.
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:25:25 -0700
From: Richard Hake <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Net-Gold] Do Premedical Requirements Over- or Under- Emphasize
Physics?
If you reply to this long 18 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
*******************************************
ABSTRACT: In "Educating Physicians: A Call for Reform of Medical
School and Residency" Cooke, Irby, and O'Brien (2010) wrote: ". . .
.the premedical requirements OVEREMPHASIZE SOME SCIENTIFIC FIELDS,
SUCH AS PHYSICS. . . ."
On the other hand, physicists Crouch et al. (2010), in "Physics for
Future Physicians and Life Scientists: a moment of opportunity,"
imply that the physics needed by future physicians is
UNDEREMPHASIZED, writing [my CAPS]:
"'The great success of 20th century biology was to reveal the
physical and chemical machinery of life. Biological molecules, cells,
organisms, and ecosystems are all constrained and enabled by the same
laws of nature that govern the inanimate world. In this new vision,
life emerges as perhaps the richest and most complex example of a
physical system. IN THE 21st CENTURY, THE STUDY OF LIFE REQUIRES AN
INTEGRATED, QUANTITATIVE APPROACH: PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, AND
MATHEMATICS TIGHTLY INTERWOVEN WITH TRADITIONAL BIOLOGY.
This fundamental transformation has been widely recognized in recent
education policy statements. The National Research Council report
'Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research
Biologists' argued that life science researchers need a strong
grounding in mathematics and the physical sciences. In June 2009, a
joint AAMC-HHMI committee issued an important report, 'Scientific
Foundations for Future Physicians' (SFFP) . . . This report calls for
removing specific course requirements for medical school admission
and focusing instead on a set of scientific and mathematical
"competencies." PHYSICS PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN BOTH REPORTS."
It would be interesting to know how discussion-list subscribers come
down on the question "Do Premedical Requirements Over- or Under-
Emphasize Physics?"
******************************************
On page 28 of "Educating Physicians: A Call for Reform of Medical
School and Residency" Cooke, Irby, and O'Brien (2010) wrote [my CAPS]:
"The formal knowledge foundational to medical practice is not well
integrated with the acquisition of experiential knowledge over the
continuum of medical education. THE PREMEDICAL REQUIREMENTS
OVEREMPHASIZE SOME SCIENTIFIC FIELDS, SUCH AS PHYSICS, to the
detriment of social sciences and nonscience domains."
On the other hand, physicists Crouch et al. (2010), in "Physics for
Future Physicians and Life Scientists: a moment of opportunity,"
imply that the physics needed by future physicians is
UNDEREMPHASIZED, writing [bracketed by lines "CCCCC. . . . ."; my
insert at ". . . . .[[insert]]. . . . "; my CAPS]:
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
How should we teach physics to future life scientists and physicians?
The physics community has an exciting and timely opportunity to
reshape introductory physics courses for this audience.. . . . . .A
number of physics educators have already reshaped their courses to
better address the needs of life science and premedical students, and
more are actively doing so. . . . . [[see e.g., "Reinventing College
Physics for Biologists: Explicating an Epistemological Curriculum"
Redish & Hammer (2009a,b)]]. . . . Here we describe what these
reports call for, their import for the physics community, and some
key features of these reshaped courses. Our commentary is based on
the discussions at an October 2009 conference (Conference on Physics
in Undergraduate Quantitative Life Science Education . . . .
.[[<http://www.gwu.edu/~ipls/>]]. . . . . .), at which physics
faculty engaged in teaching introductory physics for the life
sciences (IPLS), met with life scientists and representatives of the
NSF, APS, AAPT, and AAMC, to take stock of these calls for change and
possible responses from the physics community.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The great success of 20th century biology was to reveal the physical
and chemical machinery of life. Biological molecules, cells,
organisms, and ecosystems are all constrained and enabled by the same
laws of nature that govern the inanimate world. In this new vision,
life emerges as perhaps the richest and most complex example of a
physical system. . . .[[see e.g., "Over Two-Hundred Annotated
References on Systems Thinking" (Hake, 2009a)]. . . . IN THE 21ST
CENTURY, THE STUDY OF LIFE REQUIRES AN INTEGRATED, QUANTITATIVE
APPROACH: PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, AND MATHEMATICS TIGHTLY INTERWOVEN WITH
TRADITIONAL BIOLOGY.
This fundamental transformation has been widely recognized in recent
education policy statements. The National Research Council report
"Bio2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research
Biologists". . . . .[[NRC (2003)]]. . . . argued that life science
researchers need a strong grounding in mathematics and the physical
sciences. In June 2009, a joint AAMC-HHMI committee issued an
important report, "Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians"
(SFFP) . . . . . . [[AAMC/HHMI (2009)]]. . . .. This report calls
for removing specific course requirements for medical school
admission and focusing instead on a set of scientific and
mathematical "competencies." PHYSICS PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN BOTH
REPORTS: all life scientists ought to be able to apply the
principles of physics to biological systems, to develop and adapt
quantitative models for biological processes, and to understand the
scientific basis of advanced technologies. The SFFP report provides
recommendations that each medical school will now decide whether to
adopt. Ongoing discussions among SFFP committee members, medical
school deans and admissions officers, and undergraduate pre-health
advisors indicate that the proposal to shift to a competency model is
viewed very favorably. Although questions about implementation
remain, it is certain to influence the revisions underway for the
Medical College Admission Test (MCAT).
The call issued by these reports represents both a challenge to and
an opportunity for the physics community. The challenge is to offer
courses that cultivate general quantitative and scientific reasoning
skills, together with a firm grounding in basic physics principles
and the ability to apply those principles to living systems, all
*without* increasing the number of courses needed to prepare for
medical school. The opportunity is to craft new courses that not only
serve life science students well, but reveal and celebrate the rich
contributions that physics has made to our understanding of life.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
It would be interesting to know how discussion-list subscribers come
down on the question "Do Premedical Requirements Over- or Under-
Emphasize Physics?"
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
<[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com>
<http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>. All
URL's accessed on 14-15 June 2010.]
AAMC/HHMI. 2009. "Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians,
online at
<http://www.hhmi.org/grants/pdf/08-209_AAMC-HHMI_report.pdf> (610
kB). The introduction begins: "In recent years, members of the higher
education community, individually and through several expert panel
reports, have raised concerns about the science content in the
current premedical and medical education curricula. These concerns
are especially important given the increasingly rapid rate at which
new knowledge revises our understanding of the sciences fundamental
to medicine. There is widespread agreement that it is important to:
(1) educate future physicians to be inquisitive; (2) help them build
a strong scientific foundation for future medical practice; and (3)
equip them with the knowledge, skills, and habits of mind to
integrate new scientific discovery into their medical practice
throughout their professional lives and to share this knowledge with
patients and other health care professionals. With these issues in
mind, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) formed a partnership to
examine the natural science competencies that a graduating physician
needs to practice science-based medicine effectively with the goal of
achieving greater synergy and efficiency in the continuum of
premedical and medical education. The AAMC and HHMI convened a group
of scientists, physicians, and science educators from small colleges,
large universities, and medical schools around the United States to
determine the most important scientific competencies required of
students graduating from college prior to matriculating into medical
school as well as the scientific competencies required of medical
school graduates as they enter postgraduate training." See also HHMI
(2009).
Carnegie Foundation. 2010. "Summary of Educating Physicians. A Call
for Reform of Medical School and Residency," online at
<http://tinyurl.com/292ums7>.
Cooke, M., D.M. Irby, & B.C. O'Brian. 2010. "Educating Physicians: A
Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency." Jossey-Bass,
publisher's information at <http://tinyurl.com/2cwtg45>. Amazon.com
information at <http://tinyurl.com/288m2ag>. Note the searchable
"Look Inside" feature. See also Carnegie Foundation (2010).
Crouch, C.H., R. Hilborn, S.A. Kane, T. McKay, & M. Reeves. 2010.
"Physics for Future Physicians and Life Scientists: a moment of
opportunity," APS News 19(3): 8, March; online at
<http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201003/backpage.cfm>. For
an earlier assessment of physics for premeds see Liboff & Chopp
(1979). For comments on a biologist Mike Klymkowsky's dour view of
physics-education reform see Hake (2009b).
Elby, A., J. Frederiksen, C. Schwarz, and B. White. 1999. Presented
at the American Education Research Association, Montreal.
unpublished. "Epistemological Beliefs Assessment For Physical Science
(EBAPS), " online at
<http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/EBAPS/home.htm> and
<http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~elby/EBAPS/idea.htm>.
Hake, R.R. 2009a. "Over Two-Hundred Annotated References on Systems
Thinking," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/200RefsSystems2c.pdf> (1.7 MB)
and as reference #58 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>. The
abstract and link to the complete report were transmitted to various
discussion lists on 19 December 2009 and also appear at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/Systems%20Thinking>
with a provision for comments. For a follow-on see Hake (2010).
Hake, R.R. 2009b. "Re: Changing Biology Teaching/physics model,"
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://tinyurl.com/28f3erv>.
Post of 13 Aug 2009 14:19:59-0700 to AERA-L and PhysLrnR.
Hake, R.R. 2010. "Books for Laypersons on Systems Thinking #2,"
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://tinyurl.com/29msedo>.
Post of 9 May 2010 18:55:55-0700 to AERA-L and NetGold. The abstract
and link to the complete post were transmitted to various discussion
lists and are also online at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/05/books-for-laypersons-on-systems.html>
with a provision for comments.
HHMI. 2009. "Creating Scientifically Literate Physicians,"online at
<http://www.hhmi.org/grants/sffp.html>. An announcement of the
AAMC/HHMI (2009).
Liboff, A.R. & M. Chopp. 1979. Should the premed requirements in
physics be changed? American Journal of Physics 47(4): 331-336;
online at
<http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=AJPIAS&Volume=47&Issue=4>.
The abstract, free to all at <http://tinyurl.com/2f7bxt4>, reads:
"Factors influencing the premedical requirement in physics are
examined. A review is given of the various reasons why physics is
important in medical education. The new Medical College Admissions
Test is discussed. In looking at the rapid advances in technology in
medicine, it is argued that the medical student is presently
disadvantaged in physics, simply not having taken enough physics as
an undergraduate. It is urged that an additional (applied) course,
requiring introductory physics and calculus as prerequisites, be
included among medical school entrance requirements."
NRC. 2003. "BIO 2010 Transforming Undergraduate Education For Future
Research Biologists." National Academies Press, online at
<http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309085357>.
Redish, E.F. & D. Hammer. 2009a. "Reinventing College Physics for
Biologists: Explicating an Epistemological Curriculum," Am. J. Phys.
77: 629-642; online at
<http://www2.physics.umd.edu/%7Eredish/Papers/RHEpist.pdf> (246 kB).
The abstract reads (my CAPS): "The University of Maryland Physics
Education Research Group (UMd-PERG) carried out a five-year research
project to rethink, observe, and reform introductory algebra-based
(college) physics. This class is one of the Maryland Physics
Department's large service courses, serving primarily life-science
majors. After consultation with biologists, WE RE-FOCUSED THE CLASS
ON HELPING THE STUDENTS LEARN TO THINK SCIENTIFICALLY - to build
coherence, think in terms of mechanism, and to follow the
implications of assumptions. We designed the course to tap into
students' productive conceptual and epistemological resources, based
on a theoretical framework from research on learning. The reformed
class retains its traditional structure in terms of time and
instructional personnel, but we modified existing best-practices
curricular materials, including 'Peer Instruction,' 'Interactive
Lecture Demonstrations,' and 'Tutorials.' We provided
class-controlled spaces for student collaboration, which allowed us
to observe and record students learning directly. We also scanned all
written homework and examinations, and we administered pre-post
conceptual and epistemological surveys. THE REFORMED CLASS ENHANCED
THE STRONG GAINS ON PRE-POST CONCEPTUAL TESTS. . . .
.[[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_inventory>']]. . . . .
PRODUCED BY THE BEST-PRACTICES MATERIALS WHILE OBTAINING
UNPRECEDENTED PRE-POST GAINS ON EPISTEMOLOGICAL SURVEYS. . . .
.[[Elby et al. (1999), "MPEX-II Survey" in the Appendix of Redish &
Hammer (2009b)]]. . . . INSTEAD OF THE TRADITIONAL LOSSES."
Redish, E.F. & D. Hammer. 2009b. "Reinventing College Physics for
Biologists: Explicating an Epistemological Curriculum," Am. J.
Phys.,77: 629-642; same as Redish & Hammer (2009a) PLUS unpublished
APPENDIX; online at
<http://www2.physics.umd.edu/%7Eredish/Papers/RHEpistAppend.pdf> (1
MB)).
.
|
