Using computational modeling to teach metabolism as a dynamic system improves student performance

Understanding metabolic function requires knowledge of the dynamics, interdependence, and regulation of biochemical networks. However, current approaches are not optimal to develop the needed mechanistic understanding, and misconceptions about biological processes persist even after graduation. To address these issues, we developed a computational modeling and simulation approach that employs scaffolded learning to teach biochemistry students about the regulation of metabolism. The power of the approach lies in students’ abilities to alter any component or connection in a modeled system and instantly observe the effects of their changes. We find that students who use our approach perform better on biochemistry metabolism questions compared to students in a course that did not use this approach. We also investigated performance by gender and found that our modules may have the potential to increase equity in education. We noted that students are generally positive about the approach and appreciate its benefits. Our modules provide life science instructors with a dynamic and systems-driven approach to teach metabolic regulation and control that improves learning and also equips students with important technical skills.

[1]  A. M. Lucas,et al.  Understanding interrelated topics: photosynthesis at age photosynthesis at age14 + , 1992 .

[2]  Jason H. Szostek,et al.  Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: Systematic review and meta-analysis , 2013, Medical teacher.

[3]  Nicholas J. Galt,et al.  Modelling activities integrating construction and simulation supported explanatory and evaluative reasoning , 2019, International Journal of Science Education.

[4]  Brian A. Couch,et al.  Characterizing Student Perceptions of and Buy-In toward Common Formative Assessment Techniques , 2016, CBE life sciences education.

[5]  John E. Merrill,et al.  Assessing students' ability to trace matter in dynamic systems in cell biology. , 2006, CBE life sciences education.

[6]  Jennifer L. Cartier,et al.  Developing Understanding Through Model-Based Inquiry , 2007 .

[7]  Brian A. Couch,et al.  Visualizing the Invisible: A Guide to Designing, Printing, and Incorporating Dynamic 3D Molecular Models to Teach Structure–Function Relationships † , 2018, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[8]  Jaklin Tripto,et al.  Mapping What They Know: Concept Maps as an Effective Tool for Assessing Students’ Systems Thinking , 2013 .

[9]  C. Eccleston,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies for children with chronic pain. , 2014, Journal of pediatric psychology.

[10]  Nicholas J. Galt,et al.  Discovering Cellular Respiration with Computational Modeling and Simulations , 2017 .

[11]  Dina L. Newman,et al.  DNA → RNA: What Do Students Think the Arrow Means? , 2014, CBE life sciences education.

[12]  T. Helikar,et al.  Emergent decision-making in biological signal transduction networks , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Jon Wade,et al.  A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach , 2015 .

[14]  Pedro J. Pardo,et al.  Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of Three Learning Environments: Hyper-Realistic Virtual Simulations, Traditional Schematic Simulations and Traditional Laboratory , 2011 .

[15]  E. Schultz A guided discovery approach for learning metabolic pathways , 2005, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[16]  J A Michael,et al.  Undergraduate students' misconceptions about respiratory physiology. , 1999, The American journal of physiology.

[17]  B. Young Gender Differences in Student Attitudes toward Computers , 2000 .

[18]  Russell T. Vought Charting a Course for Success: America's Strategy for STEM Education , 2018 .

[19]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  Mary Lee S. Ledbetter,et al.  Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action Presentation to Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, July 2011 , 2012, Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience.

[21]  David F. Treagust,et al.  Student and Teacher Perceptions of the Use of Multimedia Supported Predict–Observe–Explain Tasks to Probe Understanding , 2001 .

[22]  H. Smalley The systems approach. , 1972, Hospitals.

[23]  D Kindelberger,et al.  Cell cycle-regulated transcription of the CLB2 gene is dependent on Mcm1 and a ternary complex factor , 1995, Molecular and cellular biology.

[24]  Alex Madrahimov,et al.  The Cell Collective: Toward an open and collaborative approach to systems biology , 2012, BMC Systems Biology.

[25]  Wouter R. van Joolingen,et al.  Inquiry-Based Whole-Class Teaching with Computer Simulations in Physics , 2015 .

[26]  Tomáš Helikar,et al.  Student Understanding of DNA Structure–Function Relationships Improves from Using 3D Learning Modules with Dynamic 3D Printed Models , 2019, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[27]  Ngss Lead States Next generation science standards : for states, by states , 2013 .

[28]  B. Couch,et al.  Multiple–True–False Questions Reveal the Limits of the Multiple–Choice Format for Detecting Students with Incomplete Understandings , 2018 .

[29]  Susan D. Hester,et al.  Authentic Inquiry through Modeling in Biology (AIM-Bio): An Introductory Laboratory Curriculum That Increases Undergraduates’ Scientific Agency and Skills , 2018, CBE life sciences education.

[30]  Ryan D. Sweeder,et al.  Gender performance differences in biochemistry , 2010, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[31]  Wilfried Admiraal,et al.  Gender Inclusiveness in Educational Technology and Learning Experiences of Girls and Boys , 2009 .

[32]  Jim A. Rogers,et al.  Integrating Interactive Computational Modeling in Biology Curricula , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[33]  Eleanor Abrams,et al.  The how's and why's of biological change: How learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning , 2001 .

[34]  Jennifer Knight,et al.  Foundational concepts and underlying theories for majors in “biochemistry and molecular biology” , 2013, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[35]  David M. Majerich,et al.  The Effects of a Model-Based Physics Curriculum Program with a Physics First Approach: a Causal-Comparative Study , 2012 .

[36]  Denis Thieffry,et al.  Logical Modeling and Dynamical Analysis of Cellular Networks , 2016, Front. Genet..

[37]  B. Couch,et al.  Multiple-true-false questions reveal more thoroughly the complexity of student thinking than multiple-choice questions: a Bayesian item response model comparison , 2019, International Journal of STEM Education.

[38]  Reneé S. Schwartz,et al.  Connecting photosynthesis and cellular respiration: Preservice teachers' conceptions , 2009 .

[39]  Jenny M. Dauer,et al.  Connections between Student Explanations and Arguments from Evidence about Plant Growth , 2014, CBE life sciences education.

[40]  Jay Pedersen,et al.  Bio-Logic Builder: A Non-Technical Tool for Building Dynamical, Qualitative Models , 2012, PloS one.

[41]  N. Orion,et al.  Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education , 2005 .

[42]  M. Delgado-Rodríguez,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, Medicina intensiva.

[43]  Macy A. Potts,et al.  How Question Types Reveal Student Thinking: An Experimental Comparison of Multiple-True-False and Free-Response Formats , 2017, CBE life sciences education.

[44]  David Green,et al.  Identification of Threshold Concepts for Biochemistry , 2014, CBE life sciences education.

[45]  Werner Riess,et al.  Promoting Systems Thinking through Biology Lessons , 2010 .

[46]  Edith Braun,et al.  Student Engagement , 2018 .

[47]  G. Bateson,et al.  A systems approach. , 1970, International journal of psychiatry.

[48]  B. Reiser A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas: National Research Council, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education , 2012 .

[49]  J. D. Walker,et al.  Design and Assessment of Online, Interactive Tutorials That Teach Science Process Skills , 2018, CBE life sciences education.

[50]  T. Helikar,et al.  A Cell Simulator Platform: The Cell Collective , 2013, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[51]  Nicholas J. Galt,et al.  Simulated Computational Model Lesson Improves Foundational Systems Thinking Skills and Conceptual Knowledge in iology Students , 2018, BioScience.

[52]  Ellis Bell,et al.  What skills should students of undergraduate biochemistry and molecular biology programs have upon graduation? , 2013, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[53]  Sule Bayraktar,et al.  A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction in Science Education , 2000 .

[54]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[55]  Janice D. Gobert,et al.  Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education , 2000 .

[56]  Cedric Linder,et al.  Learning through Simulation : Student Engagement , 2005 .

[57]  David A. Gillam,et al.  A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas , 2012 .

[58]  Charles W. Anderson,et al.  The Effects of Instruction on College Nonmajors' Conceptions of Respiration and Photosynthesis. Research Series No. 164. , 1990 .

[59]  Clare Kell,et al.  Student learning preferences reflect curricular change , 2002, Medical teacher.

[60]  R. Verhoeff,et al.  The Theoretical Nature of Systems Thinking. Perspectives on Systems Thinking in Biology Education , 2018, Front. Educ..