Education catching up with science: Preparing students for three-dimensional literacy in cell biology

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 437-447

  Kramer, IJsbrand M ^a   Dahman, Hassen Reda ^b   Delouche, Pamina ^a   Bidabe, Marissa ^a   Schneeberger, Patricia ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^b Ecole Normale Superieure de Kouba   (Algeria)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL AID; CHEMISTRY; CYTOLOGY; EDUCATION; HUMAN; LEARNING; SCIENCE; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; STUDENT;

AUDIOVISUAL AIDS; CELL BIOLOGY; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; HUMANS; LEARNING; PROTEINS; SCIENCE; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; STUDENTS;

EID: 84871355508     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.12-06-0091     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Ainsworth S (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Com-put Educ 33,131-152.
2. Bartholome T, Bromme R (2009). Coherence formation when learning from text and pictures: what kind of support for whom? J Educ Psychol 10,282-293.
3. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE (2000). The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28, 235.
4. Carney RN, Levin JR (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educ Psychol Rev 14, 5-26.
5. Cook M, Wiebe EN, Carter G (2008a). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. Sci Educ 92, 848-867.
6. Cook M, Wiebe EN, Carter G (2008b). The interpretation of cellular transport graphics by students with low and high prior knowledge. Int J Sci Educ 30,239-261.
7. Craig P, Bateman R (2010). A proficiency rubric for biomacromole-cular 3D literacy. PDB Newsletter Spring (45). www.rcsb.org/pdb/general_information/news_publications/newsletters/2010q1/education_corner.html (accessed 17 October 2012).
8. Crisp V, Sweiry E, Ahmed A, Pollitt A (2008). Tales of the expected: the influence of students' expectations on exam validity and implications for writing exam questions. Educ Res 50, 95-115.
9. Dahmani H-R, Schneeberger P, Kramer IM (2009). Analysis of students' aptitude to provide meaning to images that represent cellular components at the molecular level. CBE Life Sci Educ 8, 226-238.
10. De Jong T (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instr Sci 38,105-134.
11. Ealy JB (2004). Students's understanding is enhanced through molecular modeling. J Sci Educ Technol 13,461-471.
12. Gomperts, Kramer, Tatham (2009). Signal Transduction, 2nd ed., New York: Academic Press/Elsevier.
13. Goodsell DS, Johnson GT (2007). Filling the gaps: artistic licence in education and outreach. PLoS Biol 12, e308.
14. Harris MA, Peck RF, Colton S, Morris J, Chaibub E, Kallio J (2009). A combination of hand-held models and computer imaging programs helps students answer oral questions about molecular structure and function: a controlled investigation of student learning. CBE Life Sci Educ 8, 29-43.
15. Johnstone AH (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn 7, 75-83.
16. Jucks R, Bromme R, Runde A (2007). Explaining with nonshared illustrations: how they constrain explanations. Learn Instr 17, 204-218.
17. Kirkman TW (1996). Statistics to Use. www.physics.csbsju.edu/stats (accessed 17 October 2012).
18. Kosslyn SM, Ganis G, Thompson WL (2006). Mental imagery and the human brain. In: Progress in Psychological Science around the World, vol. 1, Neural, Cognitive and Developmental Issues, ed. Q Jing, MR Rosenzweig, G d'Ydewalle, H Zhang, H-C Chen, and K Zhang, New York: Psychology Press, 195-209.
19. Krebs EG, Fischer EH (1956). The phosphorylase b to a converting enzyme of rabbit skeletal muscle. Biochem Biophys Acta 20,150-157.
20. Mayer RE (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. J Educ Psychol 81,240-246.
21. Mayer RE (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educ Psychol 32, 1-19.
22. McNamara DS, Kintsch E, Butler-Songer N, Kintsch W (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of text understanding in learning from text. Cogn Instr 14,1-43.
23. Nye LS (2004). The minds' eye: biomedical visualization: the most powerful tool in science. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 32,123-131.
24. Orgil M-K, Crippen K (2010). Teaching with external representations: the case of a common energy-level diagram in chemistry. J Coll Sci Teach 40, 78-84.
25. Ormrod JE (2008). Metacognition, self-regulated learning and study strategies. In: Human Learning, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, chap. 12, 350-390.
26. Palmer SE (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In: Cognition and Categorization, ed. E Rosch and BB Lloyd, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 259-303.
27. PDB Newsletter (2011). From 7 to 70,000: the PDB reaches a new milestone, Winter (48).
28. Rall TW, Sutherland EW, Berthet J (1957). The relationship of epinephrine and glucagon to liver phosphorylase: effect of epinephrine and glucagon on the reactivation of phosphorylase in liver homogenates. J Biol Chem 225, 463-475.
29. Runde A, Bromme R, Jucks R (2007). Scripting in net-based medical consultation: The impact of external representations on giving advice and explanations. In: Scripting Computer-Supported Collaborative
30. Learning-Cognitive, Computational, and Educational Perspectives, ed. F Fischer, I Kollar, H Mandle, and JM Haake, New York: Springer, 57-72.
31. Schnotz W (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educ Psychol Rev 14,101-120.
32. Schnotz W, Kiirschner C (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 469-508.
33. Schonborn KJ, Anderson TR (2009). A model of factors determining students' ability to interpret external representations in biochemistry. Int J Sci Educ 31,193-232.
34. Seufert T, Briinken R (2006). Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Appl Cogn Psychol 20,321-331.
35. Sprang SR, Acharya KR, Goldsmith EJ, Stuart DI, Varvill K, Fletter-ick RJ, Madsen NB, Johnson LN (1988). Structural changes in glycogen phosphorylase induced by phosphorylation. Nature 336, 216-221.
36. Sweller J (2005). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, ed. R Mayer, New York: Cambridge University Press, chap. 10,159-167.
37. Venien-Bryan C, Jonic S, Skamnaki V, Brown N, Bishler N, Oikono-makos NG, Boisset N, Johnson LN (2009). The structure of phos-phorylase kinase holoenzyme at 9.9 A resolution and location of the catalytic subunit and the substrate glycogen phosphorylase. Structure 17,117-127.
38. Venien-Bryan C, Lowe EM, Boisset N, Traxler KW, Johnson LN, Carlson GM (2002). Three-dimensional structure of phosphorylase kinase at 22 A resolution and its complex with glycogen phosphorylase b. Structure 10,33-41.