Summary of Discussion, Actions, and Recommendations of the NSF/AP Biology
Project Advisory Committee (First Meeting)
Date:
February 21-22, 2004
Location:
The College Board, New York, NY
Attendees:
Robert E. Cannon (Co-PI)
University of North
Carolina–Greensboro
Doris R. Helms
Clemson University
Nancy Ramos
Health Careers High
School, San Antonio, Texas
Peggy O’Neill Skinner
The Bush School, Seattle,
Washington
John Smarrelli, Jr.
LeMoyne College
William B. Wood
University of Colorado at
Boulder
Howard Everson*
Vice President, Academic
Initiatives
Walt Jiménez (Co-PI)
Director, AP Curriculum
and Assessment
Celeste Trinidad
Assistant Director, AP
Curriculum and Assessment
College Board Staff:
I.
II.
*
Purposes of the meeting
a. Introductions
b. Review project plan and goals
c. Discuss 2002 National Research Council report, Learning and
Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in
U.S. High Schools
d. Discuss current AP Biology course, examination, and teacher professional
development
e. Plan next steps and schedule future meetings
Summary of committee discussion, actions, and recommendations
a. The committee members introduced themselves and each offered an answer to
the question, “If I were in charge of AP Biology, what are five things that I
might change to make it better?” Responses included:
i. Find ways to engage students in becoming science-literate future
citizens.
ii. Make teacher development available to all AP [Biology] teachers.
Part-time attendance
PAGE 1 OF 3
REPORT OF MEETING
PAGE 2 OF 3
iii. Figure out if there is a design for AP Biology that would work better in
rural areas.
iv. Revise the test in a way that promotes understanding and addresses
human learning.
v. Prepare teachers for teaching in a way that allows students to really
make mistakes.
vi. Get away from the idea of “covering” the material.
b. The majority of the meeting time was spent in free-flowing discussion about
the recommendations in Learning and Understanding, the current AP Biology
program, related areas, and ideas for next steps. Statements and suggestions
included:
i. There is a lack of awareness about pedagogy among most college
faculty.
ii. Changing the AP Biology test will require that AP give up emphasis
on credit and placement.
iii. The question should not be whether you place in or out, but rather
where you place. Currently, AP is not a placement test, but an
exemption test.
1. AP could help colleges by defining knowledge, skills, and
abilities students are presenting upon admission, for colleges to
decide where to place students and to create courses for them.
iv. Many college faculty members are not accepting the inference that a
student scoring a 5 on the AP Biology exam is “exceptionally
qualified.”
v. Asking college faculty to teach more is a very difficult “sell” for senior
faculty and for junior faculty seeking tenure.
vi. Universities need to remind themselves that they are higher education
institutions, and not industries.
vii. Revisions to AP Biology should emphasize the importance of the
laboratory component.
viii. Is it time to begin talking in AP Biology about the BIG questions?
Namely, systems and systemic questions that mirror the NRC’s focus
on “the hierarchy.”
ix. We are not giving students enough responsibility for their own
learning.
x. Suggestion: A seminar series by Nobel laureates who are interested in
education (e.g., Bruce Alberts).
xi. The College Board has always been exceptional at identifying best
practices; specific curricula are not what’s needed, but identification of
best practices.
xii. The “AP Approach” should be in the teacher pre-service curriculum if
we want to prepare AP teachers.
xiii. The NRC Biology panel was concerned about AP Biology’s focus on
the structure and function of plants and animals.
xiv. Does AP have enough credibility to revise AP Biology and have
anybody care?
REPORT OF MEETING
III.
IV.
PAGE 3 OF 3
xv. What higher education faculty would object to is scope and sequence
curriculum being dictated by any committee.
xvi. Higher education faculty members are resistant to sitting down and
outlining learning goals and a curriculum.
xvii. We shouldn’t worry about how the colleges will respond to changes;
we should just make the best AP Biology possible.
xviii. Suggestion: Teach all three AP science courses (Biology, Chemistry,
and Physics) over two years.
Next steps
a. Survey of college faculty. Questions and goals of the survey to include:
i. What changes do you intend to make in intro-level Biology course
over the next five years?
ii. What are the knowledge, skills, and abilities that you expect students
to be able to demonstrate at the end of intro-level Biology course?
iii. To gather information about innovative biology programs and
“exemplary” biology courses.
Future meetings
a. CB staff to explore viability of April 3-4 meeting in New York and June 20
meeting in Nebraska (immediately after the AP Biology Reading).
Submitted by:
Walt Jiménez
Celeste Trinidad