Redish, Cooke, Dobbins, & Hall, GIREP Conference Poster (2009)

Transforming the Physics Education of Undergraduate Biology Students in Introductory Physics and Biology Courses

Edward F. Redish, Todd J. Cooke, Heather D. Dobbins, and Kristi L. Hall

Poster presented at GIREP2009, Leicester, UK, August 2009.

Abstract: In 2003, the US National Academy of Sciences issued the BIO 2010 report that called for the increased incorporation of mathematics, physics, and chemistry into undergraduate biology curriculum, and for a corresponding increase in the biological relevance of introductory science courses for biologists. This initiative has led to widespread interdisciplinary efforts that are transforming the way mathematics and chemistry is taught to US biology students, but it has not prompted comparable reform in physics. There appear to be a number of reasons for this lag. Many Physics faculty are hesitant about pruning and reorganizing traditional content and may not be familiar with the content that biologists feel is relevant and useful, while many Biology faculty are hesitant about including physics in their biology classes explicitly. At the University of Maryland, a group of physicists and biologists have started working together to better understand the roadblocks to implementing a coordinated revision of our introductory biology and physics courses for biology students. The challenges facing this effort occur at a variety of levels. 1) Introductory physics for biologists is often a “cut-down” version of introductory physics for engineers. As such, it inherits some inappropriate approaches. For example, it introduces the second law of Thermodynamics via heat engines and ignores chemical energy. This approach is inappropriate because organisms cannot convert temperature gradients into useful metabolic energy, whereas other forms of physical and chemical energy are continually being transformed in biological systems. 2) Introductory biology classes typically are “fact-based”, relying on extensive reading and focusing on concept mastery, including introducing the student to many different terms, processes, and relationships, while physics courses are structured to emphasize complex reasoning from a small set of fundamental laws and principles. 3) Physics classes rely heavily on problem-solving and are over the past decade have developed extensive active-engagement learning pedagogy, whereas biology courses still tend to rely heavily on direct lecture and protocol-based laboratories. 4) Biology classes tend to use mathematics to represent qualitative dependences, while physics classes treat math as a fundamental reasoning tool. Our poster presents examples and suggestions for bridging these gaps. Our goal is to initiate a widespread discussion among physicists and biologists regarding the physics challenge in the BIO 2010 initiative.