. 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)). .