No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. In response to increasing calls for the reform of the undergraduate science curriculum for life science majors and pre-medical students (Bio2010, Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians, Vision & Change), an interdisciplinary team has created NEXUS/Physics: a repurposing of an introductory physics curriculum for the life sciences. The curriculum interacts strongly and supportively with introductory biology and chemistry courses taken by life sciences students, with the goal of helping students build general, multi-discipline scientific competencies. In order to do this, our two-semester NEXUS/Physics course sequence is positioned as a second year course so students will have had some exposure to basic concepts in biology and chemistry. NEXUS/Physics stresses interdisciplinary examples and the content differs markedly from traditional introductory physics to facilitate this. It extends the discussion of energy to include interatomic potentials and chemical reactions, the discussion of thermodynamics to include enthalpy and Gibbs free energy, and includes a serious discussion of random vs. coherent motion including diffusion. The development of instructional materials is coordinated with careful education research. Both the new content and the results of the research are described in a series of papers for which this paper serves as an overview and context.

In biology education research, it has been common to model cognition in terms of relatively stable knowledge structures (e.g., mental models, alternative frameworks, deeply held misconceptions). For example, John D. Coley and Kimberley D. Tanner recently proposed that many student difficulties in biology stem from underlying cognitive frameworks called cognitive construals (CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11[3], 209–215 [2012]; CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14[1], ar8 [2015]). They argued that three such frameworks—teleology, anthropocentrism, and essentialism—cause undergraduate students to hold a range of misconceptions about the biological world. Our purpose in this article is to present an alternative perspective that considers student thinking to be dynamic and context sensitive. Using the example of cognitive construals, we argue that a dynamic perspective creates a burden of proof for claims of cognitive stability—to demonstrate that patterns of thinking are indeed stable across contexts. To illustrate our argument, we report on the results of a study designed to explore the stability of students’ apparent teleological, anthropocentric, and essentialist thinking. Our results are inconsistent with framework models. We propose instead that response patterns stem from students’ context-specific interpretations of the statements, consistent with dynamic models of cognition. Building on these preliminary findings, we discuss the implications of a dynamic view of cognition for biology education research and biology instruction.