60
Portland
Monday afternoon
through semi-structured problem-solving and critical-thinking interviews
before and after their teaching practicum experience. Data were analyzed
through qualitative research methods to identify emerging themes and
positions. Results indicate that although preservice teachers were aware
of their individual tendencies towards integrating multiple modes of
representation into their pedagogy, participants reported low-efficacious
behaviour towards helping students who deviated from their own epis-
temological framework and perspective. As this disequilibrium tends to
manifest frequently for novice and beginning secondary-level physics
teachers, especially where students’ mathematical and conceptual fluency
vary, the implications of this research includes physics teacher preparation
and professional development strategies.
BE08:
5:10-5:20 p.m. Why They Cannot Solve the Problem
Although They Know How Already
Contributed – Ji Won Lee, Korea National University of Education, 411-e
Science building, San 7, Darakri, Gangnaemyon Chong Won, Chung-Buk
363-791, S. Korea;
Jung Bog Kim, Korea National University of Education
We investigated through an atypical problem the features of science teach-
ers’ problem solving processes and why they could not solve the problem
even though they already had the key knowledge needed. We found that
they could solve another typical problem using the key knowledge. We
analyzed the problem solving process of 18 science teachers in explaining
the contradictory situation. Science teachers had not been able to solve the
problem because they could not recall the answer although the key knowl-
edge exists in their knowledge structure. And they rejected the scientific
model even though they heard the correct explanation. Also, they made
ad hoc hypotheses upon ignoring their existing knowledge structure. But
because sometimes ad hoc hypothesis has been the key for problem solving
in science history, so we propose that it is related with creativity.
Session BF: Education Research at
the Boundary of Physics and Biology
Location: Skyline IV
Sponsor: Committee on Research in Physics Education
Date: Monday, July 15
Time: 4–6 p.m.
Presider: Mel Sabella
BF01:
4-4:30 p.m. Designing an Interdisciplinary Physics
Course to Support Scientific Reasoning Skills
Invited – Vashti Sawtelle, University of Maryland, 082 Regents Drive, College
Park, MD 20742;
Chandra Turpen, University of Maryland, College Park
Julia Gouvea, University of California, Davis
Our course in Introductory Physics for Life Science (IPLS) majors at the
University of Maryland works to bridge the disciplines of biology and
physics with a primary focus on developing students’ scientific reasoning
skills. These include developing students’ abilities (1) to know when and
how to use different concepts, (2) to make and justify modeling decisions,
and (3) to make implicit assumptions visible. Our interdisciplinary course
provides students an opportunity to examine how these decisions may
differ depending on canonical disciplinary aims and interests. Our focus
on developing reasoning skills requires shifting course topics to focus on
core ideas that span the disciplines as well as foregrounding typically tacit
disciplinary assumptions. In this talk we present concrete examples from
our IPLS course to give a sense of what it looks like to implement a vision
focused on these reasoning skills in an interdisciplinary classroom.
BF02:
4:30-5 p.m. Introductory Physics in Biological Context
Invited – Catherine H. Crouch, Swarthmore College, 500 College Ave.,
Swarthmore, PA 19081;
Physics is an increasingly important foundation for today’s life sciences
and medicine (hereafter “the life sciences”). However, the physics content
and ways of thinking identified by life scientists as most important for
these fields are often not taught, or underemphasized, in traditional
algebra-based college physics courses. Furthermore, such courses rarely
give students practice using physics to understand the life sciences in a
substantial way. Consequently, students are unlikely to recognize the value
of physics to their chosen fields, or to develop facility in applying it to bio-
logical systems. In this talk I will present common themes among reformed
introductory physics for the life sciences (IPLS) courses that are organized
around significant life science applications of physics, describe the guiding
pedagogical principles and the process of developing and implementing
such courses, present initial assessment data, and identify directions for
further development and research.
BF03:
5-5:30 p.m. Preparing to Teach IPLS: Motivations,
Challenges, and Resources
Invited – Juan R. Burciaga, Mount Holyoke College, Department of Physics,
50 College St., South Hadley, MA 01075;
The physics community is experiencing a growing pressure to reform the
Introductory Physics Courses for the Life Sciences (IPLS). Part of this pres-
sure for reform is external (e.g., the changing nature of biological research
or the revision to the MCAT) and part is internal (e.g., faculty dissatisfac-
tion with the traditional course). And as faculty turn their attention to
reform efforts, we encounter many challenges and barriers, some expected
but many unexpected, and far too many intransigent. What is the source
of this demand for reform? How can an individual faculty respond to this
demand? What are the barriers to both local and community-wide reform?
What resources exist, or are being developed, to aid individual faculty
and the physics community as a whole to respond to the groundswell of
change? The paper will summarize, and expand on, the discussions that
members of the physics community have been pursuing over the last four
years.
BF04:
5:30-6 p.m. Exploring “Thinking Like a Biologist” in
the Context of Physics
Invited – Kimberly D. Tanner, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway
Ave., San Francisco, CA 94132;
University biology education aims to produce students with biological
expertise, which includes not only accrual of biological knowledge, but also
organization of that knowledge into a biological framework. The recent
publication of “Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education”
includes such a framework that can be used to prioritize what biology
students are learning and to help them organize this information. This
framework asserts only five fundamental biological principles: 1) structure-
function relationships, 2) pathways and transformations of energy and
matter, 3) interconnected systems, 4) information flow, and 5) evolution.
So, how might these principles inform the development of physics courses
for life science students? To what extent might these fundamental organiz-
ing principles of biological expertise align with physics principles? To what
extent might they be in conflict? And how could we begin to measure how
students navigate, integrate, or segregate these organizing principles across
the disciplines of physics and biology?
