Search

Organismal biology (OrgBio) comprises the diversity, structures, and functions of all organisms from bacteria to humans. Arguably, OrgBio is often the most poorly taught and least conceptually rigorous section of the introductory biology sequence offered at most U.S. institutions of higher education. This article reports on the successful implementation of conceptual and pedagogical reforms in an introductory OrgBio course offered at a large public university. Conceptual reforms were based on a theoretical framework consisting of universal physical and chemical laws, deep molecular homologies, and diverse structure–function relationships. Pedagogical reforms involved the development of group active engagements (GAEs) that were designed to encourage students to develop their abilities to engage in principles-based reasoning. A new model for characterizing different approaches toward principles-based reasoning in biology was developed to analyze these GAEs. Two surveys indicated that OrgBio students developed more favorable perceptions about the effectiveness of GAE-based course offerings, as compared to similar lecture-based versions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Comments on the organization of the journal on Physics Education Research Supplement to the American Journal of Physics. Presentation of articles; Support on the publication of the journal; Lists of authors and contributors.

Energy is an abstract science concept, so the ways that we think and talk about energy rely heavily on ontological metaphors: metaphors for what kind of thing energy is. Two commonly used ontological metaphors for energy are energy as a substance and energy as a vertical location. Our previous work has demonstrated that students and experts can productively use both the substance and location ontologies for energy. In this paper, we use Fauconnier and Turner's conceptual blending framework to demonstrate that experts and novices can successfully blend the substance and location ontologies into a coherent mental model in order to reason about energy. Our data come from classroom recordings of a physics professor teaching a physics course for the life sciences, and from an interview with an undergraduate student in that course. We analyze these data using predicate analysis and gesture analysis, looking at verbal utterances, gestures, and the interaction between them. This analysis yields evidence that the speakers are blending the substance and location ontologies into a single blended mental space. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The authors respond to a comment by professor J. D. Slotta in response to their critique on static and dynamic intuitive ontologies. The authors believe that Slotta has misinterpreted aspects of their position. The authors offer an explanation on their use of static ontologies and how their dynamic view could account for evidence of stabilities.

Investigates the understanding of students on quantum physics. Definition of the conductivity models; Discussion on the physics education of the students; Development of curriculum materials for facilitating the students applying the conduction models.

A major curriculum redesign effort at the University of Maryland is infusing all levels of our undergraduate biological sciences curriculum with increased emphasis on interdisciplinary connections and quantitative approaches. The curriculum development efforts have largely been guided by recommendations in the National Research Council'sBio 2010report and have resulted in revisions to courses in biology, mathematics, and physics over a period of 10 years. Important components of this effort included (1) developing online modules to infuse more mathematical content into six biology courses taken by biological sciences majors during their first 2 years of study; (2) strengthening the interdisciplinary connections of ancillary courses in mathematics and physics to support the development of quantitative skills in biological contexts; and (3) creating more quantitatively intensive courses for the final 2 years of the bachelors of science programme. These efforts, carried out by a large, multidisciplinary team of faculty, have resulted in increased coherence in the undergraduate biological sciences curriculum, increased quantitative skills in first- and second-year students, and a greater appreciation among graduates for the essential relationship between mathematics and modern biology. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A common feature of the recent calls for reform of the undergraduate biology curriculum has been for better coordination between biology and the courses from the allied disciplines of mathematics, chemistry, and physics. Physics has lagged behind math and chemistry in creating new, biologically oriented curricula, although much activity is now taking place, and significant progress is being made. In this essay, we consider a case study: a multiyear conversation between a physicist interested in adapting his physics course for biologists (E.F.R.) and a biologist interested in including more physics in his biology course (T.J.C.). These extended discussions have led us both to a deeper understanding of each other's discipline and to significant changes in the way we each think about and present our classes. We discuss two examples in detail: the creation of a physics problem on fluid flow for a biology class and the creation of a biologically authentic physics problem on scaling and dimensional analysis. In each case, we see differences in how the two disciplines frame and see value in the tasks. We conclude with some generalizations about how biology and physics look at the world differently that help us navigate the minefield of counterproductive stereotypical responses.