Comment on “Physics at the Molecular and Cellular Level (P@MCL): A New Curriculum for Introductory Physics”

V. Shlyonsky
{"title":"Comment on “Physics at the Molecular and Cellular Level (P@MCL): A New Curriculum for Introductory Physics”","authors":"V. Shlyonsky","doi":"10.35459/tbp.2021.000207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I recently became acquainted with the work done by Lisa J. Lapidus on new curricular development for courses on Introductory Physics for the Life Sciences (IPLS) (1). While I enjoyed reading the article, I was expecting a description of the assessment modalities of such a physics course that is highly focused on molecular and cellular biology. The author, however, is still developing this aspect. Several afterthoughts left me wondering about the best assessment modes for this course. From my perspective, introductory physics remains the only basic course in the life sciences curriculum where students are taught to apply logic and deduction to the resolution of real-world physics problems, and this is in striking contrast to molecular and cellular biology, where memorization is traditionally emphasized. I agree with the many voices that argue that the learning objectives of IPLS are not about gaining new knowledge but, rather, are about gaining abilities and competencies. The assessments discussed in the paper refer to concept inventories, which are indeed conceptual rather than problem based. However, in my opinion, written problem-based exams are better suited to evaluate competencies acquired in introductory physics courses. During their final exam, students may be given a list of all the formulas they need, but it will not help them succeed if they did not practice beforehand how to apply this knowledge thoughtfully. Clearly, students are strongly motivated by real-world physics problems that touch upon some biomedical aspects, but when it comes to developing physics problems solely with molecular and cellular biology content, I do not see too many possibilities of constructions that would require application of logic and deduction. This situation implies a high probability that the teacher will have to recycle exam questions and, accordingly, disfavors the problem based assessment modality for P@MCL. In other words, the use of problem-based assessment, along with these curriculum adjustments, would ‘‘throw the baby out with the bathwater,’’ because students would simply train in solving a limited number of typical problems. Probably the optimal assessment mode in such a course would be project based (2). This way, the students have several possibilities to showcase their understanding of physics topics and their competencies to tie together physics and biology—in the form of written essays or video capsules. The evaluation of project-based work, however, may require significant effort on the part of the instructor (3).","PeriodicalId":72403,"journal":{"name":"Biophysicist (Rockville, Md.)","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biophysicist (Rockville, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35459/tbp.2021.000207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I recently became acquainted with the work done by Lisa J. Lapidus on new curricular development for courses on Introductory Physics for the Life Sciences (IPLS) (1). While I enjoyed reading the article, I was expecting a description of the assessment modalities of such a physics course that is highly focused on molecular and cellular biology. The author, however, is still developing this aspect. Several afterthoughts left me wondering about the best assessment modes for this course. From my perspective, introductory physics remains the only basic course in the life sciences curriculum where students are taught to apply logic and deduction to the resolution of real-world physics problems, and this is in striking contrast to molecular and cellular biology, where memorization is traditionally emphasized. I agree with the many voices that argue that the learning objectives of IPLS are not about gaining new knowledge but, rather, are about gaining abilities and competencies. The assessments discussed in the paper refer to concept inventories, which are indeed conceptual rather than problem based. However, in my opinion, written problem-based exams are better suited to evaluate competencies acquired in introductory physics courses. During their final exam, students may be given a list of all the formulas they need, but it will not help them succeed if they did not practice beforehand how to apply this knowledge thoughtfully. Clearly, students are strongly motivated by real-world physics problems that touch upon some biomedical aspects, but when it comes to developing physics problems solely with molecular and cellular biology content, I do not see too many possibilities of constructions that would require application of logic and deduction. This situation implies a high probability that the teacher will have to recycle exam questions and, accordingly, disfavors the problem based assessment modality for P@MCL. In other words, the use of problem-based assessment, along with these curriculum adjustments, would ‘‘throw the baby out with the bathwater,’’ because students would simply train in solving a limited number of typical problems. Probably the optimal assessment mode in such a course would be project based (2). This way, the students have several possibilities to showcase their understanding of physics topics and their competencies to tie together physics and biology—in the form of written essays or video capsules. The evaluation of project-based work, however, may require significant effort on the part of the instructor (3).
评《分子和细胞水平的物理学(P@MCL):物理学导论新课程》
最近,我开始熟悉Lisa J. Lapidus关于生命科学(IPLS)入门物理课程新课程开发的工作(1)。虽然我喜欢阅读这篇文章,但我期待着这门高度关注分子和细胞生物学的物理课程的评估模式的描述。然而,作者在这方面仍在不断发展。后来的一些想法让我想知道这门课的最佳评估模式。在我看来,入门物理仍然是生命科学课程中唯一的基础课程,在这些课程中,学生被教导运用逻辑和演绎来解决现实世界的物理问题,这与传统上强调记忆的分子和细胞生物学形成鲜明对比。我同意许多人的观点,即IPLS的学习目标不是获得新知识,而是获得能力和竞争力。本文讨论的评估是指概念清单,它确实是概念性的,而不是基于问题的。然而,在我看来,以问题为基础的笔试更适合于评估在物理入门课程中获得的能力。在他们的期末考试中,学生可能会得到一张他们需要的所有公式的清单,但如果他们事先没有仔细练习如何应用这些知识,这将无助于他们成功。很明显,学生们被触及生物医学方面的现实世界物理问题所强烈激励,但当涉及到仅涉及分子和细胞生物学内容的物理问题时,我没有看到太多需要应用逻辑和演绎的结构的可能性。这种情况意味着老师很有可能不得不重复使用考试问题,因此,不赞成P@MCL基于问题的评估模式。换句话说,使用基于问题的评估,以及这些课程调整,将“把婴儿连同洗澡水一起倒掉”,因为学生们只是在解决有限数量的典型问题上进行训练。也许这种课程的最佳评估模式是基于项目的(2)。这样,学生就有多种可能性来展示他们对物理主题的理解,以及他们将物理和生物学联系在一起的能力——以书面论文或视频胶囊的形式。然而,对基于项目的工作的评估可能需要讲师付出很大的努力(3)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信