Hierarchical Biology Concept Framework effort led by Dina Gould Halme and Julia Khodor A typical undergraduate biology curriculum covers a very large number of concepts and details. We developed a Biology Concept Framework (BCF) as a possible way to organize this material to enhance teaching and learning. Our BCF is hierarchical, places details in context, nests related concepts, and articulates concepts that are inherently obvious to experts but often difficult for novices to grasp. Our BCF is also cross-referenced, highlighting interconnections between concepts. We have found our BCF to be a versatile tool for design, evaluation, and revision of course goals and materials. There has been a call for creating Biology Concept Inventories, multiple-choice exams that test important biology concepts, analogous to those in physics, astronomy, and chemistry. We argue that the community of researchers and educators must first reach consensus about, not only what concepts are important to test, but also how the concepts should be organized, and how that organization might influence teaching and learning. We think that our BCF can serve as a catalyst for community-wide discussion on organizing the vast number of concepts in biology, as a model for others to formulate their own BCFs, and as a contribution towards the creation of a comprehensive BCF.

The process of creating a Biology Concept Framework The process of creating a BCF consisted of many stages. It began with Dina and Julia listing the concepts covered in the course based on lecture and recitation section notes, exam problems, and our experiences interacting with students. We formulated our lists separately and then compared and merged them. Upon review of the lists, we decided that the final BCF should be a hierarchical structure with cross-references. We felt that this format most naturally reflected the flow of interconnected ideas within and across the units of the course. As a result, we formulated a number of top-level concepts and organized some supporting concepts. The next phase of the development included a larger group of people. We held two Education Group meetings three weeks apart. We asked the other members of the group (which includes graduate students, post-docs, instructors for Introductory Biology and other courses in the department) to come to the first meeting with their ideas on what concepts are important within the context of an introductory biology course. The group members presented their lists, and then commented on and helped expand our original list of central concepts in the course. Discussion at the meeting highlighted the areas that we had neglected in the first listing, resulting in the expansion of the list. By the end of the meeting we reached consensus on which concepts fall into the top category. The debate that led to this consensus helped us appreciate other viewpoints and incorporate them into future steps of the BCF's development. The process of BCF creation and refining then proceeded in rounds. Each iteration consisted of core group (DGH & JK) document refining followed by larger group document critique. After the first large meeting, we expanded and revised our BCF draft, each concentrating on different sections, but providing the other with continuous feedback. Several times through the process we took a step back to assess the overall situation, and to make sure that our list of top-level concepts conformed to the project principles as originally stated. This usually resulted in reformulating one or more top-level concepts, and, on occasion, in adding or removing a concept from the top level. Throughout this stage of the process we received guidance from the Introductory Biology instructors about the relative importance of various topics and concepts.

To learn more about our BCF and its creation please see our article in the Summer 2004 issue of Cell Biology Education by clicking on the link below. Article in Cell Biology Education

To view the Biology Concept Framework itself, please click on the link below. Hierarchical Biology Concept Framework

The second meeting of the Education Group concentrated on critiquing the then-current draft of the BCF in light of three questions: (1) Are there any essential concepts not currently on the list? (2) Is there anything on the list that does not belong or is in the wrong level of the hierarchy? and (3) Are there any particular phrases that need rewriting? The meeting was attended by over a dozen people, including members of Biology Department and professors and researchers from the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department who are interested in interdisciplinary collaborations and educational efforts. The variety of perspectives was very helpful in refining the BCF. One of the recurring themes of the meeting was that the BCF demonstrates that we expect our students to learn an enormous number of concepts, ideas, and facts and that, if we are serious about them learning this volume of information, we need to be systematic and conceptual in our approach to teaching. After editing the BCF to reflect the discussion at the second Education Group meeting and reaching internal consensus, we asked the professors teaching the three versions of the Introductory Biology for their feedback on the document. These lecturers were able to refocus the BCF to the material specific to Introductory Biology as taught at MIT. In December 2003, we conducted another meeting of the Education Group focused on editing the top-level concepts of the BCF. We feel that the clarity and precision of the top-level concepts improved yet again due to the synthesis of ideas of the 16 people in attendance. We have used our BCF as an aid to the teaching assistants in the Fall 2003 version of the Introductory Biology and as a guide in designing the supplementary laboratory component to this class. As a result of our experience, we revised and supplemented the document to incorporate informal feedback from undergraduates. We now believe that the BCF will remain a work in progress for the foreseeable future as we integrate new knowledge, revise the phrasing of concepts, and supplement cross-referencing to better address problem areas in student understanding.