Teaching and learning about the interface between chemistry and biology

There is a growing acknowledgement that chemistry is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, both in the research lab and in many aspects of teaching and learning. The interface between chemistry and biology is clearly a place where disciplinary silos are disappearing: the existence of sub-disciplines such as chemical biology, biological chemistry and the more well established biochemistry attest to these increasingly important areas of study. Biochemistry, which has been identified as a “child of two cultures, biology and chemistry” (Huang, 2000, p. 65), brings together experts, philosophies, and approaches from both chemistry and biology in order to examine chemical interactions in living organisms. In the classroom, biochemistry can provide contexts for learning more fundamental chemical and biological concepts or it can be a subject to be learned in and of itself. The articles included in this theme issue of CERP focus specifically on the teaching and learning of biochemistry concepts.

Biochemistry is a difficult subject for many students to learn (Wood, 1990). Researchers have identified four main challenges that students face when attempting to learn biochemical concepts. First, biochemistry consists of a large body of knowledge, and students can quickly become overwhelmed by the amount of information they need to learn in a typical biochemistry course (Wood, 1990). Moreover, much of this information is abstract and, thus, difficult to learn (Orgill and Bodner, 2007).

Second, in order to understand biochemical concepts, students must apply material they have learned in prior biology and chemistry courses (Wood, 1990; Villafañe et al., 2011). Students may not have sufficient chemistry or biology background knowledge to understand biochemical concepts in a meaningful way. Additionally, any misconceptions students have about these foundational concepts can negatively impact their learning of biochemistry (Tibell and Rundgren, 2010; Loertscher et al., 2014).

Third, biochemists and biochemistry educators communicate in a unique manner. Biochemists use a number of analogies and metaphors to explain abstract concepts (Orgill and Bodner, 2006, 2007; Tibell and Rundgren, 2010). Students who have not developed analogical reasoning skills may misunderstand these analogies and metaphors or believe that they represent reality. In either case, the use of analogies and metaphors—common in biochemistry research and in the biochemistry classroom—can lead to the development of misconceptions about biochemical concepts.

Even the language used by biochemists can be a challenge to understand. Much of the language used in biochemistry has no common, every-day referent (Tibell and Rundgren, 2010). At times, the language even differs from that to which students become accustomed in their other chemistry courses (Wood, 1990). For example, biochemists often refer to molecules by common names (e.g., “citric acid”) instead of by their IUPAC names (e.g., “2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-trioic acid”). Students must not only learn biochemists’ unique vocabulary, but they must also learn biochemists’ abbreviations—of which there are many (Tibell and Rundgren, 2010).

Fourth, and finally, biochemistry makes use of a wide range of external representations (Tibell and Rundgren, 2010; Towns et al., 2012). Although multiple researchers have indicated that visual literacy—the ability to interpret, use, and create external representations—is essential to the success of both biochemists and biochemistry students (see, for example, Schönborn and Anderson, 2006; Towns et al., 2012), studies also suggest that students encounter multiple difficulties in interacting with and interpreting the representations that are used in their biochemistry classrooms (Schönborn and Anderson, 2006; Tibell and Rundgren, 2010).

The 2015 theme issue of CERP

Each of the challenges listed above provides fertile ground for research about the teaching and learning of biochemistry; and, in fact, each of the articles included in this 2015 theme issue addresses one of those challenges.

What do biochemistry students pay attention to in external representations of protein translation? The case of the Shine–Dalgarno sequence (Bussey and Orgill, 2015)

Given the prevalence of representations in both biochemistry research and biochemistry teaching, it is important to examine students’ interpretations of the figures and animations used to teach biochemistry concepts. Bussey and Orgill (in this issue) examined students’ interpretations of some common representations of protein translation. The authors found that the design of an animation focused students’ attention on a particular aspect of protein translation. The authors discuss specific design elements that focused students’ attention and draw conclusions about how instructors can use these design elements to focus students’ attention on critical features in a representation of biochemical phenomena.

Biochemistry instructors’ perceptions of analogies and their classroom use (Orgill et al., 2015)

As mentioned, biochemistry relies on a number of metaphors and analogies to explain abstract concepts (Orgill and Bodner, 2007; Tibell and Rundgren, 2010). Despite this fact, very few studies have examined students’ or instructors’ perceptions of those metaphors and analogies (see, for example, Orgill and Bodner, 2006, 2007). In this theme issue of CERP, Orgill et al. examine biochemistry instructors’ perceptions of the analogies they use in their classrooms. The authors found that all of the biochemistry instructors involved in their study used analogies to teach biochemical concepts. They also found that, while instructors were aware of many of the potential benefits of using analogies, they seemed less aware and less concerned about some of the potential challenges associated with using analogies. Perhaps, in part, for this reason, instructors used analogies less effectively than they could have. For example, they did not always identify analogies as such when using them and did not tend to mention the limitations of the analogies they were using—strategies that are known to promote analogical transfer. The authors conclude with suggestions for future work that focuses on the development of biochemistry instructors’ abilities to effectively use analogies in the classroom, as well as on biochemistry students’ analogical reasoning skills.

Creative exercises (CEs) in the biochemistry domain: An analysis of students’ linking of chemical and biochemical concepts (Warfa and Odowa, 2015)

In this paper, Warfa and Odowa describe a study in which they used Creative Exercises (CEs) to probe the connections students make between previously-learned concepts and concepts they are learning in their biochemistry courses. According to the authors, CEs are “open-ended assessment tools containing a single prompt in which students must develop a response” (Warfa and Odowa, 2015, DOI: 10.1039/C5RP00110B). For example, students were given a representation of the structure of glutamic acid and asked to list relevant facts about the structure based on what they had learned in their biochemistry course or in previous courses. The authors identify the specific connections that students made between CE prompts and more foundational chemistry concepts. Overall, the authors found that students made considerable numbers of connections to foundational chemistry concepts when prompted to do so. They suggest the use of CEs not only to facilitate the formation of linkages to prior knowledge, but also as a means of identifying student misconceptions. While the current theme issue includes a limited number of biochemistry education-related studies, there are no studies on other suggested topics from the call for papers such as how the learning of biological concepts influences the learning of chemical concepts and vice versa. Clearly, there is much work that remains to be done. For example, studies could focus on evidence-based approaches to the use of biological concepts for teaching chemistry; evidence-based approaches to the use of chemistry concepts for teaching biology; the challenges and advantages of interdisciplinary teaching and learning, particularly as related to the interface between chemistry and biology; or approaches to alignments between biology and chemistry courses (both horizontal and vertical). We hope that the current CERP theme issue provides inspiration for future work about teaching and learning at the interface of chemistry and biology.

References

1. Bussey, T. J. and Orgill, M., (2015), What do biochemistry students pay attention to in external representations of protein translation? The case of the Shine–Dalgarno sequence, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 10.1039/C5RP00001G.
2. Huang, P. C., (2000), The integrative nature of biochemistry: challenges of biochemical education in the USA, Biochem. Educ., 28, 64–70.
3. Loertscher, J., Green, D., Lewis, J. E., Lin, S. and Minderhout, V., (2014), Identification of threshold concepts for biochemistry, CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13, 516–528.
4. Orgill, M. and Bodner, G. M., (2006), An analysis of the effectiveness of analogy use in college-level biochemistry textbooks, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 43, 1040–1060.
5. Orgill, M. and Bodner, G. M., (2007), Locks and keys: an analysis of biochemistry students’ use of analogies, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 35, 244–254.
6. Orgill, M., Bussey, T. J. and Bodner, G. M., (2015), Biochemistry instructors’ perceptions of analogies and their classroom use, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 10.1039/C4RP00256C.
7. Schönborn, K. J. and Anderson, T. R., (2006), The importance of visual literacy in the education of biochemists, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 34, 94–102.
8. Tibell, L. A. E. and Rundgren, C.-J., (2010), Educational challenges of molecular life science: characteristics and implications for education and research, CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9, 25–33.
9. Towns, M. H., Raker, J. R., Becker, N., Harle, M. and Sutcliffe, J., (2012), The biochemistry tetrahedron and the development of the taxonomy of biochemistry external representations (TOBER), Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13, 296–306.
10. Villafañe, S. M., Bailey, C. P., Loertscher, J., Minderhout, V. and Lewis, J.E., (2011), Development and analysis of an instrument to assess student understanding of foundational concepts before biochemistry coursework, Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., 39, 102–109.
11. Warfa, A.-R. M. and Odowa, N., (2015), Creative exercises (CEs) in the biochemistry domain: an analysis of students’ linking of chemical and biochemical concepts, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 10.1039/C5RP00110B.
12. Wood, E. J., (1990), Biochemistry is a difficult subject for both student and teacher, Biochem. Educ., 18, 170–172.

---