No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. Students' sometimes contradictory ideas about ATP (adenosine triphosphate) and the nature of chemical bonds have been studied in the biology and chemistry education literatures, but these topics are rarely part of the introductory physics curriculum. We present qualitative data from an introductory physics course for undergraduate biology majors that seeks to build greater interdisciplinary coherence and therefore includes these topics. In these data, students grapple with the apparent contradiction between the energy released when the phosphate bond in ATP is broken and the idea that an energy input is required to break a bond. We see that students' perceptions of how each scientific discipline bounds the system of interest can influence how they justify their reasoning about a topic that crosses disciplines. This has consequences for a vision of interdisciplinary education that respects disciplinary perspectives while bringing them into interaction in ways that demonstrate consistency amongst the perspectives.

The BIO2010 report provided a compelling argument for the need to create learning experiences for undergraduate biology students that are more authentic to modern science. The report acknowledged the need for research that could help practitioners successfully create and reform biology curricula with this goal in mind. Our objective in this article was to explore how a set of six design heuristics could be used to evaluate the potential of curricula to support productive learning experiences for science students. We drew on data collected during a long-term study of an undergraduate traineeship that introduced students to mathematical modeling in the context of modern biological problems. We present illustrative examples from this curriculum that highlight the ways in which three heuristics—instructor role-modeling, holding students to scientific norms, and providing students with opportunities to practice these norms—consistently supported learning across the curriculum. We present a more detailed comparison of two different curricular modules and explain how differences in student authority, problem structure, and access to resources contributed to differences in productive engagement by students in these modules. We hope that our analysis will help practitioners think in more concrete terms about how to achieve the goals set forth by BIO2010.

We present case-study data of undergraduates describing the relationship between scientific disciplines. Rather than viewing biology, chemistry, and physics as existing in disconnected silos, or as overlapping only in narrow regions of common interest, these students exhibit a range of nuanced views about disciplinary relationships. Some students describe hierarchical arrangements that order the disciplines by degree of system complexity or by the scale used to examine a particular system. In other instances students want physics embedded in a context that positions its relationship to biology via analogy, or reference the way in which general physical principles like energy conservation or entropy maximization impose constraints on biological systems. We argue that these case studies illustrate the varied resources that students possess for seeking coherence across disciplines, as well as the potential barriers to interdisciplinary learning that such views might create when adopted to the exclusion of others.