A framework for analyzing interdisciplinary tasks: Implications for student learning and curricular design

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 187-205

  Gouvea, Julia Svoboda ^a,b   Sawtelle, Vashti ^b   Geller, Benjamin D ^b   Turpen, Chandra ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878689832     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.12-08-0135     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2010). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action.
2. Association of AmericanMedical Colleges-Howard HughesMedical Institute (2009). Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians: Report of the AAMC-HHMI Committee, Washington, DC: AAMC.
3. Bialek W, Botstein D (2004). Introductory science and mathematics education for 21st-century biologists. Science 303, 788-790.
4. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, expanded edition, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
5. Brown AL (1992). Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J Learn Sci 2, 141-178.
6. Bustamante C (2004). Of torques, forces, and protein machines. Protein Sci 13, 3061-3065.
7. Cecconi C, Shank EA, Bustamante C, Marqusee S (2005). Direct observation of the three-state folding of a single protein molecule. Science 309, 2057-2060.
8. Cobb P, Confrey J, DiSessa AA, Lehrer R, Schauble L (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educ Res 32, 9-13.
9. Collins A, Joseph D, Bielaczyc K (2004). Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. J Learn Sci 13, 15-42.
10. di Sessa AA (2002). Why "conceptual ecology" is a good idea. In: Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice, ed. M Limon and L Mason, Boston: Kluwer Academic, 29-60.
11. Dreyfus BW, Geller BD, Sawtelle V, Svoboda J, Turpen C, Redish EF (2013a). Students' interdisciplinary reasoning about "high energy bonds" and ATP. In: 2012 Physics Education Research Conference, AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1513, New York: AIP, 122-125.
12. Dreyfus BW, Redish EF, Watkins J (2013b). Students' views ofmacroscopic and microscopic energy in physics and biology. In: 2012 Physics Education Research Conference, AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1513, New York: AIP, 179-182.
13. Dunbar K (2000). How scientists think in the real world: implications for science education. J Appl Dev Psychol 21, 49-58.
14. Ford MJ, Forman EA(2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Rev Res Educ 30, 1-32.
15. Gross LJ, Brent R, Hoy R (2004). Points of view: the interface of mathematics and biology. Cell Biol Educ 3, 85-92.
16. Gupta A, Danielak BA, Elby A (2010). Understanding students' difficulties in terms of coupled epistemological and affective dynamics. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, S3G-1-S3G-6.
17. Hake RR (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditionalmethods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66, 64-74.
18. Hall KL (2013). Examining the effects of students classroom expectations on undergraduate biology course reform. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
19. Hall KL, Watkins JE, Coffey JE, Cooke TJ, Redish EF (2011). Examining the impact of student expectations on undergraduate biology education reform. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association National Meeting, held April 2011 in New Orleans, LA.
20. Hatano G, Inagaki K (1986). Two courses of expertise. In: Child Development and Education in Japan, ed. HWStevenson, H Azuma, and K Hakuta, New York: Freeman, 262-272.
21. Ivanitskaya L, Clark D, Montgomery G, Primeau R (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. InnovHigh Educ 27, 95-112.
22. Knight JK, Wood WB (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4, 298-310.
23. Knorr-Cetina K (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. National Research Council (2003). BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Biology Education for Future Research Biologists, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
25. Nersessian NJ (1999). Model-based reasoning in conceptual change. In:Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery, ed. L Magnani, N Nersessian, and P Thagard, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 5-22.
26. Nersessian NJ (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning. In: The Cognitive Basis of Science, ed. P Carruthers, S Stich, and M Siegal, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 133-153.
27. Paxson TD (1996). Modes of interaction between disciplines. J Gen Educ 45, 79-94.
28. Redish EF, Cooke TJ (2013). Learning each other's ropes: negotiating interdisciplinary authenticity. CBE Life Sci Educ 12, 175-186.
29. Redish EF, Hammer D (2009). Reinventing college physics for biologists: explicating an epistemological curriculum. Am J Phys 77, 629.
30. Redish EF, Saul JM, Steinberg RN (1998). Student expectations in introductory physics. Am J Phys 66, 212-224.
31. Sternberg R (2003). What is an "expert student"? Educ Res 32, 5-9.
32. Stevens R, Wineburg S, Herrenkohl L, Bell P (2005). Comparative understanding of school subjects: past, present, and future. Rev Educ Res 75, 125-157.
33. Watkins J, Coffey JE, Redish EF, Cooke TJ (2012). Disciplinary authenticity: enriching the reforms of introductory physics courses for life-science students. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res 8, 010112.
34. Wong SL, Hodson D (2009). From the horse's mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Sci Educ 93, 109-130.