Syllabus Biology 104 Human Biology Lab 1 Credit Hour (Lab On ✓ Solved

SYLLABUS Biology 104 Human Biology Lab 1 credit hour (lab on

SYLLABUS Biology 104 Human Biology Lab 1 credit hour (lab only). Instructor: Cecelia Thomas. Prepare a detailed analysis of the Biology 104 Human Biology Lab syllabus as described in the document, covering course description, prerequisites, learning objectives and outcomes, required practices, instructional materials, evaluation methods, accommodations, schedule, attendance, make-up policy, important dates, and related policy statements.

Prepare a detailed analysis that situates this syllabus within established higher-education teaching practices, critiques its clarity and alignment, and discusses how the course structure supports student learning, equity, and success in an online or blended environment.

Paper For Above Instructions

The syllabus for Biology 104 Human Biology Lab presents a compact, lab-centric course designed for non-majors seeking foundational experience with human biology. The core justification for a lab-only biology course aligns with the broader liberal arts aim to foster scientific literacy and informed citizenship. The document emphasizes that the course is not counted toward a biology major or minor, but still serves as a laboratory core science experience for non-majors. This positioning is consistent with Biggs and Tang’s (2011) emphasis on structured learning outcomes that balance breadth and accessibility, ensuring students gain practical laboratory skills alongside a conceptual framework for understanding human biology (Biggs & Tang, 2011). The catalog description also highlights the practical value of biology for everyday decision-making, echoing Ambrose et al.’s assertion that learning should connect to real-world relevance to enhance motivation and retention (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010).

From an instructional design perspective, the syllabus enumerates a sequence of topics and skills that scaffold student learning. The learning objectives include demonstrations of the scientific method, microscope usage, chemistry of life concepts, cellular structure and function, tissue types, and the organization of major human systems (Integumentary, Circulatory, Lymphatic, Digestive, Respiratory, Urinary, Skeletal, Muscular, Nervous, Endocrine, and Reproductive). These objectives map well to the high-level outcomes described in frameworks such as the National Research Council’s Discipline-Based Education Research recommendations, which stress coherent linking between topics, laboratory practices, and disciplinary thinking (National Research Council, 2012). The emphasis on system-level understanding in addition to cellular and tissue-level knowledge supports a comprehensive view of human biology that is appropriate for introductory learners (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).

The document also includes an emphasis on academic integrity and ethical conduct, aligning with the broader expectation for honesty in higher education. The explicit articulation of the Mississippi College “Honesty Policy” and the caution about cheating, plagiarism, and falsification reflect best practices in establishing a learning environment built on trust and accountability (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kuh, 2008). However, the syllabus would benefit from clearer, student-facing statements about how academic integrity will be assessed in both lab work and online components, including examples of acceptable collaboration and citation practices.

Learning outcomes and outline of topics are presented in a two-tier structure: learning objectives (statements of what students will be able to do) and a separate list of topic areas (e.g., Scientific Method, Microscope, Chemistry of Life, Cell Structure, Cell Transport, Tissues/Organs/Systems). This separation aligns with research that emphasizes outcomes-based education and transparent alignment between objectives, activities, and assessment (Ambrose et al., 2010; Freeman et al., 2014). The inclusion of specific lab exercises and lab tests suggests a predominantly formative-to-summative assessment approach, with two 100-point lab tests and a 100-point set of online assignments. The total points (200 for lab tests plus 100 for assignments, plus an unspecified portion for participation or discussion) indicate a structured gradebook that helps students understand performance expectations—an element highlighted as beneficial in high-impact educational practice (Kuh, 2008).

Instructional materials and delivery are described as comprising a lab manual, Moodle-based assignments, online virtual labs, and discussion forums. This combination supports varied modalities, which is essential for online or hybrid environments (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). The syllabus also underscores the expectation that students login multiple times weekly, which aligns with evidence showing that engagement is a predictor of success in online learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). The presence of online components also aligns with active learning findings, where structured online activities paired with in-person or synchronous components improve outcomes (Freeman et al., 2014).

Accommodations and accessibility are addressed via a dedicated Student Counseling Services section. The policy requires documentation, current within three years, and multiple follow-up meetings. This approach is consistent with universal design for learning principles that encourage proactive accommodations and ongoing support (CAST, 2018). Nonetheless, the document could enhance clarity by providing direct contact information and concrete steps for requesting accommodations and for students to initiate IEP/504 processes early, in line with recommended best practices (National Research Council, 2012).

The evaluation methods section identifies two lab tests and online assignments, with a breakdown that includes a 25-point discussion for online interaction. The inclusion of a discussion component suggests an attempt to promote peer engagement, consistent with the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education, which advocate timely feedback and active student involvement (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). However, the rubric for the discussions is referenced only briefly, and expanding the rubric publicly could improve transparency and fairness in grading (Ambrose et al., 2010).

Scheduling information is substantial, with explicit dates for lab tests (e.g., Lab Test #1 and Lab Test #2) and a weekly login expectation. While specific dates foster accountability, verbiage around late submissions, extensions, and make-up policies should be precise to avoid ambiguity. The make-up policy notes that valid excuses via email are required for online tests, which aligns with flexible accommodations but could benefit from explicit timelines and documentation requirements (Freeman et al., 2014).

The policy statements also include an Early Alert System and a notification about potential syllabus changes. The Early Alert concept is supported by administrative research on proactive student support and timely intervention to mitigate risk factors (National Research Council, 2012). The readiness to adjust the syllabus if needed shows responsiveness to student needs, which is a best practice in flexible learning environments (Garrison et al., 2000).

In sum, the Biology 104 Lab syllabus provides a coherent framework for a lab-focused course designed for non-majors. It integrates essential elements of course description, objectives, and assessment, with accessible instructional materials and a foundation in academic integrity and accommodations. The alignment of learning objectives with topics, the use of lab-based assessments, and the inclusion of online components reflect established best practices in higher education (Ambrose et al., 2010; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Freeman et al., 2014). Yet some enhancements—such as detailed rubrics for discussions, clearer accommodation procedures, and more explicit policy language around extensions and makeups—could further strengthen transparency and equity for all students (Kuh, 2008; CAST, 2018; National Research Council, 2012).

From a pedagogical perspective, this syllabus embodies a practical synthesis of traditional lab instruction with online modalities. It demonstrates a commitment to building scientific literacy through hands-on practice, observation, and interpretation of biological systems. To maximize impact, the course could incorporate more explicit alignment between each learning objective and specific assessments, augment the accessibility framework with Universal Design for Learning guidelines, and provide explicit examples of how the content connects to everyday health decisions—reinforcing the course’s stated aim of equipping non-majors to become informed citizens (Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014; Kuh, 2008; National Research Council, 2012).

References to established scholarship support the observation that well-structured, interactive, and accessible courses yield positive outcomes in science education. By incorporating evidence-based practices in course design, this syllabus can further enhance student engagement, achievement, and persistence in biology—whether delivered in online, hybrid, or face-to-face formats. The integration of active learning, transparent assessment, and robust support systems is critical to realizing the full potential of a lab-intensive introductory course (Freeman et al., 2014; Ambrose et al., 2010; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Garrison et al., 2000; CAST, 2018).

References

1. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7).
2. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. McGraw-Hill Education.
3. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. (2010). How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in STEM. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
5. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, DC: AAC&U.
6. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.
7. CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST.
8. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
9. Brown, P. C., Roediger III, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
10. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.