Educational challenges of molecular life science: Characteristics and implications for education and research

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 25-33

  Tibell, Lena A E ^a   Rundgren, Carl Johan ^a  

^a LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICINE; EDUCATION; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; RESEARCH; TEACHING;

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE DISCIPLINES; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; RESEARCH; TEACHING;

EID: 77749327667     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.08-09-0055     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (2008). Biochemistry/Molecular Biology Education: A Report to the Teagle Foundation. www.asbmb.org/Page.aspx?id106&linkidentifierid&itemid106. (accessed 14 January 2010).
2. American Society for Microbiology (2006). ASM's Curriculum Recommendations: Introductory Course in Microbiology. www.asm.org/index.php?optioncom_content&viewarticle&id10051&Itemid9999.(accessed 14 January 2010).
3. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., and Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. J. Biol. Educ. 33, 84-86.
4. Banet, E., and Ayuso, E. (2000). Teaching genetics at secondary school: a strategy for teaching about the location of inheritance information. Sci. Educ. 84, 313-351.
5. Bell, E. (2001). The future of education in the molecular life sciences. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2, 221-223.
6. Bivall Persson, P., Tibell, L., Cooper, M., and Ynnerman, A. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of Haptic Visualization in Biomolecular Education Feeling Molecular Specificity in a Docking Task. Paper presented at the 12th IOSTE Conference, Penang, Malaysia.
7. Brown, B. A., and Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language: a "content-first" approach to science teaching. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 529-553.
8. Cakir, Ö, Geban, Ö., and Yuruk, N. (2002). Effectiveness of conceptual change text-oriented instruction on students' understanding of cellular respiration concepts. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 30, 239-243.
9. Chang, S. N., and Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 30, 1753-1773.
10. Cheesman, K., French, D., Cheesman, I., Swails, N., and Thomas, J. (2007). Is there any common curriculum for undergraduate biology majors in the 21st century? Bioscience 57, 516-522.
11. Chen, S. Y., and Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology: students knowledge and attitudes in the UK and Taiwan. J. Biol. Educ. 34, 17-23.
12. Collins, J. P. (2002). May you live in interesting times: using multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary programs to cope with change in life sciences. Bioscience 52, 75-83.
13. Dawson, V., and Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students' attitudes towards biotechnology processes. J. Biol. Educ. 38,7-12.
14. Dreyfus, A., and Jungwirth, E. (1988). The cell concept of 10th graders: curricular expectations and reality. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 10, 49-55.
15. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. H. (1996). Young Peoples Images of Science, Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
16. du Plessis, L., Anderson, T. R., and Grayson, D. J. (2002). Student difficulties with the use of arrow symbolism in biological diagrams. In: Proceedings of the IVth ERIDOB Conference, Toulouse, France.
17. Duit, R. (2008). Bibliography STCSE, Students' and Teachers' Conceptions and Science Education, Kiel, Germany: Institut fur Padagogik der Naturwissenschaften. www.ipn.uni.kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html (accessed 10 December 2009).
18. Ekborg, M. (2003). Naturvetenskaplig utbildning for ha˚llbar utveckling?: en longitudinell studie av hur studenter pa˚ grundskollararprogrammet utvecklar for miljoundervisning relevanta kunskaper i naturkunskap. Goteborg, Sweden: Goteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 188.
19. Ericson, T. (1993). Artificial realities as data visualization environments. In: Virtual Reality: Applications and Explorations, ed. A. Wexelblat, New York: Academic Press Professional, 1-22.
20. Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: amino acids and translation. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 22, 53-62.
21. Flores, F., Tovar, M. E., and Gallegos, L. (2003). Representation of the cell and its processes in high school students: an integrated view. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 269-286.
22. Fredriksen, J. R., and White, B. Y. (1992). Mental models and understanding: a problem for science education. In: New Directions in Educational Technology, ed. E. Scanlon and T. O'Shea, New York: Springer, 211-226.
23. Garvin-Doxas, K., Klymkowsky, M., and Elrod, S. (2007). Building, using, and maximizing the impact of concept inventories in the biological sciences: report on a National Science Foundation-sponsored Conference on the Construction of Concept Inventories in the Biological Sciences. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 6, 277-282.
24. Gericke, N. M., and Hagberg, M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students' understanding of genetics. Sci. Educ. 16, 849-881.
25. Gilbert, J. K., and Boulter, C. J. (1998). Learning science through models and modeling. In: International Handbook of Science Education, ed. B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 53-66.
26. Gordin, D. N., and Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. J. Learn. Sci. 4, 249-279.
27. Gupthar, A. S., and Anderson, T. R. (2003). Student difficulties associated with DNA-strand nomenclature and function. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Mbabane, Swaziland, 11-15 January, 2003, Vol. 1, 361-365. www.phy.uct.ac.za/saarmste/conferences.htm.
28. Harrison, A. G., and Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 1011-1026.
29. Howitt, S., Anderson, T., Costa, M., Hamilton, S., and Wright, T. (2008). A concept inventory for molecular life sciences: how will it help your teaching practice? Australian Biochemist, 39, 14-17.
30. Huang, P. C. (2000). The integrative nature of biochemistry: challenges of biochemical education in the USA. Biol. Educ. 28, 64-70.
31. Hull, T. L., Anderson, T. R., and Grayson, D. J. (2002). Student difficulties with a diagram of the complement pathways in the immune system. In: C. Malcolm and C. Lubisi (eds), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, University of Natal, Durban, 22-26 January, 2002, 129-135. www.phy.uct.ac.za/saarmste/conferences.htm.
32. Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: differences between experts and novices. Complexity 6, 41-49.
33. Jallinoja, P., and Aro, A. R. (2000). Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes. J. Health Commun. 5, 29-39.
34. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 7, 75-83.
35. Kattmann, U. (2005). Lernen mit anthropomorphen Vorstellungen? Ergebnisse von Untersuschungen zur Didaktischen Rekonstruktion in der Biologie. Z. Didaktik Naturwiss. 11, 165-174.
36. Knippels, M.-C.P.J., Waarlo, A. J., and Boersma, K. T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. J. Biol. Educ. 39, 108-112.
37. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learn. Instruct. 13, 205-226.
38. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., and Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. J. Learn. Sci. 9, 105-143.
39. Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
40. Larkin, J. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In: Mental Models, ed. D. Gerner and A. Stevens, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 75-98.
41. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
42. Lewis, J., Leach, J., and Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). What's in the cell? Young people's understanding of the genetic relationship between cells within an individual. J. Biol. Educ. 34, 129-132.
43. Lewis, J., and Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance do students see any relationship? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 177-195.
44. Lonergan, T. A. (2000). The photosynthetic dark reactions do not operate in the dark. Am. Biol. Teach. 62, 166-170.
45. Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learn. Instruct. 13, 157-176.
46. Maddox, J. (1998). What Remains To Be Discovered. Mapping the Secrets of the Universe, the Origins of Life, and the Future of the Human Race, New York: The Free Press.
47. Marbach-Ad, G. (2001). Attempting to break the code in student comprehension of genetic concepts. J. Biol. Educ. 35, 183-189.
48. Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., and Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 273-292.
49. Marek, E. A. (1986). They misunderstand, but they'll pass. Sci. Teach. 53, 32-35.
50. Marmaroti, P., and Galanopoulou, D. (2006). Pupils' understanding of photosynthesis: a questionnaire for the simultaneous assessment of all aspects. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 283-403.
51. Martins, I., and Ogborn, J. (1997). Metaphorical reasoning about genetics. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 19, 47-63.
52. Menger, F. M., Zana, R., and Lindman, B. (1998). Portraying the structure of micelles. J. Chem. Educ. 75, 115.
53. Millar, R., and Osborne, J. (ed.) (1998). Beyond 2000, Science Education for the Future. London, United Kingdom: Kings College, School of Education.
54. Minogue, J., and Gail Jones, M. (2006). Haptics in education: exploring an untapped sensory modality. Rev. Educ. Res. 76, 317-348.
55. Minogue, J., and Gail Jones, M. (2008). Measuring the impact of haptic feedback using the SOLO taxonomy. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 30, 1-20.
56. National Research Council (2003). Bio 2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. www.nap.edu/books/0309085357/html/ (accessed 10 December 2009).
57. Nerdel, C., Prechtl, H., and Bayrhuber, H. (2002). Interactive animations and understanding of biological processes: an empirical investigation on the effectiveness of computer-assisted learning environments in biology instruction. Paper presented at the Biology Education for the real world. Student-Teacher-Citizen. Proceedings of the IVth ERIDOB conference, Toulouse, France.
58. Olivera, G. A., Sousa, C. R., Da Poian, A. T., and Luz, M.R.M.P. (2003). Students misconception about energy-yielding metabolism: glucose as the sole metabolic fuel. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 27, 97-101.
59. Ozay, E., and Oztas, H. (2003). Secondary students' interpretations of photosynthesis and plant nutrition. J. Biol. Educ. 37, 68-70.
60. Öztap, H., O¨zay, E., and Öztap, F. (2003). Teaching cell division to secondary school students: an investigation of difficulties experienced by Turkish teachers. J. Biol. Educ. 38, 13-15.
61. Pallant, A., and Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 13, 51-66.
62. Pintó, R., and Amteller, J. (2002). Students' difficulties in reading images. Comparing results from four national research groups. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 333-341.
63. Portin, P. (1993). The concept of the gene: short history and present status. Q. Rev. Biol. 68, 173-223.
64. Redish, E. (1993). The implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics. Am. J. Teach. Phys. 62, 796-803.
65. Reif, E., and Larkin, J. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: comparison and learning implications. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28,733-760.
66. Roberts, J. R., Hagedorn, E., Dillenburg, P., Patrick, M., and Herman, T. (2005). Physical models enhance molecular three-di-mensional literacy in an introductory biochemistry course. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 33, 105-110.
67. Rundgren, C.-J., Hirsch, R., and Tibell, L.A.E. (2009). Death of metaphors of life science?-a study of upper secondary and tertiary students' use of metaphors and help-words in their meaning-making of scientific content. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 10, Article 3.
68. Rundgren, C.-J., and Tibell, L.A.E. (2009). Critical features of visualizations of transport through the cell membrane an empirical study of upper secondary and tertiary students' meaning-making of a still image and an animation. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. doi:10.1007/ s10763-009-9171-1.
69. Salzman, M. C., Dede, C., Loftin, R. B., and Chem, J. (1999). A model for understanding how virtual reality aids complex conceptual learning. Presence 8, 293-316.
70. Schonborn, K. J., and Anderson, T. R. (2003). Biochemistry students' difficulties with chemical coupling. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, Mbabane, Swaziland, 11-15 January, 2003, 89-95. www.phy.uct.ac.za/saarmste/conferences.htm.
71. Schonborn, K. J., and Anderson, T. R. (2006). The importance of visual literacy in the education of biochemists. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 34, 94-102.
72. Sjøberg, S. (1998). Naturfag som allmenndannelse: en kritisk fagdidaktikk, Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal.
73. Slotta, J. D., and Chi, M.T.H. (2006). Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cogn. Instr. 24,261-289.
74. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., and Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics concept assessment: a new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 7, 422-430. www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/full/7/4/422.
75. Steitz, J. A. (2003). Bio2010 new challenges for biology educators. Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 87-91.
76. Sutton, C. (1995). Words, Science and Learning, Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
77. Tamir, P., and Zohar, A. (1993). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Sci. Educ. 75, 57-67.
78. Tang, B. L., and Teng, F.Y.H. (2005). Concepts of protein sorting or targeting signals and membrane topology in undergraduate teaching. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 33, 188-193.
79. Tasker, R. F., and Dalton, R. M. (2006). Research into practice: visualisation of the molecular world using animations. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 7, 141-159.
80. Tversky, B., Morrison, J.-B., and Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 57, 247-262.
81. Venville, G. J., Gribble, S. J., and Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children's understanding of genetic concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Sci. Educ. 89, 614-633.
82. Voet, J. G., Bell, E., Boyer, R., Boyle, J., O'Leary, M., and Zimmerman, J. K. (2003). Mini-Series: The ASBMB recommended biochemistry and molecular biology undergraduate curriculum and its implementation. Recommended curriculum for a program in biochemistry and molecular biology. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 31, 161-162.
83. Westbrook, S., and Marek, E. A. (1991). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 23, 581-597.
84. White, B. (1993). Thinkertools: causal models, conceptual change, and scientific education. Cogn. Instr. 10, 1-100.
85. White, H. B. (2007). Do biology and chemistry educators talk to each other? Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 35, 70.
86. Williamson, V. M., and Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation of the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 247-262.
87. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 9, 625-636.
88. Wood-Robinson, C. (1991). Young people's ideas about plants. Stud. Sci. Educ. 19, 119-135.
89. Wright, R. L. (2005). Points of view: content versus process: is this a fair choice? Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 189-196.
90. Wu, H. K., Krajcik, J. S., and Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38, 5821-5842.
91. Yamamoto, K. (2003). BIO 2010, Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists.www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id10497#toc (accessed 1 July 2008).