HOME HELP FEEDBACK ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit Reader Comments Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Reader Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Sign up for eTOCs Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pursell, D. P. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Pursell, D. P.

Enhancing Interdisciplinary, Mathematics, and Physical Science in an Undergraduate Life Science Program through Physical Chemistry

Georgia Gwinnett College, School of Science and Technology, Lawrenceville, GA 30043

Submitted June 18, 2008; Revised October 14, 2008; Accepted October 17, 2008

Monitoring Editor: Julio F. Turrens

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
BIO2010 advocates enhancing the interdisciplinary, mathematics, and physical science components of the undergraduate biology curriculum. The Department of Chemistry and Life Science at West Point responded by developing a required physical chemistry course tailored to the interests of life science majors. To overcome student resistance to physical chemistry, students were enabled as long-term stakeholders who would shape the syllabus by selecting life science topics of interest to them. The initial 2 yr of assessment indicates that students have a positive view of the course, feel they have succeeded in achieving course outcome goals, and that the course is relevant to their professional future. Instructor assessment of student outcome goal achievement via performance on exams and labs is comparable to that of students in traditional physical chemistry courses. Perhaps more noteworthy, both student and instructor assessment indicate positive trends from year 1 to year 2, presumably due to the student stakeholder effect.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Much has been written on the topic of increasing the interdisciplinary approach to undergraduate biology education, to include enhancing the level of mathematics and physical sciences in life science programs (Kennedy and Gentile, 2003; National Research Council, 2003; Steitz, 2003; Bialek and Botstein, 2004; Gross et al., 2004; May, 2004; Slonczewski and Marusak, 2004). On the whole, it seems most agree that increasing interdisciplinary, mathematics, and physical sciences components of a life science program is a positive development. However, the challenge is balance of components in the curriculum. Professional associations and societies with an interest in undergraduate education have weighed in on this topic. One such organization is the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), which advocates that a course in physical chemistry may be an appropriate addition to life science programs (http://asbmb.org/asbmb/site.nsf/Sub/UndergradCurriculum?Opendocument; Bell, 2003; Boyle, 2003).

Coincident with these discussions in the literature and recognizing the importance of life science in the twenty-first century, the United States Military Academy at West Point added a life science major to its curriculum and changed the Department of Chemistry to the Department of Chemistry and Life Science. All students complete a 30-course core curriculum and an 11-course academic major of their choosing (Office of Policy, Planning, and Analysis, United States Military Academy, 2000; Office of the Dean, United States Military Academy 2002). The life science major is outlined in Figure 1. To enable students achieving the life science major program goals and to meet the intent of BIO2010, the department developed a new Physical Chemistry for Life Science course. The goals in developing this course were twofold: 1) because many students are resistant to physical chemistry, develop the course to maximize student engagement and design input with the intent to make it "their" course and thereby reduce resistance; and 2) to present a rigorous undergraduate physical chemistry course that enhances student application of mathematics and physical science to life science.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. The United States Military Academy life science major.

	METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

With these ideas in mind, the department chose not to use part of its existing, traditional, two-semester physical chemistry sequence taken by chemists and engineers because it is typically math intensive, and students perceive that it has little application to life science. Rather, the department developed a course specifically tailored to life science students that was less math intensive and would connect fundamental concepts in a quantitative way to "their world" as life science majors. Furthermore, the department gave students a stake in the course by agreeing to modify the course topics from year to year based on student feedback. The psychological aspect of this student-driven evolution of course topics should not be minimized, because it helped students formulate the connection of physical chemistry to "their world" in a very direct way.

Before the first-year offering of Physical Chemistry for Life Science, the instructor met with students majoring in life science and discussed that the course would be required for them and taken during their senior year. Student feedback was limited to what they had heard from other students who had taken the traditional physical chemistry course—that it was very challenging, math intensive, and not relevant. Students stated that they felt confident in thermodynamics from their other courses, but otherwise were not familiar with physical chemistry topics. Therefore, students had little input in the design of the initial course beyond stating a significant attitudinal resistance. The instructor then collaborated with other faculty, reviewed the literature, and surveyed available texts before developing the course outcome goals (Table 1) and designing the initial course offering. Faculty also felt students were proficient with thermodynamics from their other courses but that they had little or no experience with quantum/statistical mechanics, advanced kinetics/dynamics, and spectroscopy. These topics were selected as the core of the initial course offering.

Approximately 40 life science majors take the course each year. Recognizing that student engagement and satisfaction are key to success of a physical chemistry course for life science students, the course was taught with three small sections of no more than 15 students rather than as one larger section of 40 students. The same instructor taught all of the sections during the first 2 yr, so this approach required a greater in-class time investment for the instructor than if teaching one large section, but resulted in enhanced opportunities for instructor–student engagement. At the beginning of the course, students and instructor essentially agreed to a contract whereby students committed to preparing according to a detailed syllabus of lesson objectives, readings, terms and definitions, math refreshers, and homework problems before class, and the instructor committed to flexibility in facilitating student learning during class (Ertwine and Palladino, 1987; Dougherty, 1997; Toth and Montagna, 2002; The Teaching Professor, 2003). Each class period was 55 min long and because students had prepared in advance, there was sufficient time for discussion, exploration of more challenging topics in depth, and student recitation under the guiding and mentoring eye of the instructor, typically via student problem-solving chalkboard sessions. Lecture was rarely used and only when introducing a particularly challenging topic. The lab program of seven, 2-h labs was integrated with the class and reinforced classroom topics.

To provide perspective on the content of the course, the outline for year 1 of the course is shown in Figure 2. Course rigor is on par with what one finds in physical chemistry texts targeted to life science audiences (Atkins and de Paula, 2001; Tinoco et al., 2002; Atkins and de Paula, 2006; Hammes, 2007). In addition to daily readings and homework problems, students also completed problem sets (Figure 3) that provided additional mathematics review and practice. Students often chose to work collaboratively on the problem sets, further building teamwork and course esprit. Student achievement of the course outcome goals was assessed based on performance on exams and labs. As examples of the level of rigor of the course, the exams for year 2 are shown in Figure 4. The exams challenged students to apply material learned through the daily lessons in an integrated manner and were based upon the daily assignments, classroom activities, homework sets, and labs. Students also took a comprehensive final exam.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Physical Chemistry for Life Science course outline.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Example problem sets.

View larger version (120K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Example hour exams. Format is condensed by removing student work space.

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
To illustrate the student-driven evolution of the course content, the course topics and number of lessons for each of the first 3 yr are summarized in Table 2. Although students had little input on the syllabus for the first year, students drove the evolution of topics for years 2 and 3 to more closely meet their interests so that in the course's third year the focus would be application of physical chemistry to analytical, spectroscopic, diagnostic, and surgical techniques used in the health professions, such as expanded treatment of MRI, positron emission tomography, and laser techniques. As course stakeholders, students determined the topics most interesting to them, enabling them to make direct connections to their world so that they would be more willing to take on the challenge of the physical chemistry course than if the instructor had dictated the course topics.

All students completed an anonymous, Web-based survey (both Likert scale and free text response) at the end of the course. The survey probed student attitudes about the course and how well students felt they had achieved the course objectives. Table 3 summarizes student course impressions after the first and second years of the course. The survey data indicate that for both years students overall had a positive impression of the course, noting that it was stimulating, challenging, increased motivation to continue learning, increased critical thinking, and encouraged collaborative learning. Of particular note, student impression from the first year to the second year improved in every survey category, with an average favorable (strongly agree + agree) increase in each category of 14%. Although not proven by the data, one may infer that the more favorable student impressions in the second year were due in part to the student-driven evolution of topics covered via the "stakeholder effect," having the effect of making the course more relevant to their world. The survey also asked students how well they believed they had accomplished the five course outcome goals, with the data summarized in Table 4. The majority of students felt they accomplished the course goals in each of the first 2 yr. Again, the students' perceived accomplishment increased for all five outcome goals from the first to the second year, with an average favorable increase for each objective of 24%. Again, one may surmise that the perceived accomplishment increased in part because students felt they were stakeholders in the design of the course. The instructor assessed student accomplishment of the course outcome goals, and hence enhanced mathematics and physical science in life sciences, through student performance on exams and laboratories, with percent scores aggregated by outcome goal. The data are presented as averages by course outcome goal and summarized in Table 5. Based on the instructor's experience in comparison with traditional physical chemistry courses and scores, the average scores indicate respectable student achievement. Perhaps more significantly and consistent with student perceptions, student performance averages increased from the first to second year for all course outcome goals, with an average favorable increase of 5% for each objective.

"This is only the third course that I have taken here that stimulated me intellectually (Modern Physics, Orgo are the other two). In general, I appreciate its difficulty as a challenge, and it motivated me to really try and understand the material, as opposed to the normal spec and dump [memorize and forget] study method."

"This course is applicable to my future because it gave me more critical-thinking skills and taught me to apply a lot of knowledge that I have learned in other life science classes."

"I think this course is applicable to my future because it forces one to think outside the box, the one with the particle in it. Really, it sparked interest in the reasoning behind chemistry equations and stimulated my critical thinking and problem solving abilities."

"The lab really helped me understand a lot of the theories we learned in class. There was not a lab for everything, but the concepts that were tested on the labs were the ones that I understood the best."

"Don't take it. Go for additional instruction. Do the homework. Ask lots of questions."

"For those of us applying to medical school, this grade will be seen. Have to curve the grades."

"This is the most dissatisfying course I have taken in my major. I did not see its relevance."

"I am a life science major. This course is useless for me. Let a chemistry major take it."

"This course was extremely challenging and it's been a great accomplishment completing it."

"As much as I tried to convince myself that I would need to learn the material to become a good physician, I was just never fully convinced of it."

"My classmates were my lifesavers during this course. I could not have made it through without collaboration during board problems, study groups before assignments or graded events, or lab partners to reassure me I was on the right track."

"Just do it, all the hype doesn't mean it's that bad, and remember that the person next to you will be sucking just as bad the whole time."

There is no doubt that the course was a challenging, rigorous presentation of physical chemistry concepts. Students appreciated the challenge and the result—an enhanced appreciation and understanding of life science from a fundamental, quantitative perspective.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
As indicated by the assessment, student satisfaction and success increased from first to second year as the course evolved into one shaped by student feedback. Students overwhelmingly supported the small section sizes rather than a single, large section. The planned third year of the course includes even more health-related topics, and anticipation is that the positive trend will continue. Of the second year student cohort, 17 students went directly to medical school upon graduation. Of this medical school cohort, 67% agreed that the course was relevant to their future as a physician. For those intending future graduate school attendance, 71% found the course relevant. These results are particularly welcome as, based on instructor experience, undergraduate life science majors question the rationale for a required physical chemistry course. After completing the course, however, a significant majority found that the knowledge, skills, and abilities they had learned in the course were relevant to their future professional pursuits. In conclusion, the approach to designing and implementing the Physical Chemistry for Life Science course proved successful. Student resistance to physical chemistry was reduced, presumably through the stakeholder effect as students drove the evolution of the course to one more aligned with their life science interests. As the course evolved, students perceived they had better achieved the course outcome goals, and instructor assessment of their performance on exams supports this perception. As a result, students were stimulated and challenged through the study and application of mathematics and physical science concepts in their life science program of study.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
This article is based on the 2-yr period during which I designed, instructed, and assessed the new Physical Chemistry for Life Science course for the Department of Chemistry and Life Science at the United States Military Academy at West Point. I have since retired from the Army and joined the faculty of Georgia Gwinnett College.

	FOOTNOTES

 
Address correspondence to: David P. Pursell (dpursell{at}ggc.usg.edu)

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Atkins, P., and de Paula, J. (2001). Physical Chemistry, 7th ed., New York: W. H. Freeman.

Atkins, P., and de Paula, J. (2006). Physical Chemistry for the Life Sciences, New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bell, E. (2003). Implementing the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology recommended curriculum in a biochemistry and molecular biology degree program hosted jointly by a chemistry and biology department. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 31, 225.[CrossRef]

Bialek, W., and Botstein, D. (2004). Introductory science and mathematics education for 21st-century biologists. Science 303, 788–790.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Boyle, J. (2003). Implementing the recommended curriculum in a biochemistry and molecular biology degree program in a biochemistry and molecular biology department. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 31, 283.[CrossRef]

Derrick, M., and Derrick, F. (2002). Predictors of success in physical chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 79, 1013–1016.[CrossRef]

Dougherty, R. (1997). Grade/performance contracts, enhanced communication: effects on student performance, retention, and attitudes in general chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 74, 722.[CrossRef]

Ertwine, D., and Palladino, G. (1987). The Thayer concept vs. lecture, an alternative to PSI. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 16, 524.

Gross, L., Brent, R., and Hoy, R. (2004). The interface of mathematics and biology. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 85–92.[CrossRef][Medline]

Hahn, K., and Polik, W. (2004). Factors influencing success in physical chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 81, 567–572.[CrossRef]

Hammes, G. (2007). Physical Chemistry for the Biological Sciences, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kennedy, D., and Gentile, J. (2003). Is Bio2010 the right blueprint for the biology of the future? Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 224–227.[CrossRef]

May, R. (2004). Uses and abuses of mathematics in biology. Science 303, 790–793.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Nicoll, G., and Francisco, J. (2001). An investigation of the factors influencing student performance in physical chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 78, 99–102.[CrossRef]

National Research Council (2003). BIO2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10497.html (accessed 23 December 2008).

Office of the Dean, United States Military Academy (2002). Educating Future Army Officers for a Changing World. www.dean.usma.edu/DeansCorner/default.cfm (accessed 23 December 2008).

Office of Policy, Planning, and Analysis, United States Military Academy (2000). Strategic Vision 2010. www.usma.edu/superintendent/letters/christman/Briefs/Vision2010/vision2010.pdf (accessed 23 December 2008).

Slonczewski, J., and Marusak, R. (2004). A response to BIO 2010, transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists, from the perspective of the biochemistry and molecular biology major program at Kenyon College. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 32, 151–155.[CrossRef]

Sözbilir, M. (2004). What makes physical chemistry difficult? J. Chem. Educ. 81, 573–578.[CrossRef]

Steitz, J. (2003). Bio2010-New challenges for biology educators. Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 87–91.[CrossRef][Medline]

The Teaching Professor (2003). Syllabus quiz reduces misunderstandings down the road. 17, 2.

Tinoco, I., Sauer, K., Wang, J., and Puglisi, J. (2002). Physical Chemistry: Principles and Applications in Biological Sciences, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Toth, L., and Montagna, L. (2002). Class size and achievement in higher education: a summary of current research. Coll. Stud. J. 36, 253.

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit Reader Comments Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Reader Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Sign up for eTOCs Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pursell, D. P. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Pursell, D. P.