with a clean transfer pipette to obtain a uniform, faintly

cloudy suspension. This step is very important as an excess of sperm can lead to polyspermy.

Polyspermy refers to the entry of more than 1 sperm cell into an egg, resulting in abnormal,

arrested development. Since sperm activation requires several minutes, the dilute sperm

suspension should be allowed to stand for 5 to 8 minutes before use but no longer than 10

minutes.

2) Prepare a slide of activated sperm by placing a few drops of activated sperm on a slide and

adding a coverslip. Sperm cells are highly differentiated cells, streamlined to perform their two

functions of triggering development by penetrating the egg and supplying a haploid set of

chromosome from the male parent.

3) Because of the small size of the sperm cells (about 10 µm), observe the cells using a 100X oil

immersion objective lens on a phase contrast compound microscope.

4) Measure the size of the sperm cells using a transparent mm ruler.

5) Record the size and make careful and detailed drawing of these sperm cells in your research

notebook.

6) Prepare a slide of eggs by placing a few drop of the egg suspension and a few drops of 0.01%

Janus Green on a slide and adding a coverslip. The Janus Green will allow you to see the jelly

coat. Most eggs would have completed meiosis before spawning. As a result, you may be able

to see the pronucleus containing the maternal chromosomes and some polar bodies. However,

the later may have fallen away from the egg during spawning. Sometimes artificial spawning

will cause parthenogenetic activation of the eggs. Therefore it is important to watch for raised

fertilization envelope before fertilization with sperm.

7) Measure the size of the eggs using a transparent mm ruler (about 106 µm).

8) Record the size and make careful and detailed drawing of these eggs in your research notebook.

C- In vitro Fertilization

1) Place 3 drops of the egg suspension on a slide and cover and cover with a cover slip.

2) Place a drop of activated (diluted) sperm suspension at one edge of the coverslip and watch for a

few minutes.

3) You should be able to watch the sperm cells approach the egg and contact the outer vitelline

envelope of the egg.

4) Observe fertilization carefully and record in detail what you see in your research notebook using

Figures 1, 3 and table I as references. The most observable event will be the formation of the

fertilization membrane that is the raised vitelline envelope containing a clear hyaline layer. If

less than 2/3 of the eggs are fertilized, add more activated sperm suspension.

5) In order to prevent the slide from drying during the microscope viewings, store it in a covered

Petri dish with a moistened Kimwipe R in the bottom of the dish.

6) Repeat the fertilization using slides and coverslips several times if you want to be able to observe

what happens in careful detail.

7) Set-up another fertilization in a specimen glass dish by transferring several drops of washed eggs

with 100 ml of seawater. You should see a thinly scattered layer of eggs at the bottom, if not,

adjust accordingly. Add 2 or 3 drops of the activated sperm suspension (not older than 10

minutes) and mix the sperm and eggs by stirring very gently with a clean transfer pipette.

- 195 -


8) Once all the eggs are fertilized, pour off the supernatant and add clean seawater. This step

eliminates extra sperm cells that can degenerate and prevents the water from fouling around the

developing embryos.

D- Caring for Developing Embryos and Larvae and Fixing different stage embryos

1) Put a loose-fitting aluminum foil cover over the specimen dish and put it in the 20 o C chamber

until you are ready to make the observations described in Figures 1, 3 and table I.

2) It is very important that you care well for your embryos, as your grade for the assignment on sea

urchin development module will depend on the quality of your results. Try to come in frequently

during the next week to follow the development of normal embryos.

3) Every time you observe a new stage or a new anatomy within a given stage e.g. different

cleavage embryos, different pluteus larvae, you will have to fix and clear the embryos to allow a

better view of internal structures the following week.

4) Remove the embryo from the specimen dish using a cut transfer pipette and transfer it in a glass

vial containing 10 ml of Carnoy’s fixative and incubate about 1 hour at room temperature. You

can have several embryos of the same stage in the same vial. Make sure to label your vials with

your name, time post-fertilization and stage.

5) Pour-off the fixative in the appropriate waste bottle, being very careful not to loose your embryos

and add another 10 ml of fresh fixative. Incubate from 1 hour to overnight at room temperature.

It will be best to incubate overnight.

6) Pour-off the fixative in the appropriate waste bottle and add 10 ml of clearing solution. Leave

the vials on the bench until the following week.

7) When the blastulae eventually hatch, between 7 and 10 hours post fertilization, you will be able

to see them swimming near the surface of the water in the upper part of the dish. Sometimes

shining a flashlight through the culture can help you visualize the swimmers. Once a substantial

number of blastulae have hatched, pour the swimmers into a clean specimen dish. Make sure to

avoid pouring the non-swimmers and unhatched blastulae into the clean dish to avoid the water

from fouling.

8) Aerate the culture twice daily by repeatedly and gently pipetting air using a transfer pipette to the

bottom of the culture and discard any dead embryos. Be sure not to suck the embryos in and out

of the pipette.

9) Once you observe the pluteus larvae (the pluteus larva starts with no arm, then shows 2 arms, 4

arms and 8 arms), you will need to feed them, change the water everyday and continue the

aeration twice daily. To change the water, cut the tip of a transfer pipette and gently transfer the

individual into the clean dish once at the time. In addition, transfer the culture into a 500 ml

specimen glass dish.

10) Feed the pluteus larvae once a day by adding 3 drops of diluted liquid invertebrate food.

11) Record all observation with time post fertilization in your research notebook and you may also

try to take pictures of the different stages.

E- Interfering with Fertilization (Make sure to set-up negative controls for the 3 following

experiments)

1) Many of the events important to fertilization depend upon the jelly coat surrounding the egg.

What do you think would happen if you removed this jelly? You can remove it by exposing the

eggs to seawater that has been adjusted to a pH of 5. Swirl the eggs for 2 minutes in the pH: 5

seawater and then return them to the normal pH: 8 seawater. Add the sperm as in procedure C1-

- 196 -


5 and record observations and results in your research notebook. How do the sperm cell behave?

Does fertilization occurs?

2) Certain events of fertilization rely on sodium pumps through which sodium is pumped into the

egg. If sodium were unavailable to the egg, what would happen to fertilization? Try to answer

this question repeating fertilization as in procedure C1-5 and using sodium-free seawater.

Record observations and results in your research notebook.

3) Calcium is also very important in fertilization as the fertilizing sperm triggers a series of calcium

signals vital to a successful fertilization. Indeed calcium is necessary for the acrosomal reaction,

which is the fusion of the acrosomal vesicle and the sperm cell plasma membrane resulting in the

extension of the acrosomal process. Calcium is also necessary to the cortical granule reaction.

The calcium ions needed for these two mechanisms are not a result of an influx of calcium, but

come from within the egg itself. Therefore withdrawing calcium during fertilization would not

alter these processes. Investigate the importance of the extracellular calcium during fertilization

by repeating procedure C1-5 and using calcium-free seawater. Record observations and results

in your research notebook.

F- Analysis of Results and Assignments

1) As you are doing your experiment discuss with your partner what questions you would like to

ask regarding sea urchin gametes, fertilization and early development. For example you could

ask if larval development is affected by temperature, pollution, fresh water or darkness. This

exercise will give you some ideas for your independent project.

2) Introduction/hypothesis for Sea Urchin Early Development Continued in notebook.

3) Record your results and observation in the Results section of your research notebook. Use

percentage of fertilized eggs versus unfertilized eggs; you will then have to count your eggs

before fertilization. This has to be done in the in the laboratory classroom.

- 197 -


Appendix C: Bent Tree Press contract

- 198 -


- 199 -


APPENDIX XII

- 200 -


- 201 -


- 202 -


- 203 -


- 204 -


- 205 -


- 206 -


- 207 -


- 208 -


- 209 -


- 210 -


- 211 -


- 212 -


- 213 -


- 214 -


- 215 -


- 216 -


- 217 -


- 218 -


- 219 -


- 220 -


- 221 -


- 222 -


- 223 -


- 224 -