In this paper, we describe how we transformed our large-enrollment introductory physics sequence for the life sciences to a Lecture/Studio format and aligned the physics concepts with authentic biological applications. We modified the pedagogy to include research-validated practices in interactive engagement, and accomplished our goals of enhanced learning gains and institutionalization of our course transformations. The active engagement at the heart of the Lecture/Studio format results in comparable or enhanced learning gains (as measured by validated concept surveys) when compared to traditional instruction. As a result of our efforts, the current format of these courses is sustainable, requiring no greater financial or human resources than does the traditional mode of teaching such courses. We developed a complete suite of active-engagement instructional materials and made them available to the physics education community for adoption outside our institution.
References
1.
O.
Blüh
, “ Physics for the biologist
,” Am. J. Phys.
29
, 771
–776
(1961
).2.
P.
Argos
, “ General physics course for pre-medical students
,” Am. J. Phys.
41
, 1224
–1229
(1973
).3.
Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century
, Bio 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists
(The National Academies Press
, Washington, DC
, 2003
).4.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action
(AAAS Press
, Washington, DC
, 2011
).5.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
—
American Association of Medical Colleges Committee
, Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians
(American Association of Medical Colleges
, Washington, DC
, 2009
).6.
W.
Potter
, D.
Webb
, C.
Paul
, E.
West
, M.
Bowen
, B.
Weiss
, L.
Coleman
, and C.
De Leone
, “ Sixteen years of collaborative learning through active sense-making in physics (CLASP) at UC Davis
,” Am. J. Phys.
82
, 153
–163
(2014
).7.
D. C.
Meredith
and E. F.
Redish
, “ Reinventing physics for life-sciences majors
,” Phys. Today
66
(7
), 38
–43
(2013
).8.
S. G. J.
Mochrie
, “ Vision and change in introductory physics for the life sciences
,” Am. J. Phys.
84
, 542
–551
(2016
).9.
C. H.
Crouch
and K.
Heller
, “ Introductory physics in biological context: An approach to improve introductory physics for life science students
,” Am. J. Phys.
82
, 378
–386
(2014
).10.
B.
O'Shea
, L.
Terry
, and W.
Benenson
, “ From F = ma to flying squirrels: Curricular change in an introductory physics course
,” CBE – Life Sci. Educ.
12
, 230
–238
(2013
).11.
D. C.
Meredith
and J. A.
Bolker
, “ Rounding off the cow: Challenges and successes in an interdisciplinary physics course for life science students
,” Am. J. Phys.
80
, 913
–922
(2012
).12.
C.
Henderson
, A.
Beach
, and M.
Famiano
, “ Promoting instructional change via co-teaching
,” Am. J. Phys.
77
, 274
–283
(2009
).13.
S. J.
Pollock
and N. D.
Finkelstein
, “ Sustaining educational reforms in introductory physics
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
4
, 010110
(2008
).14.
E.
Mazur
, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual
(Prentice-Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
, 1997
).15.
D. R.
Sokoloff
, R. K.
Thornton
, and P.
Laws
, RealTime Physics
(Wiley
, Hoboken, NJ
, 1995
).16.
L. C.
McDermott
, P. S.
Shaffer
, and the Physics Education Group
, Tutorials in Introductory Physics
(Pearson/Prentice Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
, 2008
).17.
P.
Laws
, “ Calculus-based physics without lectures
,” Phys. Today
44
(12
), 24
–31
(1991
).18.
J. M.
Wilson
, “ The CUPLE physics studio
,” Phys. Teach.
32
, 518
–523
(1994
).19.
J. D. H.
Gaffney
, E.
Richards
, M. B.
Kustusch
, L.
Ding
, and R. J.
Beichner
, “ Scaling up education reform
,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach.
37
, 48
–53
(2008
).20.
C. M.
Sorensen
, A. D.
Churukian
, S.
Maleki
, and D. A.
Zollman
, “ The new studio format for instruction of introductory physics
,” Am. J. Phys.
74
, 1077
–1082
(2006
).21.
T. E.
Furtak
and T. R.
Ohno
, “ Installing studio physics
,” Phys. Teach.
39
, 534
–538
(2001
).22.
P.
Heller
, R.
Keith
, and S.
Anderson
, “ Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group versus individual problem solving
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 627
–636
(1992
).23.
P.
Heller
and M.
Hollabaugh
, “ Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups
,” Am. J. Phys.
60
, 637
–644
(1992
).24.
G. M.
Novak
, E. T.
Patterson
, A. D.
Gavrin
, and W.
Christian
, Just-in-Time Teaching: Blending Active Learning with Web Technology
(Prentice Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
, 1999
).25.
T. L.
O'Kuma
, D. P.
Maloney
, and C. J.
Hieggelke
, Ranking Task Exercises in Physics
(Prentice Hall
, Upper Saddle Rive, NJ
, 2000
).26.
MasteringPhysics homepage, <http://www.masteringphysics.com>
27.
E. M.
Purcell
, “ Life at low Reynolds number
,” Am. J. Phys.
45
, 3
–11
(1977
).28.
L. C.
McDermott
and E. F.
Redish
, “ Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research
,” Am. J. Phys.
67
, 755
–767
(1999
).29.
B. A.
Lindsey
, “ Student reasoning about electrostatic and gravitational potential energy: An exploratory study with interdisciplinary consequences
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
10
, 013101
(2014
).30.
B. A.
Lindsey
, P. R. L.
Heron
, and P. S.
Shaffer
, “ Student ability to apply the concepts of work and energy to extended systems
,” Am. J. Phys.
77
, 999
–1009
(2009
).31.
B. A.
Lindsey
, P. R. L.
Heron
, and P. S.
Shaffer
, “ Student understanding of energy: Difficulties related to systems
,” Am. J. Phys.
80
, 154
–163
(2012
).32.
T.
O'Brien Pride
, S.
Vokos
, and L. C.
McDermott
, “ The challenge of matching learning assessments to teaching goals: An example from the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 147
–157
(1998
).33.
M. E.
Loverude
, C. H.
Kautz
, and P. R. L.
Heron
, “ Student understanding of the first law of thermodynamics: Relating work to the adiabatic compression of an ideal gas
,” Am. J. Phys.
70
, 137
–148
(2002
).34.
D.
Meltzer
, “ Investigation of students' reasoning regarding heat, work, and the first law of thermodynamics in an introductory calculus-based general physics course
,” Am. J. Phys.
72
, 1432
–1446
(2004
).35.
D. P.
Maloney
, “ Rule governed physics—current in a series circuit
,” Phys. Educ.
21
, 360
–365
(1986
).36.
D. P.
Smith
and P.
van Kampen
, “ A qualitative approach to teaching capacitive circuits
,” Am. J. Phys.
81
, 389
–396
(2013
).37.
M. E.
Loverude
, C. H.
Kautz
, and P. R. L.
Heron
, “ Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes' principle. I. Research on student understanding
,” Am. J. Phys.
71
, 1178
–1187
(2003
).38.
P. R. L.
Heron
, M. E.
Loverude
, P. S.
Shaffer
, and L. C.
McDermott
, “ Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes' principle. II. Development of research-based instructional materials
,” Am. J. Phys.
71
, 1188
–1195
(2003
).39.
K.
Wosilait
, P. R. L.
Heron
, P. S.
Shaffer
, and L. C.
McDermott
, “ Addressing student difficulties in applying a wave model to the interference and diffraction of light
,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl.
67
, S5
–S15
(1999
).40.
E. E.
Prather
, “ Students' beliefs about the role of atoms in radioactive decay and half-life
,” J. Geosci. Ed.
53
(4
), 345
–354
(2005
).41.
E. E.
Prather
and R. R.
Harrington
, “ Student understanding of ionizing radiation and radioactivity: Recognizing the differences between irradiation and contamination
,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach.
31
(2
), 89
–93
(2001
).42.
C. J.
Hieggelke
, D. P.
Maloney
, and S.
Kanim
, Newtonian Tasks Inspired by Physics Education Research: nTIPERs
(Pearson Education Inc
, Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, CA
, 2012
).43.
C. J.
Hieggelke
, D. P.
Maloney
, T. L.
O'Kuma
, and S.
Kanim
, E & M TIPERs: Electricity & Magnetism Tasks
(Prentice-Hall
, Englewood, Cliffs, NJ
, 2006
).44.
To view the University of Maryland's Breathing Worms activity, please see: <http://umdberg.pbworks.com/w/page/42294962/How%20big%20is%20a%20worm>
45.
To view the Swarthmore's Nerve Propagation activity, please see: <http://materials.physics.swarthmore.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/10_NervePropagation_P4L_S2014.pdf>
46.
A. A.
Lucas
, Ph.
Lambin
, R.
Mairesse
, and M.
Mathot
, “ Revealing the backbone structure of B-DNA from laser optical simulations of Its X-ray diffraction pattern
,” J. Chem. Ed.
76
(3
), 378
–383
(1999
).47.
PhET Interactive Simulations, <https://phet.colorado.edu/>
48.
L. C.
McDermott
, “ Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap
,” Am. J. Phys.
59
, 301
–315
(1991
).49.
J.
Clement
, D. E.
Brown
, and A.
Zeitsman
, “ Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction of students' intuitions
,” Int. J. Sci. Ed.
11
, 554
–565
(1989
).50.
A.
Elby
, “ Helping physics students learn how to learn
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, S54
–S64
(2001
).51.
S.
Freeman
, S. L.
Eddy
, M.
McDonough
, M. K.
Smith
, N.
Okoroafor
, H.
Jordt
, and M. P.
Wenderoth
, “ Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics
,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
111
, 8410
–8415
(2014
).52.
E. E.
Prather
, A. L.
Rudolph
, G.
Brissenden
, and W. M.
Schlingman
, “ A national study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy. Part I. The effect of interactive instruction
,” Am. J. Phys.
77
, 320
–330
(2009
).53.
C.
Henderson
and M. H.
Dancy
, “ Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
5
, 020107
(2009
).54.
C.
Henderson
, A.
Beach
, and N.
Finkelstein
, “ Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature
,” J. Res. Sci. Teach.
48
, 952
–984
(2011
).55.
D.
Hestenes
, M.
Wells
, and G.
Swackhammer
, “ Force concept inventory
,” Phys. Teach.
30
, 141
–158
(1992
).56.
D. P.
Maloney
, T. L.
O'Kuma
, C. J.
Hieggelke
, and A. V.
Heuvelen
, “ Surveying students' conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism
,” Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl.
69
, S12
–S23
(2001
).57.
R.
Hake
, “ Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics course
,” Am. J. Phys.
66
, 64
–74
(1998
).58.
D. T.
Guynn
, “ The effectiveness of interactive engagement in introductory physics courses at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
,” Master's thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(2016
).59.
J.
Von Korff
, B.
Archibeque
, K. A.
Gomez
, T.
Heckendorf
, S. B.
McKagan
, E. C.
Sayre
, E. W.
Schenk
, C.
Shepherd
, and L.
Sorell
, “ Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study
,” Am. J. Phys.
84
, 969
–974
(2016
).© 2018 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2018
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
