Infusing quantitative approaches throughout the biological sciences curriculum

References

• President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Report to the President). 2012. Available from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_feb.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong E, Thompson K. Strategies for increasing minorities in the sciences: a University of Maryland, College Park, model. J Women Minorities Sci Eng. 2003;9:159–167.
   Google Scholar
• Braswell JS, Lutkus AD, Grigg WS, Santapau SL, Tay-Lim B, Johnson M. The nation's report card: mathematics 2000. Washington (DC): National Center for Education Statistics; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Hoyles C, Newman K, Noss R. Changing patterns of transition from school to university mathematics. Inter J Math Educ Sci Technol. 2001;32:829–845.
   Google Scholar
• Smith A. Making mathematics count. London: The Stationery Office; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Kajander A, Lovric M. Transition from secondary to tertiary mathematics: McMaster University experience. IJMEST. 2005;36:149–160.
   Google Scholar
• Engelbrecht J, Harding A. The impact of the transition to outcomes-based teaching on university preparedness in mathematics in South Africa. MEdRJ. 2008;20:57–70.
   Google Scholar
• Gross L. Quantitative training for life-science students. Bioscience. 1994;44:59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastings A, Palmer MA. Mathematics and biology: a bright future for biologists and mathematicians? Science. 2003;299:5615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jungck JR. Challenges, connection, complexities: educating for collaboration. In: Steen LA, editor. Math & Bio 2010: linking undergraduate disciplines. Washington (DC): Mathematical Association of America; 2005. p. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (NRC). BIO 2010: transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Steen LA. Math & Bio 2010: linking undergraduate disciplines. Washington (DC): Mathematical Association of America; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Vision and change: a call to action. Washington (DC): AAAS; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Usher DC, Driscoll TA, Dhurjati P, Pelesko JA, Rossi LF, Schleiniger G, Pusecker K, White HB. A transformative model for undergraduate quantitative biology education. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9:181–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duffus D, Olifer A. Introductory life science mathematics and quantitative neuroscience courses. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9:370–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins JC. On a calculus-based statistics course for life science students. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9:298–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depelteau AM, Joplin KH, Govett A, Miller III HA, Seier E. SYMBIOSIS: development, implementation, and assessment of a model curriculum across biology and mathematics at the introductory level. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9:342–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caudill L, Hill A, Hoke K, Lipan O. Impact of interdisciplinary undergraduate research in mathematics and biology on the development of a new course integrating five STEM disciplines. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9:212–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews KE, Adams P, Goos M. Using the principles of BIO2010 to develop an introductory, interdisciplinary course for biology students. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9:290–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray Speth E, Momsen JL, Moyerbrailean GA, Ebert-May D, Long TM, Wyse S, Linton D. 1, 2, 3, 4: infusing quantitative literacy into introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9:323–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson KV. Academic progress and performance of students in the College of Life Sciences. Unpublished report. 1995.
   Google Scholar
• AAMC–HHMI Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians Committee. Scientific foundations for future physicians. Washington (DC): American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI); 2009. Available from: http://www.hhmi.org/grants/pdf/08-209_AAMC-HHMI_report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson HM, Moore DL, Anaya G, Bird E. Student learning outcomes assessment: a component of program assessment. Am J Pharm Educ. 2005;69:256–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson KC, Marbach-Ad G, Fagan WF, Thompson K, Shields P. MathBench Biology Modules: using interactive web-based modules to infuse mathematics into the undergraduate biology curriculum. J Coll Sci Teaching. 2009;38:34–39.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson KV, Nelson KC, Marbach-Ad G, Keller M, Fagan WF. Online interactive teaching modules enhance quantitative proficiency of introductory biology students. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2010;9:277–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watkins J, Coffey JE, Redish EF, Cooke TJ. Disciplinary authenticity: enriching the reform of introductory physics courses for life science students. Phys Rev ST Phys Educ Res. 2012;8:010112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall KL, Watkins JE, Coffey JE, Cooke TJ, Redish EF. Examining the impact of student expectations on undergraduate biology education reform. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 2011 April 12; New Orleans (LA); p. 1–10. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.6349
   Google Scholar
• Adler FR. Modeling the dynamics of life: calculus and probability for life scientists. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove (CA): Brooks Cole; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Neuhauser C. Calculus for biology and medicine. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Education; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Preview guide for MCAT²⁰¹⁵. Washington (DC): AAMC; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Redish EF, Hammer D. Reinventing college physics for biologists: explicating an epistemological curriculum. Am J Phys. 2009;77:629–642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redish EF, Cooke TJ. Learning each others’ ropes: negotiating interdisciplinary authenticity. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2013;12:175–186.
   Google Scholar
• Svoboda J, Sawtelle V, Geller VB, Turpen C. A framework for analyzing interdisciplinary tasks: implications for student learning and curricular design. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2013;12:187–205.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyfus BW, Geller BD, Sawtelle V, Svoboda J, Turpen C, Redish EF. Students' interdisciplinary reasoning about “high-energy bonds” and ATP. In: Engelhardt PV, Churukian AD, Rebello NS, editors. AIP Conference Proceedings 2013(Jan);1513:122–125.
   Google Scholar
• Tanner K, Allen D. Approaches to cell biology teaching: a primer on standards. Cell Biol Educ. 2002;1:95–100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Creech LR, Sweeder RD. Analysis of student performance in large enrollment life science courses. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2012;11:386–391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright R, Cotner S, Winkel A. Minimal impact of organic chemistry prerequisite on student performance in introductory biochemistry. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2009;8:44–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Boer H., Bosker RJ, van der Werf MPC. Sustainability of teacher expectation bias effects on long-term student performance. J Educ Psyc. 2010;102:168–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar