|
 |
|
EMBO reports 4, 8, 744–746 (2003)
doi:10.1038/sj.embor.embor907
Breathing new life into the biology classroom
An increasing number of exciting experiments for teaching biology
is becoming available, but teacher training and institutional reform are also
needed to integrate them into curricula
Andrew Moore
|
|
|
|
|
|
When asked what they remember of their biology class in school, most
biology teachers will recall hours of tedious dictation, poring over thick
tomes and intricate drawings of dissected, half-putrefied animals lingering in
formaldehyde. Few will reminisce about memorable experiments, in contrast to
chemistry or physics. Given this background, it is not surprising that many
teachers find it hard to get to grips with experiments in molecular biology.
The classroom is already in danger of being superseded as a source of
educational material by the Internet, while teachers are faced with students
who are increasingly difficult to motivate. But on one thing all teachers
agree: children love experiments. As Dean Madden, Co-director of the National
Centre for Biotechnology Education in Reading, UK, exclaimed enthusiastically
at EMBO's second international practical workshop for science teachers earlier
this year, "children love to get their hands dirty." And the
simpler the experiment, the better, it seems.
However, dragging a slowly decomposing cadaver from a bag of yellowing
liquid to dissect another part of its anatomy is not the kind of hand-dirtying
that most students look forward to. They might, for instance, find it more
interesting to explore some of the practical science behind the ground-breaking
and socially controversial technologies made possible by molecular biology. But
the terms 'molecular biology' or 'biotechnology' alone cannot magically conjure
an exciting experiment out of thin air. Whether it is a simple experiment done
with minimal equipment in the school laboratory, or a more advanced one in a
teaching laboratory at a research institute, an experiment must stimulate
curiosity beyond the technicalities of pipetting solutions and running
gels.
And there is an urgent need to stimulate this curiosity about biology
among the younger generation; first, because citizens increasingly need to be
equipped with the intellectual capacity to play an active role in deciding
their future, and second because society needs excellent young scientists to
push the frontiers of research. Making science an attractive subject, and
cultivating an enquiring mind, both start in school. But biology is not a
textbook subject that can be learnt merely by rote, or studied as a history of
knowledge. It is a rapidly developing field of science that relies on
experimentation and critical evaluation. It is a science that requires every
bit as much brilliance in its practitioners as other sciences, and by
inference, every bit as much attention to their education. Sadly, in many
European secondary schools its teaching has not kept pace with modern
research.
Biology experiments in schools have always come a poor second or third
to chemistry or physics because they are often slow and boring, and do not
bring immediate rewards. The problem can be summed up fairly simply: biology
experiments, unlike chemistry or physics experiments, do not whizz around
spewing sparks, levitate in thin air or explode—that is, unless one
accidentally short-circuits a power supply. When was the last time that a
student gaped in awe at a school biology experiment? Not recently, in all
likelihood, but that could be about to change.
Teachers are increasingly being offered experiments that evoke this
so-called 'wow' factor. Green fluorescent protein, for example, is not only a
wonderful research tool, but also a godsend for teachers. Gene expression, a
topic that must be covered in all curricula, can best be exemplified by an
experiment that
|
|
|
|
Biology experiments in schools have always come a
poor second or third to chemistry or physics because they are often slow and
boring, and do not bring immediate rewards
|
|
|
|
results in a Petri dish of glowing green
bacterial colonies. At least one biotech company, Biorad (Hercules, CA, USA)
has capitalized on this with the production of a school kit (Fig. 1)—although a similar kit is still freely available
from a pioneer in the education world, the Dolan DNA Learning Center at Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory, NY, USA. Such solutions are convenient for teachers
because they can almost guarantee a result if the instructions are followed.
And this is crucial, explained Dominic Delaney, Bio-Rad's BioEducation Project
Manager in Hemel Hempstead, UK: "Science in the classroom is brutal:
you're dead if the experiment doesn't work first time." Another
conveniently packaged experiment from Bio-Rad is the solving of a murder
mystery by restriction digest DNA profiling. Both experiments can be done in
blocks of 50 minutes, which fits well with school timetables.
|
|
Figure 1
Illustrating gene expression with Bio-Rad's green fluorescent
protein kit for school teaching
|
|
|
And those who do not regard biology experiments as an 'electrifying
experience' should perhaps try the microbial fuel cell, developed by the
National Centre for Biotechnology Education (NCBE), Reading, UK. With good
preparation, the cell produces enough power at the end of a double lesson to
run a small electric motor. The cell itself must be obtained from the NCBE for
about  60, and can be easily used by teachers to demonstrate electron flow
through the yeast respiratory chain.
In addition, laboratories outside school can provide a project-based
environment in which to learn practical molecular biology, such as that offered
by the teaching laboratory Xlab in Göttingen, Germany. A model in many
ways, Xlab offers practical experiments, term-time courses and holiday courses
for students and teachers in Germany and abroad. And these are certainly no
'run-of-the-mill' practicals. One recently developed experiment involves
tracing the origins of European peoples by PCR analysis of mitochondrial DNA.
Drawing the innards of a dismembered earthworm just does not compare. According
to Eva Maria Neher, founder and director of Xlab, students' interest in
practical work is largely cultivated by "a tutor who bubbles over with
enthusiasm for a method about which hardly any scientists give a second
thought. One can only communicate excitement [to students] in things about
which one is also excited." And the same holds true for school teachers,
of course.
But children do not have to leave the school lab to experience such
fascination. An old favourite is the isolation of DNA from fruit, which can be
done with mere household objects and reagents. As a teacher from Germany
remarked, "when they pulled out the slimy thread from the tube and
realised that it was DNA, there was a whispered chorus of 'wow'." Indeed,
although distribution and sharing of equipment in schools is the ultimate goal,
a little ingenuity could certainly help to oil the wheels of progress. A
200 micropipette can be improvised from a glass capillary tube and some
wire. An agarose electrophoresis kit that costs about 400 can be made
from a Tupperware box, some wire, silicon sealant and five 9-V batteries
(http://www.accessexcellence.org).
In general, biology teachers need a mixture of experiments that can be
done with minimal equipment at school, ones that can be performed with
scientific support and, finally, ones that they may never actually do, but that
extend their horizons. Furthermore, the school laboratory should retain a
central importance in the education process. It is here, after all, that
children first get a taste for experimentation in an uncomplicated way. The
school lab cannot be replaced by extramural experiences in practical science.
However, there is a danger that it may become neglected as science museums,
visitor centres at universities and tailor-made laboratories create an ever
more comprehensive offer.
To ward off this impending obsolescence, it is necessary to modernize
school laboratories. Teachers must acquire the skills and confidence to
coordinate a new kind of practical class at school, and be allowed to use their
own creativity. For Stefanie Denger, a research scientist at the European
Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, who is intimately involved
with education and communication initiatives, the way ahead is clear:
"Teachers need to make personal contacts to scientists and build up their
confidence."
In southern Germany, some motivated teachers have already taken the
matter into their own hands with, as yet, minimal funding. The so-called
'Stützpunktschulen' (regional support schools) in Baden-Württemberg
act as training centres for other teachers and distribution points for loaned
equipment. The scheme revolves around individual teachers, who are given a
small—1 hour per week—time allowance out of their statutory
teaching hours to run the service. They form the link between academic research
institutes and the school system, train other teachers and hence spread their
expertise. Furthermore, it is
|
|
|
|
A 200 micropipette can be improvised from a
glass capillary tube and some wire
|
|
|
|
recognized by an official
office: the regional education authorities. Peter Gilbert, the school system's
director at the Oberschulamt Karlsruhe, is a key figure in promoting the
Stützpunktschulen and in trying to secure their institutional funding. He
noted that they can also provide scientists with useful communication channels:
"Scientists can go to a school with a concept that they think important,
and ask 'how can we work together on this?'"
The Stützpunktschulen complement a growing number of individual
contacts between research institutes and schools. But, in general, such
initiatives are not formally recognized by official bodies, either nationally
or in Europe, and hence receive no institutional financial support. The problem
naturally arises as to who pays for the equipment that is needed to do simple
molecular biology experiments. The schools are invariably penniless.
Ironically, the equipment they need—gel tanks, mini centrifuges, power
supplies, waterbaths and pipettes—is decommissioned by research
institutes by the dozen every year. Instead of allowing these resources to
linger in storerooms, some have started to assemble them into pools that can be
used by teachers. The only problem is that very few teachers know how to use
them, and even fewer wish to take responsibility for them. Perennial questions
are: who is responsible for such apparatus when it leaves the research
institute? Who repairs it when it goes wrong? Who services it and guarantees
that it is safe to use?
But if complacent Western European schools cannot solve these problems,
then there is nothing stopping teachers in the Ukraine from welcoming
second-hand equipment from western research labs. After all, research
institutes are already doing it with the help of the Federation of European
Biochemistry Societies (FEBS). As Lesya Hurtenko, a biology teacher from Smila
in the Ukraine, said: "I think it is manageable, and we will have support
from many people on different levels. I see myself that experimental work
stimulates pupils to learn more, and it is very important to give them this
opportunity." Indeed, Eastern European countries have started their own
initiatives to raise school students' interest in modern research. For example,
the Hungarian Network of Youth Excellence has provided more than 7,000
high-school students from various Eastern European countries with an
opportunity to do research in a university laboratory.
In the school laboratory, it is important that teachers have the freedom
to organize teaching as they see fit, and can use larger time-slots for
experiments. As Rainer Domisch, the Finnish governmental advisor for Education,
remarked, "Systems must accommodate people; a system should not exist for
its own sake." He believes that "the models and experiences of
Finland can certainly be applied in larger countries." But the profound
reforms responsible for Finland's success were started 30 years ago, so this
will be no quick fix for others' systems and curricula. One can tell a lot
about the freedom of the system from the length of the curriculum, Dominic
Delaney asserted: "in Denmark it is 1 page long, in the UK it is 80 [...]
this suppresses teachers' tendency to do riskier things like new
practicals."
In contrast to the egalitarian Finnish model, the USA starts with an
elitist principle that eventually filters down. Their so-called 'Advanced
Placement Biology' (AP Biology) has been around since the 1970s. Although the
programme, containing much practical work, is an optional syllabus, it has
resulted in many US schools having basic molecular biology apparatus as
standard, thus spreading this resource to normal biology classes. Here, teacher
autonomy and money—some from federal funding and some from
school-organized fundraising events—were the keys. As David Micklos,
Director of the Dolan DNA Learning Center, remarked: "Teachers have a
good deal of autonomy on what they can teach, and simply went out and bought
these things" (Fig. 2). Equipment is shared between
schools and administered by local universities with outreach programmes. The
examinations in AP Biology are administered centrally by Princeton
University—an obvious mark of quality. In a similar way to the
Stützpunktschulen, Micklos noted that "Some teachers set themselves
up in labs in their schools as experts." Experiments, discovery and
flexibility are crucially important to the co-author of the renowned text book
DNA Science: "I see standardised tests as an anathema to any kind
of excellence." Unfortunately, if you have a system that relies on
standardized tests, doing practicals is the least efficient way of learning
facts to pass those tests, Micklos observed.
|
|
Figure 2
DNA models and molecule building kits for teaching
|
|
|
Clearly, a large part of the solution to the difficulties of the school
laboratory lies in the triad of teachers, research scientists and science
education establishments, but institutional support and reform remain crucial.
Unfortunately for many, no matter how impressive and convenient it is to
perform an experiment, if it cannot be used to teach part of the curriculum, it
is as good as useless. Thus, a large part of the success of any proposed
solution lies in the increased confidence of teachers to perform new
experiments, to push through new practice and to get their work recognized at a
higher level. Support from scientists is invaluable in creating this new
confidence, and should be considered as the start of the road to reform.
|
|
top  |
|
|
|
