Integrated biology and undergraduate science education: A new biology education for the twenty-first century?

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 10-16

  Labov, Jay B ^a   Reid, Ann H ^a,c   Yamamoto, Keith R ^b  

^a NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c American Academy of Microbiology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; MATHEMATICS; PERSONNEL; RESEARCH; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

BIOLOGY; CURRICULUM; FACULTY; MATHEMATICS; RESEARCH; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; STUDENTS;

EID: 77749280602     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.09-12-0092     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Allen, D., and Tanner, K. (2007). Putting the Horse Back in Front of the Cart: Using Visions and Decisions about High-Quality Learning Experiences to Drive Course Design. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6, 85-89. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/6/2/85?maxtoshow&HITS10&hits10&RESULTFORMAT&fulltexthuman learning&andorexactfulltextand&searchid1&FIRSTINDEX0&sortspecrelevance&resourcetypeHWCIT (accessed 9 December 2009).
2. Association of American Medical Colleges and Howard Hughes Medical Institute (2009). Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians: Report of the AAMC-HHMI Committee, Washington, DC, andChevyChase, MD.www.hhmi.org/grants/pdf/08-209_AAMC-HHMI_report.pdf (accessed 5 December 2009).
3. Bialek, W., and Botstein, D. (2004). Introductory science and mathematics education for 21st-century biologists. Science 303, 788-790.www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/303/5659/788 (accessed 9 December 2009).
4. Brent, R. (2004). Points of view: the interface of mathematics and biology: intuition and innumeracy. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 88-90. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/3/2/88 (accessed 9 December 2009).
5. Cohen, J. E. (2004). Mathematics is biology's next microscope, only better; biology is mathematics' next physics, only better. PLoS Biol. 2, e439. www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0020439 (accessed 9 December 2009).
6. DeHaan, R. L. (2009). Teaching creativity and inventive problem solving in science. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 8, 172-181. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/8/3/172?maxtoshow&HITS10&hits10&RESULTFORMAT&fulltexthumancognition&andorexactfulltextand&searchid1&FIRSTINDEX0&sortspecrelevance&resourcetypeHWCIT (accessed 9 December 2009).
7. Gross, L. J. (2004). Points of view: the interface of mathematics and biology: interdisciplinarity and the undergraduate biology curriculum: finding a balance. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 85-87. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/3/2/85 (accessed 9 December 2009).
8. Handelsman et al. (2006). Scientific Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Freeman and Co.
9. Hoy, R. (2004). Points of view: the interface of mathematics and biology: new math for biology is the old math. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 90-92. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/3/2/90 (accessed 9 December 2009).
10. Hulleman, C., and Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science 326, 1410-1412.
11. Jurkowski, A., Reid, A. H., and Labov, J. B. (2007). Metagenomics: a call for bringing a new science into the classroom (while it's still new). CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6, 260-265. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/6/4/260?maxtoshow&HITS10&hits10&RESULTFORMAT&author1jurkowski&andorexactfulltextand&searchid1&FIRSTINDEX0&sortspecrelevance&resourcetypeHWCIT (accessed 5 December 2009).
12. Labov, J. B., Singer, S. R., George, M. D., Schweingruber, H. A., and Hilton, M. L. (2009). From the national academies: effective practices in undergraduate STEM education part 1, examining the evidence. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 8: 157-161. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/8/3/157?maxtoshow&HITS10&hits10&RESULTFORMAT1&author1labov&andorexacttitleand&andorexacttitleabsand&andorexactfulltextand&searchid1&FIRSTINDEX0&sortspecrelevance&resourcetypeHWCIT, HWELTR (accessed 13 December 2009).
13. Mervis, J. (2009a). Revisions to AP courses expected to have domino effect. Science 325, 1488-1498. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5947/1488.pdf (accessed 10 December 2009).
14. Mervis, J. (2009b). Universities begin to rethink university biology courses. Science 325, 527. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5940/527-a.pdf (accessed 10 December 2009).
15. Morse, D., and Jutras, F. (2008). Implementing concept-based learning in a large undergraduate classroom. CBE Life Sci Educ. 7, 243-253. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/7/2/243?maxtoshow&HITS10&hits10&RESULTFORMAT&fulltexthumancognition&andorexactfulltextand&searchid1&FIRSTINDEX0&sortspecrelevance&resourcetypeHWCIT (accessed 9 December 2009).
16. National Academy of Engineering (NAE) (2002). Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id10250 (accessed 9 December 2009).
17. NAE (2007). Exploring Opportunities in Green Chemistry and Engineering Education: A Workshop Summary to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id11843 (accessed 9 December 2009).
18. NAE (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id12635 (accessed 9 December 2009).
19. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id9128 (accessed 5 December 2009).
20. NRC (1997). Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id5287 (accessed 5 December 2009).
21. NRC (1998). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id6453 (accessed 5 December 2009).
22. NRC (2000). Educating Teachers of Science, Mathematics, and Technology: New Practices for the New Millennium, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id9832 (accessed 5 December 2009).
23. NRC (2000b). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id9853 (accessed 5 December 2009).
24. NRC (2002). Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science for U.S. High School Students, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id10129 (accessed 5 December 2009).
25. NRC (2003a). Bio 2010, Transforming Undergraduate Biology Education for Future Research Biologists, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id10497 (accessed 5 December 2009).
26. NRC (2003b). Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id10024 (accessed 5 December 2009).
27. NRC (2003c). Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id10711 (accessed December 5, 2009).
28. NRC (2005). America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record[lwoen]id11311 (accessed 5 December 2009).
29. NRC (2008). The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st-Century Biology: Catalyzing Transformative Research, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id12026 (accessed 5 December 2009).
30. NRC (2009). A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id12764 (accessed 5 December 2009).
31. National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_keynsf96139 (accessed 5 December 2009).
32. Pfund, C., et al. (2009). Summer institute to improve biology education at research universities. Science 324,470-471. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/324/5926/470 (accessed 9 December 2009)
33. Steen, L. A. (ed.) (2005). Math and Bio 2010, Linking Undergraduate Disciplines, Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. http://books.google.com/books?hlen&lr&idJjK0bqx6Xa8C&oifnd&pgPR7&dq%22Steen%22%22Mathandbio2010,linkingundergraduatedisciplines%22&otsmGNta2SBi_&sigM7WCVFHmN0osVmXY1sva0bI4YPQ#vonepage&q&ffalse (accessed 9 December 2009).
34. Wood, W. B. (2009). Revising the AP biology curriculum. Science 325,1627-1628. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/325/5948/1627.pdf (accessed 10 December 2009).
35. Woodin, T., Smith, D., and Allen, D. (2009). Transforming undergraduate biology education for all students: an action plan for the twenty-first century. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 8, 271-273. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/8/4/271#B12 (accessed 5 December 2009).