Cell biology education

Evidence-based teaching is a highly complex skill, requiring repeated cycles of deliberate practice and feedback to master. Despite existing well characterized frameworks for practice-based training in K-12 teacher education, the major principles of these frameworks have not yet been transferred to instructor development in higher educational contexts, including training of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). We sought to determine whether a practice-based training program could help GTAs learn and use evidence-based teaching methods in their classrooms. We implemented a weekly training program for introductory biology GTAs, which included structured drills of techniques selected to enhance student practice, logic-development, and accountability and reduce apprehension. GTAs received regular performance feedback based on classroom observations. To quantify use of target techniques and levels of student participation, we collected and coded 160 hours of video footage. We found that, although GTAs adopted and utilized many of the target techniques with high frequency, techniques which enforced student participation were not stably adopted and their use was unresponsive to formal feedback. We also found that techniques discussed in training, but not practiced, were not used at quantifiable frequencies, further supporting the importance of practice-based training for influencing instructional practices.

Many students use ‘‘mitosis’’ and ‘‘cell division’’ interchangeably, apparently unaware that cell division includes mitosis as well as another, equally important process called cytokinesis. Mitosis separates duplicated chromosomes, whereas cytokinesis divides the parent cell (and duplicated chromosomes) into two daughter cells. Although these phenomena usually are linked temporally as well as spatially, mitosis can and does occur in the absence of cytokinesis (e.g., during the early development of Drosophila and other insects when many mitotic cycles occur before daughter nuclei become compartmentalized into separate cells; Alberts et al., 2002). Moreover, different mechanisms are responsible for each phenomenon. Thus, we give mitosis and cytokinesis different names, and it would be unfortunate (and especially confusing for students) if the definition of the former were expanded to include cytokinesis, as claimed in a recent review (Rieder and Khodjakov, 2003). Thinking about these phenomena, I realized I was much more familiar with mitosis than I was with cytokinesis. Not only had I read contemporary reviews of the subject (Rieder and Khodjakov, 2003 [including 10 videos]; Mitchison and Salmon, 2001) and of mitosis Web sites (Blystone, 2003), I recently had reviewed videos and research articles dealing with the phenomenon in past Video Views and Reviews (Watters, 2003, 2002). My knowledge of cytokinesis, by contrast, was much less current and informed, and I was delighted when I had the opportunity in July 2004 to attend a conference on cytokinesis sponsored by the American Society for Cell Biology. This Feature arises from my experience at the conference and a subsequent search on High Wire Press (http://highwire.stanford.edu) for current research articles and videos on cytokinesis. Interested readers also may want to consult an older, comprehensive review written by a pioneer in the field (Rappaport, 1996) and the collaborative Web site maintained by the ‘‘Cytokinesis Mafia’’: http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/salmon/lab/ mafia/index.html. As most students know, mitosis entails the condensation of duplicated chromosomes during prophase; their alignment and separation along the mitotic apparatus (or spindle, as it is sometimes called) during, respectively, metaphase and anaphase; and the chromosomes’ compartmentalization and relaxation during telophase. Once the chromosomes have been separated, cytokinesis begins, typically producing a cleavage furrow oriented at right angles to the axis of the spindle and passing through the plane of the metaphase plate. Anaphase, telophase, and furrow formation in a cultured animal cell are illustrated in Figure 1 (taken from Alsop and Zhang, 2003). Mechanistically, chromosomal movement occurs through the agency of the mitotic spindle, the kinetochores that attach chromosomes to various microtubular fibers of the spindle, the dynamic instability of microtubules themselves, and microtubular ‘‘motor’’ proteins (Rieder and Khodjakov, 2003). In contrast, cytokinesis and the formation of a cleavage furrow depend on the contraction of a cortical ring of actin and myosin filaments located just beneath the plasma membrane (Alberts et al., 2002). Ring constriction during cytokinesis is often referred to as purse-stringing, because the dividing daughter cells often resemble bags with gradually closing necks. The relative organization of the spindle and cortical ring is illustrated in Figure 2 (taken from Alsop and Zhang, 2004). Although mitosis and cytokinesis are different phenomena, it is clear the mitotic apparatus is responsible for the location of the cortical ring midway between the spindle poles (centrosomes) and around the metaphase plate (Alberts et al., 2002). Micromanipulation of the spindle at critical times can cause the relocation of the cleavage furrow (see Rappaport, 1996). In the extreme, cytokinesis can occur in the absence of a spindle, as elegantly shown in an early experiment by Rappaport (1961), in any cytoplasmic region where astral microtubules from two centrosomes contact one another and adjacent regions of the plasma membrane. (This classic experiment is summarized in unattributed Figures 1831 [Alberts et al., 2002] and unattributed Figures 20-41 [Lodish et al., 2003].) It is not well understood how cortical ring contraction causes a furrow to form and to become constricted or how the spindle determines the location of the cortical ring. Here I review recently published videos that depict the roles played by myosin II in contraction of the cortical ring during cellularization and cytokinesis in early development (Royou et al., 2004), by spindle and astral microtubules in regulating the formation of cleavage furrows during the cleavage of primary spermatocytes (Inoue et al., 2004), and DOI: 10.1187/cbe.04-08-0049 Address correspondence to: Christopher Watters (watters@ middlebury.edu). Cell Biology Education Vol. 4, 10–18, Spring 2005

Diffusion and osmosis are central concepts in biology, both at the cellular and organ levels. They are presented several times throughout most introductory biology textbooks (e.g., Freeman, 2002 ), yet both processes are often difficult for students to understand ( Odom, 1995 ; Zuckerman, 1994 ; Sanger et al., 2001 ; and results herein). Students have deep-rooted misconceptions about how diffusion and osmosis work, especially at the molecular level. We hypothesized that this might be in part due to the inability to see and explore these processes at the molecular level. In order to investigate this, we developed new software, OsmoBeaker, which allows students to perform inquiry-based experiments at the molecular level. Here we show that these simulated laboratories do indeed teach diffusion and osmosis and help overcome some, but not all, student misconceptions.

Underpinning science education reform movements in the last 20 years—at all levels and within all disciplines—is an explicit shift in the goals of science teaching from students simply creating a knowledge base of scientific facts to students developing deeper understandings of major concepts within a scientific discipline. For example, what use is a detailed working knowledge of the chemical reactions of the Krebs cycle without a deeper understanding of the relationship between these chemical reactions of cellular respiration and an organism’s need to harvest energy from food? This emphasis on conceptual understanding in science education reform has guided the development of standards and permeates all major science education reform policy docu

Note from the Editors Cell Biology Education (CBE) is pleased to present “Points of View,” a series designed to address issues faced by many people within the life sciences educational realm. We present several differing points of view back-to-back on a given topic to promote discussion of the topic. Readers are encouraged to participate in the online discussion forum hosted by CBE at http://www.cellbioed.org/discussion/public/main.cfm. We hope op-ed pieces on “Points of View” will stimulate thought and dialogue on significant educational issues. In this issue, we address the question “What should a biology student know?” Can biologists agree on a core set of content that all biology students should know? What about biology majors versus nonmajors? Can we create a list of facts or skills that every biology student should master? Or should our goals de-emphasize content and concentrate on ability to think, reason, analyze, and communicate? Are the details unimportant as long as students can ask good questions and figure out ways to answer their questions? We present two different “Points of View” that differ in their preferred educational outcomes. The “Points of View” we present in this issue provide two perspectives that may be familiar ones argued in your department. We invite you to share your ideas, experiences, and insights on the discussion board.

Cell Biology EducationVol. 4, No. 3 FEATURESFree AccessWWW.Cell Biology Education: Evolution Web SitesDennis LiuDennis LiuSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-05-0079AboutSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail EVOLUTION WEB SITESThe debate over teaching evolution has once again reached a fever pitch in the United States. Earnest nineteenth-century clashes between scientific and religious worldviews have given way to the politically charged arguments of creation science and now intelligent design. The Web site of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE; www.natcenscied.org) is the online destination for keeping abreast of the cultural battles over teaching biological evolution. At NCSE, you will not find teaching resources per se, but information and ideas for keeping evolution alive in the curriculum. The site contains up-to-date information on legislation and school board activities nationwide. The site also specializes in debunking intelligent design arguments.Figure 1. Ray Troll's interactive feature on human evolution. Printed by permission of Ray Troll.Figure 2. The welcoming screen of Understanding Evolution is organized into“ Teaching Evolution” and “Learning Evolution.” Printed by permission of Berkeley Museum of Paleontology.However, for those weary of the culture wars, it might be best to ease into the topic by first viewing an animation at Trollart.com ( www.trollart.com/evo.html) of how humans evolved from single-celled organisms (Figure 1). You will also find a 12-step program for evolving into a human, illustrated in the bold graphic style that embodies artist Ray Troll's slightly twisted love of nature. I will emphasize three Web sites in this review but include a longer list at the end. Most evolution Web sites include links to other useful sites as well.UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY'S UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION http://evolution.berkeley.eduThe intrinsic challenge of teaching the topic sometimes gets lost in the cultural arguments about evolution. Controversy aside, evolution is challenging subject matter to teach well. Trolling the Web for resources to support evolution education requires sifting through virtual reams of unproductive and even toxic links, like David Duke's European-American page, found when searching “genes and evolution.” Fortunately, there are quality Web sites that support the teaching of evolution.The Understanding Evolution Web site (Figures 2,3,4) is a scion of the University of California—Berkeley Museum of Paleontology ( www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibit/exhibits.html). For years, the museum has been recognized as an excellent online source of information on evolution, geology, and phylogeny. For the purposes of supporting education in evolution, the Berkeley group wisely elected to produce a more self-contained Web site full of resources and teacher support features. The majority of the content is aimed at a high school level, but there is good support for adapting learning modules to lower grade levels. A sizable portion of the materials would translate well to the undergraduate level.Materials on the Berkeley site are organized into optional teaching and learning paths. Under “Learning Evolution,” one can follow a linear path of Nature of Science. Evolution 101. Evidence. Relevance of Evolution. Misconceptions. History of Evolutionary Thought. Under each major topic are many subtopics and various interactive learning modules. For example, “What Did T. rex Taste Like?” introduces the concept of a common origin for all life and how the relationships among various groups of organisms can be organized. Understanding life's family tree can help answer comic but engaging questions, such as guessing the taste of a Tyrannosaurus rex T-bone, while driving home some profound biology. Different versions of the activity and ancillary materials support adoption at different educational levels.Figure 3. Understanding Evolution features bold, colorful graphics and interactive features. Printed by permission of Berkeley Museum of Paleontology.Figure 4. Understanding Evolution is part of the larger Berkeley Museum of Paleontology Web site that features photographs of fossils and other research materials. Printed by permission of Berkeley Museum of Paleontology.The Web site features bold, clear graphics, with concise text and engaging interactivity. While progressing through the materials, there are ample opportunities to take side paths or even major diversions into the larger museum Web site. Useful quizzes and tips to teachers are interspersed throughout, along with relevant additional resources, including outside links.Web site contents are displayed along the page banner in a nested,“ bread crumb” fashion to aid navigation and orientation in the large Web site. For example, nested under “Lines of Evidence” is“ Evidence by Example,” and then further nested is“ Experiments.” John Endler's famous guppies are featured, as are his observations and experiments in the native ponds of Trinidad. There is a link from there to “Mechanisms of Microevolution,” highlighting Endler's artificial selection lab experiments on the same guppies.Understanding Evolution benefits from its close ties to the larger museum Web site, because the hyperlinks facilitate moving from the engaging, cartoon style of Understanding Evolution to elements of the larger museum Web site more directly tied to the world of research science. For example, a large specimen collection with good photographic representation helps students move from cartoons to real fossils and other data.PBS-WGBH BOSTON'S EVOLUTION http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolutionAnother large collection of evolution resources can be found on the Web pages of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) television network (Figure 5). Produced by Boston PBS affiliate WGBH, Evolution is companion to the TV series that first aired in 2001. Unlike most Web sites associated with a television broadcast, WGBH's site is truly a rich educational resource and includes materials that go well beyond simply supporting the viewing of the TV series. The Web site content stands on its own as a valuable resource independent of the series.Figure 5. The WGBH Evolution Web site offers materials that complement and go beyond the PBS television series. Printed by permission of WGBH Boston.Figure 6. “Sex and the Single Guppy” lets a learner set the selective conditions for generating virtual guppy populations. Printed by permission of WGBH Boston.The WGBH Web site has rich graphics with some highly interactive features. For example, guppies are used to illustrate points about adaptation and natural selection (Figure 6). The guppy feature is very engaging, encouraging the learner to generate simulated guppy populations of varying composition, under different selective pressures, and to consider multiple hypotheses. I generated several virtual guppy populations. I first started with a population evenly divided between drab and colorful male guppies. I cut the simulation off after just four generations, and the population was fairly evenly distributed across a spectrum from drab to colorful male fish. I ran the same starting parameters again and this time went for lunch. After 64 generations (3,228 simulated weeks), I had 220 guppies in my pool, and they were now 100% maximally drab because of intense predatory pressure. For another experiment, I started with a population of drab males and weak predation pressure. I wandered down the hall for a meeting, and when I returned, 521 virtual weeks later, 15 generations had passed, and all the drab fish had been replaced with brilliant progeny. These virtual experiments could be useful student exercises and good supplements to wet-lab experiments.Despite some engaging online learning modules, at first I found the Web site somewhat difficult and distracting to navigate. However, by shortcutting to the “library” section, most of the resources can be found topically arranged in a manner useful to an instructor. Many gems can be unearthed by browsing the Web site. For example, under “Evolution Revolution” (a social-intellectual timeline), I found the following quote: “It is indeed remarkable that this theory [evolution] has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.” These words were written in 1996 by Pope John Paul II. One can also compare the results of Gallup polls across the decades, revealing surprisingly little change in American attitudes concerning evolution. Nearly half of those polled believe in special creation for humans, only a tenth believe human evolution followed completely natural mechanisms, and 35%-40% believe in god-guided evolution (1982-2001). There are also some well-chosen excerpts from Darwin's diary that are both enlightening and highly entertaining.My path of exploration gives an indication of the breadth of the Web site:“ Evolution Home”. “Teachers and Students”.“ Evolution Library”. “Evolution of Diversity”.“ An Origin of Species” (fictitious birds). “Coral Reef Connections”. “All in the Family” (cladistics). “Is Intelligent Life Inevitable” (opinion poll). “Darwin” (including journal excerpts). “Evolution Revolution” (social-intellectual timeline). “Sex and the Single Guppy”.“ Origins of Humankind”. “Riddle of the Bones”. Throughout the pages are nice lists of subtopics, external links, and lists of related links within the Web site. The “Evolution Library” indexes the materials as follows: “What Is Science” (39 items), “The Age of Darwin” (71 items), “Adaptation and Natural Selection” (87 items), “History of Life” (101 items),“ Evolution of Diversity” (59 items), “Evidence for Evolution” (117 items), “Human Evolution” (78 items),“ Why Evolution Matters” (85 items), and a glossary.TREE OF LIFE WEB PROJECT—A CONSORTIUM HOSTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA LIBRARY http://www.tolweb.orgEvolution is a topic nearly as multifaceted and diverse as... as life itself. Therefore, why not visit a Web site that features our magnificent tree of life? The Tree of Life Web Project (ToLweb) is an open consortium of sorts, hosted by the University of Arizona Library. Considering that ToLweb seeks to collect information for all life on earth, the site (Figure 7) benefits from superior organization and tools to help readers utilize pages contributed by experts from around the world. ToLweb features clever navigation that provides a lesson in its own right about how life is organized and related. At the home page, visitors are invited to browse, to learn about evolution and phylogeny, to contribute media, or to build a tree house. The tree house concept is particularly welcoming to nonexpert visitors. To encourage schoolteachers and students in particular to participate, there is a builder's guide and toolkit. The tree houses are meant to be annotated collections of resources on the Web site, not original contributions of data and resources. Contribution to ToLweb is carefully restricted to those with recognized scientific credentials. I recommend starting with a ToL learning tour, or the Root Page, which is called“ Life on Earth,” before you move out along branches and explore. The Root Pages are entry pages to organisms collected under higher-order taxonomic groups (e.g., domain and kingdom). Branch and leaf pages contain more detailed information on smaller groups (e.g., family and genus) as well as individual species. The Web site administrators have suggested good routes for exploration, and they feature weekly “learn about” sessions featuring particular groups. You can even download the entire tree structure in a static XML format (it is about 30 megabytes).Figure 7. The welcoming page of the Tree of Life Web Project is elegant and invites exploration. Printed by permission of ToLweb.I started by searching about a personal favorite, octopus, and found 83 entries, including the taxonomic family Octopodidae. I found beautiful photos and great information, including how little is known about the complete diversity of what I think of as a highly visible group. Under“ Containing Groups” on the right-side navigation, I saw Octopodidae grouped under Octopoda, Octopodiformes, Mollusca, and of course Cephalopoda. I went to taxonomic class Cephalopoda and explored related animals. After learning about various cephalopods, I browsed the branches of family Octopodidae and eventually found the bizarre group represented by a single living species called the vampire squid, “a phylogenetic relict [that] possesses features of both octopods and decapods.” Multimedia features showed me how it swims and where in the world it lives.The “random page” button accesses a Web page at random, and it's an interesting tool for making unexpected discoveries. Assigning a combination of directed exploration and random navigation might be useful for designing an assignment. The “random page” button could be used as a sampling method assessment. For example, students could be told to click the“ random page” button five times and draw the tree showing the relationship among the five randomly selected species.The Web site is very much a work in progress, which again is a lesson about biodiversity on our planet and how inadequately cataloged and documented it is. I look forward to watching this site grow over the years. The site can accept movies, but so far there are very few. Someday I'd hope to see a tree house featuring movies of comparative locomotion among tetrapods, for example. I found ToLweb so rich and useful that I'm tempted to make it my browser home.OTHER EVOLUTION WEBSITESThe World Wide Web is loaded with other excellent Web sites covering the topic of biological evolution, and many are linked to the pages of the Web sites reviewed above. Students, like most humans, tend to be most interested in themselves, and there are some excellent Web sites covering human evolution.The DNAinteractive Web site, affiliated with Cold Spring Harbor Labs, has a very good section on Human Origins ( http://www.dnai.org/d/index.html?m=4).Action BioScience ( http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution) has excellent resources, primarily articles aimed at a college-level audience.Howard Hughes Medical Institute's BioInteractive Web site ( http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive) has an animation called “Evolution of the Y Chromosome” that charts the Y chromosome's many changes over its long history as a mammalian sex chromosome.Human Evolution: The Fossil Evidence in 3D ( http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#) features three-dimensional models of primate skulls that can be rotated for comparison.The Becoming Human Web site ( http://www.becominghuman.org) of the Institute of Human Origins features a documentary film and other resources.The Human Origins Program ( http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/) of the Smithsonian Institution has an excellent collection of skulls that can be viewed online.The Genographic Project ( http://www5.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/), recently launched by National Geographic, intends to analyze DNA from 100,000 people from all parts of the world to better understand the origins and migration patterns of modern humans. Visitors are encouraged to purchase a DNA test kit and participate.FOOTNOTESComments on this review and suggestions of other valuable Web sites for learning about evolution are most welcome. Please send comments to Dennis Liu at [email protected] or, even better, visit the CBE discussion forum ( http://www.cellbioed.org/discussion/public/main.cfm) to share your comments with other readers of Cell Biology Education.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byBioDiversifying the CurriculumDennis Liu13 October 2017 | CBE—Life Sciences Education, Vol. 8, No. 2 Vol. 4, No. 3 September 01, 2005181-260 Metrics Downloads & Citations Downloads: 81Citations: 1 History Information© 2005 by The American Society for Cell BiologyPDF download

With genomics well established in modern molecular biology, recent studies have sought to further the discipline by integrating complementary methodologies into a holistic depiction of the molecular mechanisms underpinning cell function. This genomic subdiscipline, loosely termed“ systems biology,” presents the biology educator with both opportunities and obstacles: The benefit of exposing students to this cutting-edge scientific methodology is manifest, yet how does one convey the breadth and advantage of systems biology while still engaging the student? Here, I describe an active-learning approach to the presentation of systems biology. In graduate classes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, I divided students into small groups and asked each group to interpret a sample data set (e.g., microarray data, two-hybrid data, homology-search results) describing a hypothetical signaling pathway. Mimicking realistic experimental results, each data set revealed a portion of this pathway; however, students were only able to reconstruct the full pathway by integrating all data sets, thereby exemplifying the utility in a systems biology approach. Student response to this cooperative exercise was extremely positive. In total, this approach provides an effective introduction to systems biology appropriate for students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Cell Biology EducationVol. 4, No. 2 FEATURESFree AccessWWW.Cell Biology Education: Using the World Wide Web To Develop a New Teaching TopicRobert V. Blystone, and Barbara MacAlpineRobert V. BlystoneSearch for more papers by this author, and Barbara MacAlpineSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-02-0070AboutSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cell Biology Education calls attention each quarter to several Web sites of educational interest to the biology community. The journal does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of the information at any of the listed sites. If you want to comment on the selections or suggest future inclusions, please send a message to E-mail: [email protected]. The sites listed below were last accessed on February 21, 2005.The Internet provides access to an enormous array of potential teaching materials. Below, we describe one approach for using the World Wide Web to develop a new college biology laboratory exercise. As a topic example for the search strategy, we have selected signal transduction.INTRODUCTIONEvolt http://browsers.evolt.org/There are two essential ingredients for collecting information from the Internet: 1) a World Wide Web (Web) browser, and 2) an Internet search engine. The two most widely used Web browsers are Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Netscape Communications Corporation's Navigator. There are, however, more than 120 browser software possibilities available. These browsers have been cataloged by Adrian Roselli and may be found at Evolt, a site that supports the exchange of Web design information. Web browsers are like brands of shoes; some fit better than others. By visiting Evolt, whose uniform resource locator (URL) is listed below, one might find a browser that works better. For example, some Internet users prefer Firefox (Figure 1) and Safari, because Web browsers have different efficiencies in displaying Internet information on different computer platforms.As is the case with Web browsers, there are a number of Internet search engines. Each search engine has a variety of features that address different objectives for finding information from the Internet. The State University of New York at Albany has organized an excellent list of Internet search engines.University Libraries Internet Search Engines http://library.albany.edu/internet/engines.htmlThe Albany site also includes a guide on “How to Choose a Search Engine or Directory.” More than 80 search engines are placed into categories ranging from Meta Search, Deep Web, and Domain Names, to FTP Search. The choice of Internet search engine resembles the decision of which library one wishes to visit. Some libraries may have more books, others have better photo archives, and some are simply more comfortable to sit in. Currently, the most widely used Internet search engine is Google. Other popular search engines include HotBot, Lycos, AltaVista, and Dogpile.For the purpose of this report, we will use Internet Explorer as the Web browser and Google as the initial Internet search engine. Most college undergraduates are thoroughly familiar with both.THE INITIAL SEARCHWe begin our initial research into Internet resources for developing a new lab on signal transduction by using the Internet search engine Google.Google http://www.google.com/Google is a California-based company whose corporate name refers to the number known as a googol: a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The organization was started in 1998, and its prominence today as an Internet search engine is clear.The term “signal transduction” is typed into the search box with quotes to limit the search to this exact two-word phrase (Figure 2). This query results in 1,760,000 returns (or “hits”), which is clearly far too many possibilities to be worthwhile. Google has a feature that will allow the search to be narrowed with a category called “Search within the results.” Into that box we typed “lab exercise” in quotes. These two combined search phrases result in 94 hits. The first listing of the 94 returns is to an article titled “Signal Transduction and Control of the Cell in Yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae: A Collaborative Laboratory Exercise.” Google provides a path to that article.Figure 1. Search page from the Web browser known as Firefox. Image used with permission of Mozilla, parent of Firefox. For a free copy of Firefox, which operates on either Apple or IBM compatibles, visit http://www.mozilla.org.Association for Biology Laboratory Education Archives http://www.zoo.utoronto.ca/able/volumes/vol-19/05-hoopes/05-hoopes.htmThis complete lab exercise was presented to the 1998 Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE) meeting by Barbara Hoopes, Nancy L. Pruitt, Kathleen Baier, and Sherry Brooks of Colgate University. The Google-located reference is on target as a lab exercise based on signal transduction. ABLE is an organization that meets annually for the purpose of sharing tested lab exercises among the participants. The organization's Web site is found below.ABLE http://www.zoo.utoronto.ca/ableDr. Hoopes indicated that the figure used in the exercise is out of date (see Figure 3). She also indicated that the lab exercise was in need of revision because of advances in the field. She also had a very interesting observation. It is harder to get innovative lab exercises into print today, she argues, because such exercises must be accompanied by extensive assessment documentation. For lab developers at smaller institutions, such documentation is prohibitively expensive (B. Hoopes, personal communication).An examination of the other 93 Google returns results in very little, for the phrase “signal transduction” is frequently used in course syllabi and in vitae. Thus, from the 94 hits, one viable resource was located for a possible lab exercise.Figure 2. Google is the trademark of Google, Inc. The image shown is the famous DNA logo celebrating the 50th anniversary of the 1953 article on the structure of DNA. The phrase “signal transduction” is entered into the search box.Figure 3. Title page of the lab exercise as available at the ABLE Web site along with the first figure from the article illustrating a principle being explored by the lab exercise. The image is used with the permission of Dr. Hoopes, whose important comment is found in the text.THE SECOND ITERATIONThis Google search can be considered to be both successful and unsuccessful: one good reference and only one reference from the whole of the Internet. A different search strategy might identify more Internet resources. Perhaps different key terms for the search might yield better results. What terms should be used instead of “signal transduction”?We suggest turning to a respected Internet biology textbook, Kimball's Biology. John W. Kimball has converted his 1994 general biology textbook into digital form. The original text is continually updated and expanded.Kimball's Biology Pages http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/Typing the term “signal transduction” yields no returns; however, “second messengers” and “cell signaling” do. Topics under cell signaling include NO receptors, steroid receptors, G-protein-coupled receptors, cytokine receptors, and TGF receptors. Second messenger topics include cyclic nucleotides, inositol trisphosphate, and calcium ions. Although no lab material is found at Kimball's textbook site, both topics found here serve as an excellent reference for students being introduced to signal transduction. Kimball's topic selection also suggests that a return to Google might yield more by using “second messenger” and “cell signaling” as search terms.Another source of general information may be found at the URL listed below.Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_PageThis Internet-based encyclopedia was initiated in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Today the site has over 1,300,000 articles from more than 13,000 contributors. This reference has information on just about any topic imaginable. The search term “signal transduction” yields a detailed article on the topic that has key terms “hot-linked” to other articles in the encyclopedia (Figure 4). Information is provided about extracellular, intracellular, and intercellular signaling. Transmembrane, nuclear, steroid, and even orphan receptors are described. Signal amplification is briefly mentioned. The entry concludes with a short bibliography and external links. The site, however, must be used with caution, for the articles are “user” edited. Undergraduate students would find this a good site for background information on signal transduction, but because of the lack of professional editing, the site should be cited in articles with caution.Figure 4. Wikipedia is a free, user-developed encyclopedia that is also user edited. Permission has been given to use the image with proper notification of source.A metasite (a site that lists links to other sites) can be found at The WWW Virtual Library, the oldest metasite on the Internet, founded in 1991. One of its divisions is Biochemistry and Cell Biology, which is maintained by Gabriel Fenteany of the University of Illinois at Chicago.The Virtual Library of Biochemistry and Cell Biology http://www.biochemweb.org/signaling.shtmlThis Virtual Library of Biochemistry and Cell Biology (VLBCB) has a section specifically oriented toward signal transduction information. The links found here include The Medical Biochemistry Page, Dynamic Signaling Maps, The Signaling Pathway Database, and 10 receptors and signaling effector sites. One exceptional resource listed here is to the Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company, where one can download over 80 free, remarkable graphics representing cell signal pathways that may be used for instruction (Figure 5). The main VLBCB page concludes with a listing of nearly 40 research labs that are focused on signal transduction research. This site would serve to educate the college instructor as well as the student; however, it does not list any lab exercises on signal transduction.Sigma-Aldrich Cell Signaling Pathway Slides and Charts http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/Area_of_Interest/Life_Science/Cell_Signaling/Scientific_Resources/Pathway_Slides___Charts.htmlFigure 5. One of more than 80 digital posters available at the Sigma-Aldrich site. The posters, in PowerPoint format, may be downloaded free for personal use or for educational presentations. Sigma-Aldrich is a producer and distributor of chemicals with corporate offices in St. Louis, MO.A FINAL ITERATIONSeveral groups with significant financial support have developed Web locations of science teaching information. One of the more established sites representing this effort is MERLOT.Figure 6. A screen shot of the MERLOT return information box for the search on the phrase “signal transduction.” Image used with permission.MERLOT http://www.merlot.orgMERLOT, a term representing Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching, was founded in 1997 by the California State University Center for Distributed Learning. It is an open-source collection of nearly 4,000 Web-based learning sites and materials. In 1998, MERLOT expanded to include the University of Georgia System, Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, and the University of North Carolina System. By 2000, 23 educational systems were incorporated into MERLOT. Individuals can also join MERLOT at no expense, and there is an extensive membership directory with over 3,100 members in the science and technology area.By typing the phrase “signal transduction” into the prominent search box at the top of the MERLOT homepage, three returns are obtained. The first is authored by Joyce J. Diwan of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Figure 6). The teaching resource is extensive, and the section on signal transduction has excellent learning materials, including three animations. The second listing is for teaching materials developed by Larry L. Keeley of Texas A&M University. One of his animations focuses on G-protein signaling. The third represents a collection of materials by Yu-Wai Peter Lin of Barry University. It consists of information dealing with Nobel Prizes in physiology and medicine dealing with membrane-based signaling events. Using the phrase “cell signal(l)ing” results in two more hits, both of which contain animations.The MERLOT site is well conceived and executed. Each reference clearly identifies the URL, the author, and the source. Each resource outlines requirements for use. Most resources have been rated as to content quality and potential effectiveness as a teaching tool. There is also an ease-of-use assessment. However, a laboratory exercise on signal transduction is not among its holdings.Figure 7. The logo for the NSDL. Permission to use the logo is granted on the Web site.Our last stop is at the National Science Foundation-sponsored National Science Digital Library, also known as NSDL. The Mission Statement of the NSDL states: “NSDL provides educational resources for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. The NSDL mission is to both deepen and extend science literacy through access to materials and methods that reveal the nature of the physical universe and the intellectual means by which we discover and understand it.” This educational resource opened in December of 2002, and it continues to grow (Figure 7).National Science Digital Library http://nsdl.org/NSDL's simple homepage has a search box near the top, not unlike MERLOT. When “signal transduction” is entered, 245 records are retrieved. Unlike Google, these hits are all very pertinent, including Science's Signal Transduction Knowledge Environment (STKE). STKE is a weekly electronic publication of current events in signal transduction research and is a joint venture between the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Stanford University. A portion of STKE is public, and the rest can be accessed through AAAS membership. Regular visits to this site would keep an instructor up to date as to developments in cell signaling.STKE: Signal Transduction Knowledge Environment http://stke.sciencemag.org/Currently, the NSDL has over 420 collections of educational information ranging from “All about Birds” to “The Learning Matrix.” Like a good book, it is difficult not to browse through the Science Library. When the term “lab” is added to the search strategy, six hits result, with two being labs demonstrating signal transduction. The Hoopes et al. yeast lab mentioned earlier is one of the two. As resources are identified and cataloged, they are being added to this database.IN CONCLUSIONSignal transduction is a major research topic today. Surprisingly few teaching lab exercises exist that provide undergraduate students hands-on exposure to the topic. We knew that teaching material in this area would be difficult to find, and thus the topic served us well in defining a strategy for locating teaching material using Internet resources. As one identifies the need to locate new teaching material, changing “signal transduction” to some other key term should lead to useful references using the strategy outlined here.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byBridging the Knowledge Gap between Research and Education through TextbooksMeasurement of Phosphorylated Extracellular Signal–Regulated Kinase 1 and 2 in an Undergraduate Teaching Laboratory with ALPHAscreen TechnologyScience Signaling, Vol. 2, No. 62Cell biology should be taught as science is practised1 February 2006 | Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, Vol. 7, No. 4 Vol. 4, No. 2 June 01, 2005 105-179 Metrics Downloads & Citations Downloads: 58 Citations: 3 History Information© 2005 by The American Society for Cell BiologyPDF download

Cell Biology EducationVol. 4, No. 1 FEATURESFree AccessCarlson Composes a ClassicMillard SusmanMillard SusmanSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-08-0051AboutSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail In teaching molecular genetics, I found Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology (expanded edition, 1992, edited by John Cairns, Gunther S. Stent, and James D. Watson; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY) to be a rich source of good stories and deep insights. For example, I liked to quote “genesis stories” such as Luria's invention of the Luria-Delbrück fluctuation test while watching his colleagues play slot machines at the Bloomington Country Club and“ prepared mind stories” such as Bill Hayes's accidental discovery of one-way genetic transfer in Escherichia coli while doing an experiment intended for quite another purpose. Carlson's book, Mendel's Legacy, will provide a similarly rich source of anecdotes for teachers of classical genetics—and it has pictures!Classical genetics, according to Carlson, starts with the rediscovery of Mendel's work in 1900 and ends with the publication of the double-helical structure of DNA in 1953. These boundaries are fuzzy, of course. Carlson says that the content of classical genetics isMendelism, the chromosome theory of heredity, the theory of the gene, the mapping of genes to chromosomes, the genetic consequences of chromosome rearrangements, the genetics associated with polyploidy and aneuploidy, the relationship of genes to expressed characters, the genetics of traits exhibiting a continuous distribution, the study of spontaneous and induced mutations, the relationship of genetics and cytogenetics to evolution, the mathematical description of genes in populations, and the study of gene structure and function at the phenotypic level.Therefore, the early chapters of this book cover work done in the latter part of the nineteenth century, including Mendel and pre-Mendelian students of hereditary, Darwin, and those who supported or opposed his ideas on evolution, and the cytologists—Flemming, Hertwig, Strasburger, and Boveri—who discovered the details of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilization just before the turn of the century. Part II of the book covers the discovery of sex chromosomes, the rediscovery of Mendel's work, and the development of the chromosome theory of heredity. Part III deals with the demonstration of the generality of the Mendelian principles of inheritance, mainly by plant geneticists. Part IV is devoted to the burgeoning of genetics at the hands of the Drosophila geneticists, Morgan, Sturtevant, Bridges, and Muller. Part V summarizes the spread of genetics beyond Drosophila, including the early history of population genetics and the birth of microbial and biochemical genetics. Part VI briefly reviews social aspects of classical genetics, including the eugenics movement, the Lysenkoist period in the Soviet Union, the Cold War controversy over the genetic effects of radiation, the beginnings of medical genetics, the rise of genetic counseling, the relationship of genetics to ethics and theology, and, at the end, some thoughtful comments on the forces that shaped the history of genetics and of science in general.At the start, Carlson makes the point that this book is not written in the style of a review article in which “surviving ideas... are highlighted and... failures along the way are largely forgotten or omitted.” Accordingly, Carlson tries to present a complete intellectual history of classical genetics in which crippling preconceptions, errors in interpretation, societal and religious influences, and personal foibles are recognized as important elements. Thus, the book is not a distillation of successes. Neither is it a textbook in the sense that it explains the scientific content of classical genetics in sufficient detail for a lay reader to follow the narrative; this is a book for people familiar with the science of genetics.The value of the book for educators is that it provides so many good stories about how science is done, how scientists interact with one another, and how the slow “winning of the facts” (H.J. Muller's phrase, which Carlson greatly admires) finally takes the form of a mature and predictive field of science. For example, we learn of T.H. Morgan's generosity: “without Sturtevant's knowledge, Morgan arranged for him [Sturtevant] to receive a scholarship that he had secretly funded for him.” And we learn in an extraordinary footnote that “when [Reginald Ruggles Gates'] death was announced at a national meeting of American anthropologists, Mrs. Garret Hardin told me that the audience cheered!” (We learn from the same footnote about Gates' astonishing ignorance of the mechanisms of human reproduction.) We learn that Calvin Bridges was a gifted experimentalist who invented virtually all of the standard procedures for working with Drosophila, including the recipe for fly food, the use of ether to anesthetize flies, the counting of flies on a porcelain plate with a small paint brush to push them about, and the use of a water filter to cool the light that illuminates the flies. We also learn that Bridges' love life was scandalous and that because of his reputation for loose morals he was dependent all his life on research support provided by Morgan. H.J. Muller, who was Carlson's thesis supervisor, plays a major role in this history, and we learn that Muller, although he achieved fame and even received a Nobel Prize, always harbored some resentment toward Morgan and the research team in the “Fly Room” because they had not given him credit for all of the intellectual contributions that he had made while working as a member of that team. This book contains a one-page catalogue of ideas that Muller probably wrote between 1932 and 1940, showing which ideas came from whom. A photograph of this list in Muller's own handwriting appears on page 202. The list of his own contributions is roughly twice as long as those for Morgan, Sturtevant, and Bridges. The book is filled with such tidbits, which can be used to remind students that genetics is a human enterprise.Carlson provides several tabulations that educators and historians will find useful. His “Chronology of Classical Genetics” cites discoveries beginning in 1651 with William Harvey's identification of the egg as the basis for life and ending in 1957 with E.B. Lewis's discovery of developmental regulatory genes at the bithorax locus. Readers will find it interesting to compare Carlson's chronology to the one in A.H. Sturtevant's A History of Genetics (2001, with an introduction and afterward by E.B. Lewis, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY), which begins circa 323 B.C. with Aristotle and ends in 1946 with A.D. Hershey's demonstration of recombination in bacteriophage. Because Carlson is interested in the relative contributions of Americans versus Europeans and the importance of the American graduate school, he provides a useful table summarizing the education of the major contributors to the development of classical genetics. Finally, toward the end of the book, Carlson includes a table showing the fates of the students and technicians other than Bridges, Sturtevant, and Muller who worked in the Morgan lab.Although the personal stories that reveal the human side of genetics will be useful to teachers of genetics, the pictures may be the most valuable element of this very fine book. In teaching any scientific subject, it is important to remind students that science is a human enterprise—that scientists are ordinary people, like the students themselves, who ask the questions and tease out the answers that fill up our textbooks. Carlson has collected a trove of portraits of scientists who have contributed to the history of genetics, and, as I turned the pages, I found picture after picture that I wanted to show to my students. There are, I believe, 92 portraits and snapshots in this book, ranging from familiar faces, such as Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel, Thomas Hunt Morgan, George Beadle, Barbara McClintock, and Oswald T. Avery, to faces seldom seen in textbooks, such as Mathias Schleiden, August Weismann, Carl Nägeli, William Bateson, Nettie Stevens, Clarence E. McClung, Calvin Bridges, Ralph Cleland, and N.I. Vavilov.More careful editing would have greatly enhanced the impact of this ambitious book. The sequencing of material is sometimes quirky. In a chapter on maize genetics, for example, footnote 5, which is cited on page 142, concerns research by Beal, but Beal and his work are not mentioned in the text until page 143. The reader can only wonder at the mysterious reference when it first arises. In other places, the writing is simply sloppy. Take for example the following confusing passage (p. 191): “After the Bolshevik victory, Muller was a communist in everything but membership. Like Muller, Bridges had no strong commitment to a political change in the world that would establish either socialism or communism, and he did not consider himself an activist as was Muller.” And on page 247, there is a multidimensional—one might almost call it Freudian—error in attribution: In a passage describing work on a lethal tumor gene in Drosophila, Carlson writes, “some 25 years later, Leanne S. Russell (later in mouse genetics) identified its mode of death as a blockage of the intestines.” However, the work on these hereditary tumors was really done by Elizabeth S. Russell, not by Liane B. Russell. Elizabeth S. Russell, who died in 2001, and Liane B. Russell, who retired from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2002, both had distinguished careers in mouse genetics. In addition, they were, respectively, the first and second wives of the late mouse geneticist, William L. Russell. As far as I know, there was no Leanne S. Russell.Opening Carlson's book is, for a teacher of genetics, something like finding a trunk filled with family memorabilia. The pictures, quotations, anecdotes—some only half-remembered, some revealed for the first time—bring to life a past that all of us share. Carlson's tale of the effort to “win the facts” and his thumbnail biographies of the people who labored to win them provides plenty of material to whet the appetites of students. Like the family member who finds the trunk, teachers will want to share the contents of Mendel's Legacy with their kids.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 4, No. 1 March 01, 20050-104 Metrics Downloads & Citations Downloads: 31 History Information© 2005 by The American Society for Cell BiologyPDF download

Cell Biology EducationVol. 4, No. 1 FEATURESFree AccessVideo Views and Reviews: Cytokinesis: A Phenomenon Overlooked Too OftenChristopher WattersChristopher WattersSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-08-0049AboutSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Many students use “mitosis” and “cell division” interchangeably, apparently unaware that cell division includes mitosis as well as another, equally important process called cytokinesis. Mitosis separates duplicated chromosomes, whereas cytokinesis divides the parent cell (and duplicated chromosomes) into two daughter cells. Although these phenomena usually are linked temporally as well as spatially, mitosis can and does occur in the absence of cytokinesis (e.g., during the early development of Drosophila and other insects when many mitotic cycles occur before daughter nuclei become compartmentalized into separate cells; Alberts et al., 2002). Moreover, different mechanisms are responsible for each phenomenon. Thus, we give mitosis and cytokinesis different names, and it would be unfortunate (and especially confusing for students) if the definition of the former were expanded to include cytokinesis, as claimed in a recent review (Rieder and Khodjakov, 2003).Thinking about these phenomena, I realized I was much more familiar with mitosis than I was with cytokinesis. Not only had I read contemporary reviews of the subject (Rieder and Khodjakov, 2003 [including 10 videos]; Mitchison and Salmon, 2001) and of mitosis Web sites (Blystone, 2003), I recently had reviewed videos and research articles dealing with the phenomenon in past Video Views and Reviews (Watters, 2003, 2002). My knowledge of cytokinesis, by contrast, was much less current and informed, and I was delighted when I had the opportunity in July 2004 to attend a conference on cytokinesis sponsored by the American Society for Cell Biology. This Feature arises from my experience at the conference and a subsequent search on High Wire Press ( http://highwire.stanford.edu) for current research articles and videos on cytokinesis. Interested readers also may want to consult an older, comprehensive review written by a pioneer in the field (Rappaport, 1996) and the collaborative Web site maintained by the “Cytokinesis Mafia”: http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/salmon/lab/mafia/index.html.As most students know, mitosis entails the condensation of duplicated chromosomes during prophase; their alignment and separation along the mitotic apparatus (or spindle, as it is sometimes called) during, respectively, metaphase and anaphase; and the chromosomes' compartmentalization and relaxation during telophase. Once the chromosomes have been separated, cytokinesis begins, typically producing a cleavage furrow oriented at right angles to the axis of the spindle and passing through the plane of the metaphase plate. Anaphase, telophase, and furrow formation in a cultured animal cell are illustrated in Figure 1 (taken from Alsop and Zhang, 2003). Mechanistically, chromosomal movement occurs through the agency of the mitotic spindle, the kinetochores that attach chromosomes to various microtubular fibers of the spindle, the dynamic instability of microtubules themselves, and microtubular “motor” proteins (Rieder and Khodjakov, 2003). In contrast, cytokinesis and the formation of a cleavage furrow depend on the contraction of a cortical ring of actin and myosin filaments located just beneath the plasma membrane (Alberts et al., 2002). Ring constriction during cytokinesis is often referred to as purse-stringing, because the dividing daughter cells often resemble bags with gradually closing necks. The relative organization of the spindle and cortical ring is illustrated in Figure 2 (taken from Alsop and Zhang, 2004).Although mitosis and cytokinesis are different phenomena, it is clear the mitotic apparatus is responsible for the location of the cortical ring midway between the spindle poles (centrosomes) and around the metaphase plate (Alberts et al., 2002). Micromanipulation of the spindle at critical times can cause the relocation of the cleavage furrow (see Rappaport, 1996). In the extreme, cytokinesis can occur in the absence of a spindle, as elegantly shown in an early experiment by Rappaport (1961), in any cytoplasmic region where astral microtubules from two centrosomes contact one another and adjacent regions of the plasma membrane. (This classic experiment is summarized in unattributed Figures 18-31 [Alberts et al., 2002] and unattributed Figures 20-41 [Lodish et al., 2003].) It is not well understood how cortical ring contraction causes a furrow to form and to become constricted or how the spindle determines the location of the cortical ring.Here I review recently published videos that depict the roles played by myosin II in contraction of the cortical ring during cellularization and cytokinesis in early development (Royou et al., 2004), by spindle and astral microtubules in regulating the formation of cleavage furrows during the cleavage of primary spermatocytes (Inoue et al., 2004), and by a novel kinase in the regulation of cortical ring formation in postembryonic development (D'Avino et al., 2004). All three sets of videos were obtained from Drosophila material and nicely illustrate the complexity of cytokinesis in a single organism. For the sake of simplicity, however, I have focused on those aspects of the articles that relate to phenomena depicted in the videos. The videos and articles are suitable for intermediate and advanced undergraduate students as well as graduate students, and their study could be extended to cytokinesis in other organisms through a High Wire search.Figure 1. Phase contrast images taken from a time-lapse movie of a dividing cultured kangaroo rat kidney epithelial cell (PtK1) in late anaphase (A), telophase (B), and early interphase (C). Imagining a clock face superimposed on each image, the nearly invisible mitotic spindle is oriented along a line drawn from eleven to four o'clock and the cleavage furrow is forming at a right angle to the spindle along a line drawn from one to seven o'clock. Note the chromosomes being separated toward the spindle poles in A and becoming decondensed in B as nuclei reform. The furrow, especially evident in C, is exaggerated in this material because in culture, the cells are flattened and not compacted in a three-dimensional tissue. The movie originated in the Salmon Laboratory and may be viewed on the Cytokinesis Mafia Web site: http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/salmon/lab/mafia/phmit1.mov.I appreciate hearing your reactions to these reviews and your suggestions of other peer-reviewed videos for possible review as educational material.Figure 2. Terminal stages in the cell division of grasshopper spermatocytes illustrated in (A) a fluorescent image of a fixed preparation stained for DNA in the telophase nucleus (blue), MT in the mitotic apparatus (green), and actin primarily organized in a cortical ring (red); and phase-contrast images of a different spermatocyte with similar orientation, in telophase (B), and several minutes later as the cortical ring has contracted and the furrow has formed (C). The fluorescent image shows a 3-D composite reconstructed from 25 optical slices through the mitotic apparatus, which in the video slowly rotates about the x- and y-axes: http://jcs.biologists.org/content/vol117/issue8/images/data/1591/DC1/Movie3.mov. The time-lapse, phase contrast video may be viewed: http://jcs.biologists.org/content/vol117/issue8/images/data/1591/DC1/Movie1.mov. Images reproduced with permission from The Company of Biologists and Journal of Cell Science.MYOSIN II, CELLULATION, AND CYTOKINESIS IN DROSOPHILA EMBRYOSRoyou et al. (2004) examined the dynamic behavior of nonmuscle myosin II during cellularization and cytokinesis in early Drosophila embryos, using a chimera of green fluorescent protein (GFP) fused with the C-terminus of a myosin regulatory light chain (RLC). They also used rhodamine-labeled tubulin to localize microtubules (MT). Prior to studying myosin's role in cellularization, however, students might find it easier to appreciate myosin's role in forming cleavage furrows during cytokinesis (Figure 3), and the authors devote an experiment and the last of their five videos to myosin's contribution to cytokinesis. Most students will recognize that actin (Figure 2) and myosin II colocalize in cortical rings and will have little difficulty hypothesizing a role for sliding filaments of actin and myosin during cortical ring constriction. Those students who are sticklers for detail might prefer to see the results of a colocalization experiment for actin and myosin in the same blastoderm cell, but the authors' data are consistent with the findings of others, as far as the composition of contractile rings in different cells is concerned (see Alberts et al., 2002). More intriguingly, Figure 3 (and authors' Movie 5) make it very clear that most of the myosin appears in the cortex just beneath the plasma membrane. Inquisitive students will want to know how this motor protein is targeted when it is first transported to the cortex following its synthesis on cytoplasmic ribosomes, and then during mitosis, when it is assembled further into a ring encircling the metaphase plate. They also might wonder whether actin polymerization and localization exhibits similar spatial and temporal patterns during ring formation. What moves the motors and the cytoskeleton and regulates their assembly? Data concerning the effects of an inhibitor of actin polymerization (cytochalasin) and of the spaghetti squash mutant (sqh1) lacking RLC provide useful information in this regard (authors' Figures 8B and C), but unfortunately, the source videos for these figures were not included in the archive. Authors' Movie 5 (and Figure 8A) nicely illustrates in control cells the temporal distinction between the formation of the contractile ring and its subsequent function, and it is likely students would find a comparison of this movie with videos of experimental cells very informative concerning the putative difference between formation of the cortical ring and its subsequent function. Finally, the very observant may notice small amounts of myosin apparently colocalizing with the mitotic spindle and wonder whether the motor protein also plays a role in mitosis.Figure 3. Confocal fluorescent images of cytokinesis in the cellular blastoderm of a Drosophila embryo viewed en face. Cells contain GFP-RLC (green) and rhodamine-labeled tubulin (red) illustrating the presence of myosin II and MT, respectively. Three cells in metaphase are imaged in (A), showing red mitotic spindles (and dark chromosomes) and green myosin diffusely located in thin, cortical regions just beneath the plasma membranes. As mitosis is completed (B and C), cytokinesis begins with myosin coalescing into cortical rings in the region formerly occupied by the metaphase plate. Each ring then begins constricting to form a cleavage furrow. In these very thin confocal images, the cortical rings appear in cross-section as two thickened nodules. The video may be viewed: http://www.molbiolcell.org/content/vol0/issue2003/images/data/E03-06-0440/DC1/Movie5Fig8A.mov.The other four videos archived with Royou et al. (2004) concern the behavior of myosin II in cellularization. To understand this more complex phenomenon and the very striking videos, the viewer must first appreciate the idiosyncratic nature of early Drosophila development (Gilbert, 2003). Following fertilization, 13 rounds of mitotic division create a multinucleate (or syncytial) embryo in which nuclei first are evenly distributed throughout the very yolky, single-celled egg and then become localized around the periphery (Figure 4). At that time, cleavage furrows begin forming around the nuclei synchronously and perpendicular to the egg surface, to form the cellular blastoderm in a process called cellularization. Subsequent mitotic events during Drosophila development are accompanied by cytokinesis (as discussed in the previous paragraph).At this point, I would encourage students to examine Movies 2 and 5 (and authors' Figures 2 and 8, respectively) and consider how cellularization compares with cytokinesis. Doing so provides an excellent test of their powers of observation and precision of thought. In Movie 2, once they recognize the dark, clear (fluorescence-free) nuclei and the egg surface highlighted by rhodamine staining, most students will appreciate that GFP-RLC (and presumably, myosin II) was recruited to the cortex as a preamble to cellularization, just as the chimera was during cytokinesis (compare Figures 3A and 5A). And some may recognize contractile rings beginning to form, resembling tonsures at the apical surfaces of “bald” nuclei (Figure 5B). Most also will note large particles of GFP-RLC being transported from the egg's interior to these rings. With the recruitment of additional GFP-RLC, ring fluorescence intensifies and begins moving in a basal direction (toward the interior of the egg and the bottom of the video images; Figures 5C and D). Though invisible in the videos, cleavage furrows follow the ingression of these rings deep into the egg, and the authors report that after the rings and furrows advance beyond the nuclei, they begin to close at the basal side, partitioning nuclei into discrete cellular compartments.The fluorescence, of course, is striking, and the hexagonal pattern of GFP-RLC localization during cytokinesis (Movie 5) resembles a similar image evident in Movie 3 toward the end of cellularization (when the cortical rings are imaged in a more en face manner than they are in Movie 2). Moreover, the rates of movement of green fluorescence evident in cytokinesis (Movie 5) and in the latter stages of cellularization in Movie 2 seem very similar, suggesting a similar mechanism for both. In this regard, more quantitative details about these rates would have been helpful, in the form of clock inserts showing elapsed time or descriptions of the time-lapse and projection rates. In fact, cellularization lasts approximately 50 minutes (according to the authors), whereas cytokinesis during later development takes only about 3 minutes (as inferred from authors' Figure 8A). The cells formed by cellularization are obviously much larger than those formed later in development by cytokinesis, but on the basis of the information available, one can only guess at the relative rates and any similarity of the underlying mechanisms. Moreover, cellularization appears to exhibit both slow and fast phases (Movie 2), with the fluorescent rings moving more slowly as they engirdle nuclei, and then more rapidly when closing.Figure 4. Confocal fluorescent images of labeled nuclei in an early Drosophila embryo during the first 13 rounds of mitosis. The first eight nuclear divisions occur centrally and in the absence of cytokinesis, after which the 256 nuclei migrate to the periphery of the egg and continue dividing. After 13 nuclear divisions, cleavage furrows begin to form around each nucleus, which creates a peripheral layer of cells surrounding a central core of undivided yolk. (Fig. 9.1, Developmental Biology, Seventh Edition, Gilbert, 2003: http://www.sinauer.com/milestones-devbio/Gilbert7e_263-303.pdf.)At this point, most students may feel confused. On one hand, some of the very colorful aspects of cellularization and cytokinesis seem similar, especially the green honeycomb-like patterns of cortical myosin localization common to both. Yet, the two phenomena differ remarkably in their global aspects. Not only does cellularization seem longer and biphasic, but it occurs in the absence of mitosis, unlike cytokinesis. During cellularization, there are no spindles or metaphase plates to orient the cortical rings. (As suggested by classical histology, the rings seem to form in association with centrosomes and astral MT fibers that are located at the apical surfaces of blastoderm nuclei [see Figure 9.3 in Gilbert, 2003]) Indeed, these rings engirdle intact nuclei as furrowing proceeds, and they contract (as during cytokinesis) only during the final stages of cellularization. (The last part of authors' Movie 3 presents an excellent view of purse-stringing.) How does one make sense of these phenomena?Heuristically, it may be worthwhile for students first to consider the possibility that cellularization and cytokinesis exhibit a similar sequence of steps or stages and then to hypothesize what these might be. One possible hypothesis contains the following sequence: 1) cortical recruitment of myosin and actin; 2) their assembly into a peripheral ring of fibers; 3) orientation or positioning of the ring; and, finally, 4) ring contraction. The two phenomena might then be understood to differ primarily in the length and prominence of the third step. During cytokinesis, cortical assembly and ring orientation around the metaphase plate seem to be rapid, nearly simultaneous events, whereas during cellularization, ring assembly occurs at the apical surface of a nucleus, and the ring then becomes oriented in a more protracted manner before contraction begins, by engirdling the nucleus and moving tens of microns in a basal direction in a process called ingression. Ring orientation and movement is also the prominent mechanistic feature of cellularization, because ingression of the cleavage furrow, which forms at the apical surface at the same time as the ring, seems tightly correlated with ring ingression. Following ingression, furrow closure during cellularization and both furrow formation and closure during cytokinesis require ring contraction, which is a relatively rapid event. Students are likely to raise many questions during their discussion. For example, are these four stages necessary and sufficient to describe both phenomena? Have some aspects of either phenomena been omitted? How might the existence of these stages be tested? Specifically, what causes and regulates step 3? The authors report the effects of cytochalasins and colchicine on cellularization, and examination of Movie 4 and authors' Figure 3 would prove instructive in answering this last question. So would the authors' data concerning the effect of the sqh1 mutant on cellularization (authors' Figure 5).As it turns out, ring movement during cellularization requires the presence of MT, and although the ring must be present, actin and myosin do not seem to be actively involved in their own relocation. The MT requirement is consonant with older observations on fixed material showing the correlated elongation of blastoderm nuclei and the growth of MT and cleavage furrows (see Figure 9.3A in Gilbert, 2003). Students can conclude then, as do the authors, that furrow ingression and basal closure during cellularization are partially independent events. Reaching this conclusion then might lead to their wondering whether these two phenomena also might be partially independent, albeit concurrent, processes during cytokinesis.Cellularization also provides a broad window for viewing other, more subtle aspects of cytokinesis, such as the increase in cell surface that accompanies cell division. More thoughtful students may wonder whether purse-stringing without the addition of new plasma membrane can separate daughter cells. In the case of cellularization, however, it should be obvious to most that furrow formation requires considerable expansion of the plasma membrane. The present study does not address how new membrane is added during cellularization, whether it is added during cytokinesis also, and in both instances, where the membrane might originate.Students querying the more general importance of MT in organizing cytokinesis will find the next two articles especially interesting.Figure 5. Confocal fluorescent images depicting cellularization, or the formation of the cellular blastoderm, in a section through the cortex of an early Drosophila embryo. Seven colorless, “black” nuclei near the cortex, which contains rhodamine-labeled MT (red) and GFP-RLC (green), are evident in A. The cortical rings begin to form in B and then begin to slide synchronously as “collars” past the nuclei in C and D. Cleavage furrows, which cannot be seen, form behind the advancing cortical rings. Note the nuclei become elongated as the cortical ring moves past them, suggesting they are being compressed as cellularization proceeds. The video may be viewed: http://www.molbiolcell.org/content/vol0/issue2003/images/data/E03-06-0440/DC1/Movie2Fig2.mov.ROLE OF MICROTUBULES IN CYTOKINESISDrosophila is an excellent system for the study of numerous developmental phenomena, in large part because of its detailed genetic history and the ease with which developmental mutants can be screened and propagated. Recently, Inoue et al. (2004) characterized the dynamics of spindle behavior and furrow formation in Drosophila primary spermatocytes that exhibited wild-type and orbit mutant phenotypes. They employed a chimeric protein consisting of GFP and b-tubulin to label the MT of the mitotic spindle, and they documented spindle and furrow behavior, using differential interference contrast (DIC) microscopy and fluorescence microscopy. As shown in other studies, the Orbit protein localizes in various types of cell at the (+) ends of MT and specifically at kinetochores, and orbit mutants often display disrupted spindles and incomplete mitoses arrested at metaphase (see Inoue et al., 2004). Selected images from videos of mitosis and furrow formation in spermatocytes from squash preparations are presented in Figure 6.As is true in similar videos I have reviewed, simultaneously captured DIC and fluorescence images can be pedagogically impressive when the various optics have been optimized. The images of mitosis and cytokinesis in these very thin, squashed preparations are especially clear and distinct, and most students easily will recognize the mitotic spindle and the early stages of cleavage furrow formation in the paired control preparations of Video 1 (Figures 6A and B and Figures 6C and D, respectively). Two populations of MT are evident in the fluorescent images in late anaphase: a narrow cylinder of interior MT and the wing-like flaps of peripheral MT (Figure 6B). According to the authors, the latter are astral tubules that became segregated from the interior, spindle MT by remnants of the nuclear envelope, which in Drosophila apparently does not completely degrade during mitosis. As mitosis was completed, GFP fluorescence increased in the cell cortex, suggesting that the astral MT became bundled once they made contact with the cortex; most students will also note that fluorescence and bundling of the spindle MT increased in the midline as the furrow ingressed. Correspondingly, fluorescence of both interior and peripheral MT decreased at the spindle extremities, near the brightly fluorescent centrosomes, suggesting that both spindle and astral MT had detached from the centrosomal organization centers. Curious students may wonder whether other aspects of microtubular behavior were involved in these changes in fluorescence. Are the detached MT disassembling and/or being transported toward the spindle midline? How might alternative explanations be tested? Whatever the explanation, however, the pattern of microtubular behavior was drastically affected by the orbit mutant. (The mutants employed were hypomorphic, producing less than the wild-type amounts of Orbit protein, and students understanding this distinction may wonder whether the cell division phenotypes expressed in mutant cells might not be more variable than the observations reported.)Figure 6. Images of primary spermatocytes during cytokinesis, from wild-type (A, B, C, D) and orbit mutant (E, F, G, H) Drosophila as viewed with DIC microscopy (A, C, E, G) and fluorescence microscopy (B, D, F, H), at various times after the onset of cytokinesis: at +8 min (A, B and E, F), +15 min (C, D) and +33 min (G, H). Comparable early (8 min) and late (15 and 33 min) stages were selected from the videos. At an early post-anaphase stage, the mitotic spindle with its bright polar centrosomes is clearly evident in wild-type cells (B) but much less evident in the orbit mutant. Images A-D were taken from this video: http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/full/jcb.200402052/DC1/4; images E-H were taken from this video: http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/full/jcb.200402052/DC1/8.Several features of cell division in Drosophila spermatocytes changed in response to reduced levels of the Orbit protein, and characterizing these changes could form the basis of a student discussion of the mechanics of furrow formation and cytokinesis. The changes evident in Video 5 (Figures 6E-G) include an irregularly shaped spindle, apparently fewer spindle MT, less regular arrays of both interior and peripheral MT, and a failure of microtubular detachment at the centrosome poles as anaphase proceeded. In spite of these changes, a cleavage furrow formed, albeit more slowly, taking 18 minutes to reach a stage of ingression comparable to the wild-type cell (compare Figures 6G and H with Figures 6C and D). Purse-stringing in these mutants never advanced to the same degree as in the wild-type cells, however. Control cells formed highly fluorescent midbodies, which consisted of thin necks of cytoplasm densely packed with MT and connecting daughter cells (see the 25-minute frame of Movie 1 and authors' Figure 1). Moreover, according to the authors, the furrows in mutant cells later regressed. They argue that cleavage furrow formation (and cytokinesis) was initiated by astral (peripheral) MT, but completed through the intercession of spindle (interior) MT. The germinal importance of astral MT is further strengthened by events portrayed in Video 4, where a furrow formed parallel to the spindle (rather than perpendicular to it) and passed more or less along a plane through both the centrosomes! Having considered the importance of centrosomes during the early stages of cellularization (discussed previously) some students will find it interesting that astral MT may be involved in spermatocyte cell division. Some students will also be frustrated that neither movie of an orbit mutant cell (Videos 4 and 5) shows furrow regression, precluding their tracking the terminal failure of cytokinesis with other changes in microtubular behavior.Responding to these movies and to the authors' suggestion that peripheral and spindle MT play different roles in cytokinesis, students likely will pose numerous questions concerning, for example, the location of Orbit in wild-type spermatocytes and the consequence of its absence in mutants. These latter concerns are addressed in authors' Figures 3, 6, and 7, respectively, using immunofluorescence of fixed preparations. In similar preparations of mutant cells, actin and Anillin (a contractile ring protein) failed to become localized in a ring surrounding the midregion of the spindle, and this result will confuse many students who associate the formation of a cleavage furrow with the presence of a contractile ring of actin, myosin, and such ancillary proteins as Anillin. How could the furrows seen in the video have been generated by incomplete rings? Confused students also might want to know how GFP chimeras of these dislocated proteins behave in squashes of living, mutant cells and how that behavior correlates with furrows that form and later regress in the mutants. More advanced students, aware of the kinds of GFPs available for tracking protein movement, would likely also be interested in tracking the behavior of a red fluorescent protein chimera of Orbit (YFP-Orbit) and GFP-tubulin coexpressed in wild-type cells. Inquisitive students also will wonder how the absence of a critical protein at the kinetochore or (+) end of a spindle MT can affect the MT's attachment to the centrosome at its (-) end. All in all, students will find this paper and movies very provocative.Extending their examination of cytokinesis to spermatocytes of other insects, students may wish to consider the recent studies by Alsop and Zhang (2003, 2004) concerning the importance of spindle components in regulating the location of the contractile ring in grasshopper spermatocytes. These authors systematically analyzed the effects of asters, truncated spindles lacking chromosomes and asters, or MT alone. Cleavage furrows formed under all conditions, and their data suggest that when present in sufficient numbers (i.e., according to the authors, bundled!) MT alone are sufficient to reorient the cleavage furrow and stimulate its formation.KINASE REGULATION OF CYTOKINESIS: THE ROLE OF STICKYGiven the rapidity with which the contractile ring forms and contracts during mitosis, and the apparent ease with which it can be relocated, it is not surprising this assemblage of actin, myosin II, and ancillary proteins is considered a very dynamic structure. In fact, students who have discussed the videos presented above likely would have queried the ring's dynamic features. If so, they will find the videos and article recently published by D'Avino et al. (2004) particularly interesting. These authors characterized the phenotype produced in cultured Drosophila S2 cells by RNAi silencing of sticky (sti), the gene coding for a protein kinase that regulates contractile ring behavior. The S2 line of cultured epithelial cells was derived from 20- to 24-hour embryos many years ago by Schneider (1969).Images of a control cell (transfected with dsRNA for GFP) undergoing cytokinesis are presented in Figure 7, showing the beginning of furrow formation (Figure 7A), the completion of the furrow (Figure 7B), and much later, after interphase nuclei have been reformed in th

Cell Biology EducationVol. 4, No. 1 FEATURESFree AccessA Useful How-To Guide for Course and Curricula RevisionsJoyce K. OnoJoyce K. OnoSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-08-0050AboutSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail The explosive changes in the biological sciences in the past two decades and results of research on how people learn have led many faculty to reevaluate the content, delivery, and effectiveness of traditional biology courses and curricula (e.g., see the CBE, Summer 2003 review by Doug Fambrough of the Bio2010 report). Change is never easy, however, and most faculty in higher education are ill equipped to initiate and implement major curricular revisions without some guidance or a model. Robert Diamond's revised work provides a model for effecting change, a model that has many of the elements that we successfully used in a major revision of the biology core curriculum at Cal State Fullerton University.When I was asked to review Diamond's book because of our experience in transforming our curriculum, its title sounded vaguely familiar. Indeed, I discovered that I had bought it back in 1998, at the same time that I had naively accepted the task of overseeing the curricular revision for our department by being elected vice chair. When I reread the book for this review, I even discovered the Post-It note that marked where I had presumably quit reading: Chapter 12, “Selecting and Using Technology.” In rereading the book, after five arduous years of the meetings, grant writing, faculty retreats, surveys, presentations, and reports that led to full implementation of our new curriculum in 2003, I found that we had employed many of the same processes that are described in Diamond's model. Thus, this book would provide a useful starting point for others embarking on curricular change.Gathered here are the important considerations, procedural guides, and references needed to systematically initiate and implement curricular and course revisions to establish a learner-centered program, that is, a curriculum or course that focuses not only on content, but also incorporates research findings on how students learn and assessments to monitor the effectiveness of the program to enable continual improvements. Although this goal was new to us back in the mid-1990s, we came to embrace it as we discovered that focusing only on content could not address the problems of low retention, both in terms of the number of majors completing the core courses and in the lack of students' conceptual knowledge in upper division courses. Moreover, we found that focusing on the content of our courses was divisive and inefficient: We invariably ended up with impossibly long lists of facts and principles, oftentimes with individuals adamant of the importance of their particular area of expertise, resulting in “turf wars.”Diamond's model for developing a learner-centered curriculum or course consists of five stages: 1) determining the need to change; 2) identifying goals or desirable outcomes; 3) designing the curriculum or instruction to attain these goals and the assessments that will provide the necessary feedback about the attainment of goals; 4) implementation and assessment (which feeds back to the goals statement); and 5) revision based on the results of the assessment. He asserts that this model is flexible and can be used in a variety of campuses and local situations. In Chapter 2, the processes, roles of those involved, and the rationale for each stage of the model are further elucidated; Chapters 3 to 12 provide details for accomplishing the first three stages. Chapters 13 (“Developing a Learning-Centered Syllabus”) and 14 (“Cultivating a Respect for Diversity”) are geared toward course design issues. Chapter 15 focuses on the final stages of Diamond's model, namely, implementation, evaluation, and refinement of the course or curriculum. The final chapter (“Learning from Experience”) reiterates the major components of the model based on Diamond's personal experiences and stresses the need for an overall vision and systematic approach for success.As a professor of instructional design, development, and evaluation and of higher education at Syracuse University in New York, Robert M. Diamond has the credentials and experience for writing this book. For more than 20 years, he was assistant vice chancellor of the Center for Instructional Development. He also served as a consultant to numerous colleges and universities, and a Web search ( http://www.thenationalacademy.org/About/principals.html) revealed that he is currently serving as president of the National Academy for Academic Leadership in St. Petersburg, FL. Despite his own roles in administration, Diamond clearly intends faculty to be the main audience of this book. Therefore, it directly addresses many of the concerns facing faculty involved in the time sink that curricular and course revision require, including how to justify involvement in curricular and course development as scholarly activity and not mainly as part of their usual teaching (part of Chapter 1). Consistent with this perspective, Diamond has been a national proponent in effecting changes in faculty reward systems, as well as an author of a guide for faculty undergoing the promotion and tenure process.Diamond emphasizes the need for flow-chart-type diagrams to visualize and effectively communicate processes and their interrelationships, and he follows his own advice by using many such diagrams throughout the book. Like a true how-to book, there is even an exercise to convert a text description of a problematic course into a diagram (Chapter 2, “Systematic Design: Model and Benefits”). Because descriptors are not provided in the figure legends, however, many of these diagrams are not clear unless you refer back to the text. In addition, there are some instances in which the figures are not clearly separated from the text, making it difficult to find the continuation of a paragraph or a bulleted list. Despite the distraction of the formatting, our experiences support Diamond's focus on effective graphical communication. For example, in our curricular revision project, we also made extensive use of process diagrams, organizational charts, and matrices in presentations, grants, reports, and advising documents.The book presents a variety of case studies as examples and I found myself skimming these unless they directly pertained to our situation or discipline. Nevertheless, having concrete examples is helpful and provides support that the model works in a variety of situations and disciplines. The appendix includes longer case studies, as well as useful forms and surveys. A cross-reference that related the appendices to specific parts of the book would have been useful, although the purposes of many are obvious (e.g.,“ Resource D: Sample Alumni Survey for Evaluating Program Effectiveness and Needs”).Discussion of curricular and course transformations are combined throughout the book, although it is a more useful guide for curricular redesign. Because courses are integral to a curriculum, the presentation of both together is easily justified, and the model can be applied to both. Curricular revisions are by nature much larger in scope, however, and require the involvement of many individuals and greater resources. Not unexpectedly, then, there are times when the descriptors and processes in the book are not appropriate to both.Several key factors in our experience in curricular reform concur with Diamond's model. First, we also found that the success of the project hinges on teamwork among faculty. In our effort, we organized almost all of the faculty in the department into collaboratives to develop the learning goals for each of the new core courses. This involvement also led to ownership and stewardship of the product. Second, we also discovered that an external facilitator is a key member of the team. For our process, we employed a professional facilitator with experience both in developing processes for attaining goals through consensus and who could also question our assumptions without being divisive. Finally, we also found that involving administrators and other stakeholders was necessary to generate political support for the project. Communication with administrators, support staff, faculty in other departments, and feeder community colleges and students was necessary to gain acceptance and to garner resources needed for our revisions. In contrast, our process has deviated from that proposed by Diamond with regard to developing appropriate assessments for the new curriculum. In hindsight, we should have addressed assessment strategies at the same time that we identified our learning outcomes. Although we had evaluators involved in the project, they were evaluating the process we were using to effect change, not the products of our labors. It turns out that assessment at the programmatic level is not so easy to do, although we have made progress in this area. For example, in addition to using the Educational Testing Service's Major Field Tests in Biology for assessment of biological content, which is now required of all our graduating seniors, we also have taken time to define what we mean by critical thinking and problem solving in biology to develop appropriate assessments.Since we first started discussions of revising our core curriculum in 1995, it has taken us seven arduous years to revise our core curriculum and to offer the first two courses sequentially as pilots in 2002. Perhaps if we had been more mindful of Diamond's advice, we could have shortened the process instead of “rediscovering the wheel.” In May 2004, we convened representatives from 17 biology departments in the California State University system for a workshop on revising the biology core curriculum ( http://www.calstate.edu/itl/proposals/2004_reports.shtml). We provided each campus with a copy of Grant Wiggins' and Jay McTighe's Understanding by Design (Prentice Hall, 2001) as a resource for designing new curricula. In retrospect, after rediscovering Diamond's book, Designing and Assessing Courses and Curricula would have been more comprehensive, practical, and user-friendly. I highly recommend that faculty involved in curriculum or course revision (or better still, those at the contemplation stage) read this book and, unlike me, keep it in a handy place, ready for constant consultation, instead of buried on a sagging bookshelf.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 4, No. 1 March 01, 20050-104 Metrics Downloads & Citations Downloads: 57 History Information© 2005 by The American Society for Cell BiologyPDF download

Cell Biology EducationVol. 4, No. 2 FEATURESFree AccessWhy Intelligent Design Isn't IntelligentMark D. DeckerMark D. DeckerSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-02-0071AboutSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail As an evolutionary biologist, I am always somewhat vexed by the appearance of each new book aimed at refuting creationism and antievolutionism. After all, evolution is the central unifying principle of biology, and it is a well-established component of mainstream scientific thinking. I don't see cell biologists constantly having to defend the cell theory or astronomers having to defend the heliocentric model of the solar system. (I do realize, of course, that there are “biblical astronomers” who do claim the Earth is at the center of it all, but even among creationists these folks are viewed as being on the fringe.)Then I recall those poll results we all hear about from time to time. As an example, the Gallup Organization (1999) reported that 68 percent of those polled favored teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools, and an astounding 40 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. The positions of public school teachers may be similar to those of the general public: a 1990 survey indicated that 40 percent of the science teachers polled believed there were sufficient problems with evolutionary theory to cast doubt on its validity (Eve and Dunn, 1990). There obviously exists a major disconnect between the view of the scientific community and what the general public accepts, and (unfortunately) books like Mark Perakh's Unintelligent Design continue to be needed.In the past year, several books have been published that aim to counter the claims of the latest flavor of creationism, intelligent design (ID), including God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory by Niall Shanks; Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross; and Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism by Matt Young and Taner Edis. Although cloaked in the mantle of science, ID is nothing more than the argument offered by the natural theologians of the 1800s: organisms and features of organisms are machine-like in their complexity; human-produced machines are designed; therefore, organisms must also have been designed. The ID movement took off in the mid-1990s with the publication of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Here, Behe introduced the concept of “irreducible complexity,” suggesting that biochemical and physiological systems are so complex and the parts are so interdependent that they could not have evolved through gradual elaboration (e.g., what good is 1 percent of an eye?). Many biologists have countered the notion of irreducible complexity by demonstrating how Behe's examples of irreducible complexity—running the gamut from mousetraps to blood-clotting mechanisms—could in fact have developed by gradual change.Unintelligent Design represents a slightly different entry into the increasingly crowded field of anti-ID books. Whereas most of these books are written by biologists and/or philosophers, Perakh is a professor emeritus of physics (California State University, Fullerton) and brings a unique perspective to the discussion. Perakh focuses throughout on the illogical nature of the arguments proposed by ID adherents and on the misuse and misapplication of statistical analysis in ID claims. His position is clear from the start (consider the possible double meaning of the title), and he is generally unrestrained when discussing the ideas proposed by ID advocates.The first section of the book introduces and analyzes the proposals of three prominent figures in the ID movement, William Dembski, Michael Behe, and Phillip Johnson. Dembski receives the most thorough treatment, because Dembski's published work involves subject areas (probability and information theory) with which Perakh is familiar. Dembski's apparent lack of understanding of basic principles in information theory and physics is discussed, and a major theme of the book is introduced: ID is not scientific inquiry, because the final conclusion, that God, specifically the God of Christianity, has designed life on Earth, is predetermined before any investigation begins. Behe's idea of irreducible complexity is discussed in the next chapter, in which Perakh (a physicist) excuses himself from commenting on the biological aspects of Behe's claims but instead argues that the concept of irreducible complexity is clearly wrong and that complex systems actually tend to be overly complex and would therefore be examples of rather poor design. Johnson receives a fairly scathing treatment as being a“ militant dilettante,” and Johnson's well-known wedge strategy is renamed the “wedge of arrogance.” The discussion and refutation of the ideas of the ID advocates are clear throughout this section, although unless already familiar with the works of Behe and Johnson, the reader may not gain a complete understanding of the exact ideas being refuted.The book's second section turns to a discussion of a variety of lesser-known figures who have tried to prove the compatibility of the Bible with a scientific understanding of the natural world. As in the previous section, Perakh concentrates on pointing out the problems in these efforts stemming from the authors' basic lack of scientific understanding, their misuse of probability calculations, and the illogical nature of their arguments. In these chapters the book deviates from the first section (and the topic suggested by the book's title), because the various ideas discussed here do not necessarily align with those of ID advocates. Consequently, interest in this section will be confined to those readers who already have some understanding of ID. Perakh's treatment is clear, although more superficial than in the preceding chapters on Dembski, Behe, and Johnson.The final section of the book is a somewhat odd mélange of chapters on what science is, what probability is, and finally, an extended treatment of recent reports of finding coded messages in the Bible. Perakh states that his discussion of how science operates is idiosyncratic, and he is true to his word. He also can't resist a little political commentary and introduces the concept of “pseudoscience” by spending a couple of pages discussing how Marxism is a prime example. (Perakh once lived in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.) The remainder of this chapter is a somewhat rambling discussion of how science is performed, including the role of models in science, potential errors, and what hypotheses and theories are. Although these topics are germane to the defects in ID, the treatment here is haphazard and unclear, probably especially so to a nonscientist. In fact, I fear this chapter is so incoherent that, after reading it, nonscientists may have even less of an idea of the distinction between science and pseudoscience. I also expected a grand overview of what “bad science” and “pseudoscience” are relative to ID but was disappointed that it never materialized.Similarly, the goal of the chapter on probability (subtitled“ Assorted Comments on Some Uses and Misuses of Probability Theory”) is unclear. Perakh does introduce the basics of probability (spending entirely too much time identifying the specific probabilities associated with flipping a coin versus rolling a die), and I'm guessing the average reader would already be comfortable with these concepts. The comments on the cognitive and psychological aspects of probability (e.g., why we are more surprised to get the same result on several successive rolls of a fair die as opposed to a more “random” pattern) are well taken, but again, specific integration with the earlier content of the book is lacking.The final chapter deals with claims of prophecies hidden as code in parts of the Bible. This supposed code is revealed by removing all spaces from the original Hebrew text and then looking for messages formed when nonadjacent letters are put together (e.g., by skipping every 10th letter in a passage). Perakh effectively explains the absurdity of these claims and demonstrates that the supposed word of God can be found in a randomly chosen nonsacred Hebrew text (Perakh's choice is Ziunim Ze Lo Ha Kol, which he translates as Screwing is Not Everything). Although this chapter is interesting and generally relevant, the author devotes too much space to numerous examples of how such “messages” can be found in just about any text and how sensitive the actual message is to the search conditions.Unintelligent Design is certainly interesting and serves a useful role in the universe of materials on this topic. Part of the enjoyment (at least for an evolutionary biologist) stems from how willing Perakh is to call most of the claims made by ID advocates and others “utter nonsense.” At various points Perakh's discussion sinks perilously close to ad hominem attacks (e.g., he titles one chapter “Signature of an Ignoramus”), but he is able to deal with these often outrageous and illogical claims in a civil manner. The book is somewhat verbose and could have benefited from a little editing, both in terms of overall style and in eliminating redundancies.Although useful, this book may not be the best starting place for those interested in learning the basics of ID and science's response to it. For example, it does not provide a good introduction of the major tenets of ID, and the overall coverage is biased toward the author's expertise in physics. However, the physics orientation of the book makes it an important contribution to the library of resources tackling antievolutionism. REFERENCES Eve, R., and Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology and creationism in the classroom? Am. Biol. Teach. 52,10 -21. Google ScholarGallup Organization. (1999). Most Americans support prayer in public schools. http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci3730 (accessed 5 April 2005). Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byChallenges facing systematic biology27 July 2020 | TAXON, Vol. 69, No. 4 Vol. 4, No. 2 June 01, 2005105-179 Metrics Downloads & Citations Downloads: 106Citations: 1 History Information© 2005 by The American Society for Cell BiologyPDF download

How can you inspire young minority scholars to pursue an academic career in the professoriate?How do these scholars acquire the necessary skills to be an effective educator and mentor?The Institute on Teaching and Mentoring provides a unique forum for minority scholars to interact with role models across disciplines and learn about key issues young scholars are likely to face in their future academic careers. 1 This four-day conference was the country's largest gathering of underrepresented doctoral students and made a lasting impression on its attendees (Figure 1).The 2004

The potential for personalized cancer management has long intrigued experienced researchers as well as the naïve student intern. Personalized cancer treatments based on a tumor's genetic profile are now feasible and can reveal both the cells' susceptibility and resistance to chemotherapeutic agents. In a weeklong laboratory investigation that mirrors current cancer research, undergraduate and advanced high school students determine the efficacy of common pharmacological agents through in vitro testing. Using mouse mammary tumor cell cultures treated with "unknown" drugs historically recommended for breast cancer treatment, students are introduced to common molecular biology techniques from in vitro cell culture to fluorescence microscopy. Student understanding is assessed through laboratory reports and the successful identification of the unknown drug. The sequence of doing the experiment, applying logic, and constructing a hypothesis gives the students time to discover the rationale behind the cellular drug resistance assay. The breast cancer experiment has been field tested during the past 5 yr with more than 200 precollege/undergraduate interns through the Gains in the Education of Mathematics and Science program hosted by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Cell Biology EducationVol. 4, No. 2 FEATURESFree AccessFrom the National Academies: Overview of the National Research Council's Board on Science Education and Personal Reflections as a Science TeacherCarl WiemanCarl WiemanSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-02-0069AboutSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Carl Wieman is a Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He chairs the NRC Board on Science Education and is a member of the NRC Board on Physics and Astronomy. He was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in atomic physics, and he was recognized as the 2004 Carnegie/CASE Professor of the Year for Ph.D.-granting institutions for his work in physics education. The statements in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the National Academies or the University of Colorado.Over the past year the National Academies have established a Board on Science Education (BOSE). This marks a major restructuring of the portion of the National Research Council (NRC) that deals with science education. As the first chair of BOSE, I describe in this column the new structure and advantages of this board and discuss some of the agenda of BOSE that I think will be of interest to readers of Cell Biology Education. I also discuss some unofficial, personal goals for BOSE that stimulated me to take the position as chair. A hidden agenda of this note is to address the question in the minds of many people: “When Bruce Alberts ends his term as president of the National Academies of Science on June 30, 2005, will the National Academies forget about science education?” I hope that this column will give you some reassurance that, although it is unlikely that future leaders will match Bruce's passion (who can?!), science education is now widely accepted as an important concern of the Academies, and we will continue to devote a large amount of attention to it in the years to come.THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES' BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATIONPrior to the creation of BOSE, science education at the NRC was primarily under two standing committees,1 the Committee on Science Education K-12 and the Committee on Undergraduate Science Education. Although these committees had dedicated members and carried out a substantial body of good work, they suffered from a variety of limitations faced by many freestanding committees at the NRC, such as focusing on some smaller aspect of an issue without attending as much to the larger educational system. In addition, the NRC's Governing Board was interested in having one board oversee the whole of science education, early childhood through adulthood, as well as issues associated with science education in informal as well as school-based environments.1Many National Academies committees are ad hoc. They are formed to address a specific set of issues, prepare a report on their findings and recommendations, and then disband after the report is published. However, the Academies also maintain a number of standing boards and committees to oversee the development of work in specific disciplines. These boards and committees continue over many years, but their membership changes, with committee members being appointed to specific terms of service.The new structure has merged the two committees into a board overseen by a director and senior program officer, Jean Moon, with a mandate to deal with all issues in science education. As a board, we seek through our membership the expertise and capacity to deal with all aspects of science education, or at least that is our (somewhat daunting) goal. At a structural level, BOSE is now equivalent to other NRC disciplinary boards, such as the Board on Life Sciences (BLS). The hope is that in the same way that Congress or any federal agency with a question about life sciences now naturally looks to BLS for expert advice, BOSE will serve in the same role for the numerous agencies involved in science education. The disciplinary boards such as BLS seldom carry out research activities or reach consensus directly, but they have the expertise to define and organize specialized studies that then respond to questions. They also can be proactive and generate activity where they recognize a clear national need within their general purview. BOSE will now take on a similar role in the area of science education. Of course, other NRC disciplinary boards already carry out some specialized education-related activities, and BOSE and the Center for Education of which it is a part have been and will continue to be involved in working jointly with them on many such projects (for a description of some of these current activities, see Alberts, 2002; Labov, 2003a, b, c, 2004; Wood and Handelsman, 2004).A quick examination of any science education issue as it is considered from a national policy standpoint reveals why a board-scale entity with an exceptionally broad range of expertise is needed. Nearly every issue involves at least three dimensions:Disciplinary—Science education is meaningless without considering the specific ideas and understanding of the evolving nature of physics, biology, chemistry, earth, and astronomical sciences as disciplines and how that is translated into the science content of courses and curricula.Age and Setting—Science education spans kindergarten through graduate school and beyond, and settings from the formal classroom to informal activities such as museums, the Web, and television. We also need to consider how recently emerging research on the human brain and cognition can inform teaching and learning in the disciplines.Implementation—Teachers and their degree of expertise, organizational structures, resources, and politics all play major roles in nearly every aspect of science education, with a current emphasis on science education policy (e.g., science standards and the implications of the No Child Left Behind Act).Many science education issues span large, interconnected segments of all of these dimensions. All too often, science education initiatives have floundered because they failed to address one or more of these multiple crucial aspects. For example, there are many times when dedicated expert scientists have become very involved in developing exciting new curricula that are soon abandoned and forgotten because they are so incompatible with teachers' backgrounds, institutional structures, or curricula mandated by standards. Correspondingly, there are examples of teacher education programs that have little impact because they overlook the need to enhance expertise in the relevant scientific disciplines. It is clear that for the National Academies to play a significant role in improving science education in this country, our efforts must be grounded in an awareness of all of these interconnected facets of education.A brief summary of the topics discussed at recent BOSE meetings gives some idea of the broad scope of its activities.Federal science education policy: What are the issues, questions, and activities? Discussions with high-level people from the Department of Education, National Science Foundation, and Congress.Graduate education in the sciences: What are the needs? How well is the current system meeting these needs, and are there better alternative models? How can one make sense of the contradictory claims and data about graduate education?Cognitive issues related to learning: How can early science teaching be better guided by an understanding of children's mental development? What would be a good demonstration example to illustrate how this could be done?Education research in the science disciplines: What is the status and promise of discipline-based undergraduate educational research in physics, chemistry, earth sciences, and biology? What are the similarities and differences between educational research in these fields?Descriptions of ongoing activities (consensus studies, planning meetings and workshops, and research-to-practice studies) currently being carried out under the auspices of the board can be seen at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/index.html.PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON FINDING A “VISION” FOR SCIENCE EDUCATIONI would now like to throw off my chair's hat and offer some less formal views as to the vision I see for the transformation of science education and the role the National Academies can play in leading this process. The pursuit of this vision is largely the reason why I decided to take time away from a successful career in physics to serve as the chair of BOSE and help define its future agenda.I am sure that I share with many of you the feeling that a greater appreciation and understanding of science is needed today by all people for a number of critical reasons. These reasons include the health of the economy and the need for a citizenry better able to make wise decisions on the many science-related societal questions with which our country is struggling, such as global warming, genetic modification, and stem cell research. For many years I lamented this unmet educational need and my own evident failings as a teacher to meet it in many of my own students, but this lament was with much the same sense of personal helplessness with which I viewed the lack of world peace.However, over the past 15 years or so, I have become aware of a body of work that has suggested there is a different and far superior way to teach science than what I had seen. This could perhaps best be described as approaching the teaching of science as a “science” rather than a“ religion.” I discovered that there were people doing careful, detailed research on how people learn, and other people were applying these ideas and methodologies to the specific teaching of physics (e.g., Redish, 2003, and the excellent bibliography therein). The NRC has played an influential part in advancing this concept of research-based education with a number of superb reports, such as How People Learn (NRC, 2000) and How Students Learn (NRC, 2005). As I learned more about this research, I gained a greater understanding as to why, in spite of my trying many different ways to explain certain topics, many undergraduate students failed to grasp them. I also began to realize how aspects of the graduate student experience, by which I had seen my grad students regularly metamorphose from struggling novices into expert physicists who were my equals, matched with what research suggested was required for the learning of expert competence in physics or similar disciplines. This made me realize that teaching science could be approached like the experimental science I was used to; there was a body of research literature I could call on, there were guiding principles based on measurement and data that I could use to achieve better results, and there were more meaningful ways to measure what my students were and were not learning. The combination made it possible to improve results in a systematic, data-driven manner (see also Handelsman et al., 2004). I even discovered that there were general cognitive principles that could be used to improve my technical physics talks so that they were better understood and appreciated.A scientific approach to education, where one looks carefully at the evidence as to what does and does not work and why, is clearly showing us the way to a major transformation of science education. BOSE offers a means for the National Academies, which are the recognized leaders in science, to push forward this transformation. Although there is the most extensive education research in physics, it is only a small part of what is needed for physics or any other science. Ultimately, we need detailed guidance for the most effective and cost- and time-efficient instruction at each level that is solidly based on research and takes full advantage of modern information technology. Then mechanisms for disseminating and implementing these principles and practices with a wide range of practitioners in different settings and with diverse student populations need to be established. This is a formidable task.However, science itself languished for centuries until the Renaissance, when the “scientific method” of using theory grounded firmly in objective empirical data and advances in technology launched it on a trajectory of explosive progress. I see that science education is now on the verge of being launched on a similarly exciting trajectory, and I believe that this vision for science education is represented in much of the National Academies' work, now and in the future.Alberts, B. (2002). From the National Academies. Cell Biol. Educ. 1, 109-110. http://cellbioed.org/articles/vol1no4/article.cfm?articleID=25 (accessed 24 February 2005). Google ScholarHandelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S.M., and Wood, W. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 30(5670), 521-522. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/304/5670/521?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=handelsman&searchid=1109276347970_1405&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0 (accessed 24 February 2005). Google ScholarLabov, J.B. (2003a). Education at the National Academies. Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 6-8. http://cellbioed.org/articles/vol2no1/article.cfm?articleID=37 (accessed 24 February 2005). Google ScholarLabov, J.B. (2003b). Education at the National Academies. Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 144-147. http://cellbioed.org/articles/vol2no3/article.cfm?articleID=63 (accessed 24 February 2005). Google ScholarLabov, J.B. (2003c). From the National Academies. Cell Biol. Educ. 2, 202-204. http://cellbioed.org/articles/vol2no4/article.cfm?articleID=72 (accessed 24 February 2005). Google ScholarLabov, J.B. (2004). From the National Academies: the challenges and opportunities for improving undergraduate science education through introductory courses. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 212-214. http://cellbioed.org/articles/vol3no4/article.cfm?articleID=132 (accessed 24 February 2005). Google ScholarNational Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853.html (accessed 24 February 2005). Google ScholarNational Research Council. (2005). How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10126.html (accessed 24 February 2005). Google ScholarRedish, E. (2003). Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite, New York: Wiley and Sons. Google ScholarWood, W., and Handelsman, J. (2004). Meeting report: the 2004 National Academies Summer Institute on Undergraduate Education in Biology. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 215-217. http://cellbioed.org/articles/vol3no4/article.cfm?articleID=121 (accessed 14 March 2005). Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byUsing Plickers in Formative Assessment to Augment Student LearningInternational Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, Vol. 12, No. 2 Vol. 4, No. 2 June 01, 2005 105-179 Metrics Downloads & Citations Downloads: 30 Citations: 1 History Information© 2005 by The American Society for Cell BiologyPDF download

Cell Biology EducationVol. 4, No. 1 FEATURESFree AccessPoints of View: Effective Partnerships Between K-12 and Higher EducationMoving from Outreach to Partnership: Striving for Articulation and Reform across the K-20+ Science Education ContinuumErin DolanKimberly TannerErin DolanSearch for more papers by this authorKimberly TannerSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Oct 2017https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-11-0048AboutSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Scientists and engineers working in partnerships with local teachers represent an essential new force that will be required for effective science education reform... But to be effective, we scientists must first be willing to be educated about the opportunities and problems in our schools. This means that we must approach this problem with a humility that reflects how little most of us really understand about how children learn, as well as our respect for the tremendous energy, devotion, and skill required to be a successful K-12 teacher in today's schools.—Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of SciencesOne would be hard-pressed to find a college or university in the United States without at least one outreach program designed to support science education in local K-12 schools. Over the last three decades, scores of thriving science education outreach programs have had significant and extraordinarily positive effects on K-12 science education. Driven by funding initiatives from federal, state, and private agencies and the pioneering efforts of many university scientists and K-12 educators, these programs have resulted in increased communication between institutions, innovative K-12 science curricula, greater presence of scientists in K-12 schools, and an increased interest in collaborations among K-12 teachers and students and university scientists and students. Many outreach programs, including our own, have made successful initial forays into K-12 science education reform. Yet, they have been largely unidirectional in their goals and activities, focusing primarily on the challenges and shortcomings of K-12 science education. In looking forward, we propose that the role of institutions of higher education must change, moving from initial efforts in outreach, a stance characterized by offering expertise and supporting external reform, to a more enduring approach of partnership, which demands that both partners examine their own science teaching and learning and promote both external and internal reform. Many wonderful outreach programs that have not been bi-directional in their goals and activities are poised to blossom into partnerships in which K-12 teachers and university scientists collaborate to create a coherent and articulated science education experience for students across the K-20+ science education system (Tanner et al., 2003).In this Point of View we argue that crafting effective science education partnerships requires moving beyond K-12 science education reform and toward examination of the connections and disconnections between K-12 and university science pedagogy. In particular, we believe that three major shifts must occur: 1) the adoption of a mutual learning model of partnership, 2) the integration of partnership into the training of scientists, and 3) the development of sustained infrastructures for partnership. Such shifts, we believe, are the stuff of Kuhnian revolutions and could catapult us toward what we all desire: a coherent, articulated, and inquiry-based approach to science education from kindergarten through graduate school.A MUTUAL LEARNING MODEL OF PARTNERSHIPFew would question that legions of university scientists and K-12 educators share a common interest in improving science education for our nation's young people. In our opinion, however, an effective reform effort must be grounded in a genuine commitment to mutual learning. In many instances, relationships between the K-12 and university systems have adopted a“ provider-recipient” approach in which scientists are placed in the role of content providers and K-12 educators as recipients of this scientific expertise. We believe that this approach overlooks a rich opportunity for deep reflection about science teaching and learning. The old adage that “we teach the way we are taught” places university scientists in a position of great influence in the pedagogical training of future science teachers. In addition, college and university faculty have both the opportunity and responsibility to engage their students in deep science learning and to guide them in becoming scientifically literate citizens. Consider the words of senior scientist and long-time science education reform leader, James Bower:In this workshop, I was, as usual, haranguing the participants about the importance of inquiry-based science teaching. Accordingly, there was an almost audible sigh of relief when I announced that I had to leave to give a lecture on the neural control of eye movements. Fortunately, I had remembered to bring my lecture notes to the workshop, so I could maintain my fervent support for inquiry teaching techniques up to the very last second. However, as I rushed to the lecture hall, it occurred to me what I was about to do.... At that moment a connection was made between my experiences observing outstanding elementary science teachers and my own responsibilities as a science educator. For the first time I realized that I had not done the hard work of converting what I preached into what I practiced. All my zealous efforts at early science education reform had not, until that moment, penetrated my own approach to science teaching.—James Bower, Professor, California Institute of Technology and Co-Founder of the Cal Tech Pre-college Science Initiative (CAPSI)Partnerships are outstanding venues through which scientists grapple with their knowledge about teaching and to learn from professional educators. As a scientist, what have you struggled with in your own teaching experiences? What is your philosophy and how does it influence your approach to assessing what students know, addressing students' misconceptions, using appropriate vocabulary, involving all students, engaging multiple learning styles, and managing classroom behaviors? What teaching strategies and skills could you learn from your teacher partners? In addition to scientists adopting a learning stance, K-12 teachers must also be willing and given license to share their expertise about teaching science to young people. With partners taking on these additional roles, collaborations can shift from a provider-recipient model to a mutual learning model. While some individual programs have gravitated toward mutual learning, the National Science Foundation's recent Math Science Partnership (MSP) initiative has been pioneering in its requirement that proposed programs identify and pursue reform strategies in both the K-12 and collegiate settings. Yet, with the anticipated conclusion of the federal MSP initiative, this driving force for a mutual learning model of partnership may wane just as it is beginning.INTEGRATION OF PARTNERSHIP INTO THE TRAINING OF SCIENTISTSBecause many of the scientist partners engaged in collaborative work with the K-12 system are graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and other scientific trainees, science education partnerships provide a wonderful opportunity to integrate teaching and learning into the routine training of scientists. There is emerging evidence from many efforts that scientists, unsurprisingly, benefit from their involvement in partnerships with K-12 educators with respect to their communication and pedagogy skills (Tanner, 2000). In addition, the majority of these trainees will go on to teach undergraduates. Yet most join partnerships and pursue careers as university faculty without even a crash course in the teaching and learning of science. How can partnerships explicitly engage trainees in reflection and scholarly learning about their emerging teaching practice? How can course work in pedagogical methods be integrated into the training of future scientists? What roles can K-12 educators play as teaching mentors for scientific trainees? Although a few outreach programs have offered formal training in science pedagogy for scientific trainees, the NSF has once again led the way with the GK-12 Fellowship Program. More than 100 institutions around the country now engage science, math, and engineering graduate students in intensive partnerships with K-12 teachers and students, supplemented by course work on the theory and practice of science education. Still, we are decades away from the systematic inclusion of training on science pedagogy in the preparation of future scientists.DEVELOPMENT OF SUSTAINED INFRASTRUCTURES FOR PARTNERSHIPWorking with K-12 schools is not like crop dusting—you can't just sprinkle information around and go away. New students come each year who can benefit from school partnerships with universities. There needs to be a long-term, sustained and sustainable relationship.—Mary Margaret Welch, Mercer Island High School, Mercer Island, WAWhat efforts and infrastructure are necessary to foster largescale K-20+ partnerships? Although each partnership has unique needs, sustained infrastructure is necessary to support long-term programming and innovation, rather than efforts developed and supported on a grant-by-grant basis. The mundane but crucial infrastructural needs of partnerships include money and space, but these alone are insufficient for strategic development of programs by numerous stakeholders from multiple participating institutions. Universities and K-12 institutions have limited resources to develop and sustain partnerships without grant funding. How can decision-makers at both types of institutions be convinced to use scant resources to foster partnerships? Coordinated efforts across departments and colleges would begin to build a sustainable infrastructure in which partnerships could endure and expand. Yet, only through a shift from the mindset that partnership is an admirable but dispensable community service to an acknowledgment that partnerships generate internally valuable knowledge, will the commitment of resources be justified and infrastructure established. Such a shift requires changes in scientists' perception of the boundaries of science and in the reward structures within colleges and universities, as well as cross-institutional planning and commitments. In looking toward the future, the development of sustained infrastructure is furthest from reach, with no clear driving force for reform in this direction.THE CODA: MOVING FROM OUTREACH TO PARTNERSHIPWe believe that effective science education improvement lies in moving from initial outreach to sustained partnership, considering K-20+ science education reform as a discipline within the realm of responsibility and expertise of the sciences. Such a movement will require changing emphases in university and K-12 relationships, as highlighted in Table 1. Although there are seeds of change in institutions all around the country, we present this as a vision for the future, because no effort we are aware of, including our own, has conquered all of these challenges or achieved all of these goals. Much as the National Science Education Standards put forward Changing Emphases tables as roadmaps to a vision for K-12 science education (National Research Council, 1996), the table represents ideas to ponder in moving from outreach to partnership, not goals already achieved nor easily reached.Table 1. Changing emphasesMoving away from...Moving toward...OutreachPartnershipReform of K-12 science educationReform of K-20+ science educationProvider-Recipient model in which university scientists provide content expertise that K-12 educators receiveMutual Learning model in which university scientists gain pedagogical skills and insights, and K-12 educators learn about the culture, content, and process of scienceIndividual, isolated science education programs and effortsInstitutionalization of multiple, coordinated programs and efforts within university science departments and K-12 school districtsScience education efforts as optional service by some scientists within some universitiesScience education efforts as an integral part of the scientific endeavor in universities that is acknowledged and rewardedUniversities develop science education programs that are offered to K-12 schoolsUniversities and K-12 schools collaborate to determine disconnects across the K-20+ continuum of science teaching and learning and work together to develop mutually beneficial programsUniversities and K-12 schools operate in isolationUniversities host teachers learning scientific content and experiencing research, and K-12 schools host scientists learning pedagogyAN EMERGING DISCIPLINE OF K-20+ SCIENCE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPFinally, we believe that a movement from outreach to partnership can serve as the groundwork for a new discipline of science education partnership. As efforts in this arena are increasingly studied, theorized, and assessed, one can sense a scholarly field operating at the intersection of teaching, learning, cognitive theory, assessment, and inquiry, developing its own theoretical underpinnings, standards of evidence, and professional specialization. Consider the field of neuroscience, in which we were both trained. This discipline developed at the intersection of psychology, biology, cognitive science, and chemistry. Thirty years ago, there was no distinct field of neuroscience, no Society for Neuroscience (now 30,000 members strong), no Journal of Neuroscience, no doctoral degrees awarded in neuroscience, nothing but a strong vision for a new field of inquiry that could address driving questions about brain and behavior that were unstudied and under-theorized. What are the implications for the field of science education partnership, currently understudied, under-theorized, and lacking in field-based studies of specific models? Science education partnership may not ever enjoy the expansive growth and lucrative funding that neuroscience has. Yet, increasing study of partnerships that are achieving the shifts described above will produce an evidence-based literature that can guide the development of theoretical frameworks for successful partnerships and make this vision for the future a reality.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe acknowledge the National Science Education Standards for providing the inspiration for the format of the Changing Emphases table. We also thank all teachers, scientists, students, and administrators in these programs, both past and present, who contributed to and learned from their communities: the University of California San Francisco Science and Health Education Partnership, the San Francisco State University Science Education Partnership and Assessment Laboratory, University of Arizona's BIOTECH Project, and Virginia Tech's Fralin Biotechnology Center. Finally, we thank Patricia Kudritzki of SFUSD's Aptos Middle School who taught us more about science teaching than we ever hoped to learn. REFERENCES Alberts, B. (1994). Scientists have important roles, responsibilities in future of science education. National Academy of Science's Resources for Involving Scientists in Education. http://www.research.att.com/~kbl/APS/nov94/alberts.html (accessed 19 December 2004). Google ScholarBower, J. Scientists and science education reform: myths, methods, and madness. National Academy of Science's Resources for Involving Scientists in Education. http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg2a.htm. Google ScholarNational Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google ScholarTanner, K.D, Chatman, L. and Allen, D.E. (2003). Science teaching and learning across the school-university divide—cultivating conversations through scientist-teacher partnerships.Cell Biol. Educ. 2,195 -201. Link, Google ScholarTanner, K.D. (2000). Evaluation of scientist-teacher partnerships: benefits to scientist participants. National Association for Research in Science Teaching Conference Paper, New Orleans, LA, April. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByExploring Adult-Learning PathwaysInternational Journal of Adult Education and Technology, Vol. 13, No. 1A multiple case study of an interorganizational collaboration: Exploring the first year of an industry partnership focused on middle school engineering education23 June 2021 | Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 110, No. 3Ten simple rules for partnering with K–12 teachers to support broader impact goals1 October 2020 | PLOS Computational Biology, Vol. 16, No. 10Broader Impacts of Science on Society11 October 2019 | , Vol. 22Students meet authentic science: the valence and foci of experiences reported by high-school biology students regarding their participation in a science outreach programme29 January 2019 | International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 41, No. 5Science in Action! Outreach Program Promotes Confidence in Teaching ScienceThe American Biology Teacher, Vol. 79, No. 9Impact of a student-teacher-scientist partnership on students' and teachers' content knowledge, attitudes toward science, and pedagogical practices19 November 2013 | Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 51, No. 1Moving beyond GK–12J. A. Ufnar, Susan Kuner, and V. L. ShepherdNancy Moreno, Monitoring Editor13 October 2017 | CBE—Life Sciences Education, Vol. 11, No. 3Investigation of Science Faculty with Education Specialties within the Largest University System in the United StatesSeth D. Bush, Nancy J. Pelaez, James A. Rudd, Michael T. Stevens, Kimberly D. Tanner, and Kathy S. WilliamsDeborah Allen, Monitoring Editor13 October 2017 | CBE—Life Sciences Education, Vol. 10, No. 1Restructuring the relationship between STEM faculty and K-12: crafting a figured world of partnership12 August 2010 | Cultural Studies of Science Education, Vol. 5, No. 3Providing Undergraduate Science Partners for Elementary Teachers: Benefits and ChallengesCamille A. Goebel, Aminata Umoja, and Robert L. DeHaanNancy Moreno, Monitoring Editor13 October 2017 | CBE—Life Sciences Education, Vol. 8, No. 3Molecular Biology Masterclasses — Developing Practical Skills and Building Links with Higher Education in Years 12/1316 December 2015 | Bioscience Education, Vol. 11, No. 1Why?Sharing the News Vol. 4, No. 1 March 01, 20050-104 Metrics Downloads & Citations Downloads: 105Citations: 15 History Information© 2005 by The American Society for Cell BiologyWe acknowledge the National Science Education Standards for providing the inspiration for the format of the Changing Emphases table. We also thank all teachers, scientists, students, and administrators in these programs, both past and present, who contributed to and learned from their communities: the University of California San Francisco Science and Health Education Partnership, the San Francisco State University Science Education Partnership and Assessment Laboratory, University of Arizona's BIOTECH Project, and Virginia Tech's Fralin Biotechnology Center. Finally, we thank Patricia Kudritzki of SFUSD's Aptos Middle School who taught us more about science teaching than we ever hoped to learn.PDF download

A knowledge survey (KS) is a series of content-based questions sequenced in order of presentation during a course. Students do not answer the questions; rather, they rank their confidence in their ability to answer each question. A 304-question KS was designed and implemented for a multisection, multi-instructor introductory biology course to determine whether this tool could be used to assess student learning. The KS was administered during the first 2 wk and the last 2 wk of the semester online via WebCT. Results were scored using one point for each "not confident" response (level 1), two points for each "possibly confident" response (level 2), and three points for each "confident" response (level 3). We found that scores increased significantly between the pre- and post-KS, indicating that student confidence in their knowledge of the course material increased over the semester. However, the correlation between student confidence and final grades was negligible or low, and chi-square tests show that KS scores and matched exam questions were not significantly related. We conclude that under the conditions implemented in our study, the KS does not reliably measure student learning as measured by final grades or exam questions.

The need to support bioinformatics training has been widely recognized by scientists, industry, and government institutions. However, the discussion of instructional methods for teaching bioinformatics is only beginning. Here we report on a systematic attempt to design two bioinformatics workshops for graduate biology students on the basis of Gagne's Conditions of Learning instructional design theory. This theory, although first published in the early 1970s, is still fundamental in instructional design and instructional technology. First, top-level as well as prerequisite learning objectives for a microarray analysis workshop and a primer design workshop were defined. Then a hierarchy of objectives for each workshop was created. Hands-on tutorials were designed to meet these objectives. Finally, events of learning proposed by Gagne's theory were incorporated into the hands-on tutorials. The resultant manuals were tested on a small number of trainees, revised, and applied in 1-day bioinformatics workshops. Based on this experience and on observations made during the workshops, we conclude that Gagne's Conditions of Learning instructional design theory provides a useful framework for developing bioinformatics training, but may not be optimal as a method for teaching it.