In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

31 3 public health and Biochemistry Connecting Content, Issues, and Values for Majors Matthew a. fisher one of the challenges when incorporating integrative learning experiences in the undergraduate science curriculum for majors is the widely held perception by faculty that such changes would require significant sacrifices in the content that students learn. in my experience, however, changes made in a biochemistry course sequence for biochemistry, biology, and chemistry majors allowed the introduction of integrative learning opportunities without the loss of course disciplinary content. The revised sequence accomplished this goal by framing course content in the context of pressing public health issues such as alzheimer’s disease, hiV/aidS, and influenza. The revised courses challenged students to look at these issues from the perspective of biochemistry as well as other disciplines, their personal values, and institutional values. Students have no problem anticipating that biochemistry will have a significant connection to what they are interested in, care about, and encounter on a daily basis; however, biochemistry textbooks and courses have traditionally steered clear of nondisciplinary discussions of the complexity of diseases such as aidS and malaria or of malnutrition. The content of undergraduate biochemistry courses is thus most commonly presented in a manner that is largely disconnected from real-world contexts . Without a textbook or course pedagogy that makes clear these connections and establishes a context for knowledge, the stage is set for a pathology of learning that lee Shulman (1999) has described as inertia—an inability to use what has been learned. There are several studies that clearly and persuasively argue that traditional curricula in chemistry (see Cooper, 2010 for a summary) and biology (national research Council, 2003) include too much content and the result is often the inertia 32 | Courses that Foster Integrative Learning that Shulman describes. Upper-level undergraduate biochemistry courses are typically very content intensive; my fall course looks at protein structure and function, enzyme function (kinetics, mechanism, regulation), and roughly a half dozen distinct metabolic pathways (reactions involved, overall energetics, regulation) related to how the human body metabolizes carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. The spring course examines some different aspects of protein structure, glycoproteins, membrane structure and dynamics, transport, signal transduction, nucleic acid structure , and several processes central to nucleic acid biochemistry (replication, dna repair, transcription, translation). Shulman (1997) points out that the solution to this pathology of inertia is to ensure that “the subject-matter content to be learned is generative, essential and pivotal to the discipline or interdiscipline under study, and can yield new understandings and/or serve as the basis for future learning of content, processes, and dispositions” (p. 493). how might we ensure that the content learned by science majors in undergraduate biochemistry is “generative”? Considering more explicitly the affective dimensions of learning is likely to be an important part of answering this question. elizabeth Barkley (2010) in Student Engagement Techniques provides an exceptional summary of how we can create synergy in learning environments by engaging students not only cognitively but also through affect and body (psychomotor) dimensions of learning. More extended discussions of the important role that the affective domain plays in learning, memory, and cognitive function can be found in the national teaching and learning forum (nuhfer, 2008a, 2008b; rhem, 2008a, 2008b) and works by damasio (1994, 1999). Within the context of the broader learning goals for higher education, such as those put forth by aaC&U’s College Learning for the New Global Century (2007) and derek Bok’s Our Underachieving Colleges (2005), generative content becomes even more important. aaC&U has established the following essential learning outcomes: knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, intellectual and practical skills, personal and social responsibility, and integrative learning. These goals echo what is increasingly heard within the scientific community itself. in his 2002 Science article “World poverty and hunger—the Challenge for Science,” ismail Serageldin provided a charge to the scientific community to educate scientists in ways that make visible the connections of basic science to the issues and concerns of a global society. for science to realize its full promise and become the primary force for change in the world, it requires that scientists work to 1) engage scientific research in the pressing issues of our time; 2) abolish hunger and reduce poverty; 3) promote a scientific outlook and the values of science; 4) build real partnerships with the scientists in the South. . . . all of that, however, requires our joint commitment as scientists to work for the benefit of the entire human family, not just...

Share