Interdisciplinary insights from instructor interviews reconciling “structure and function” in biology, biochemistry, and chemistry through the context of enzyme binding

Abstract

Structure and function is an essential crosscutting concept in undergraduate STEM education and appears in numerous disciplines and contexts from the introductory to advanced levels. This concept is exemplified by enzyme binding, a topic spanning biology, biochemistry, and chemistry. We interviewed 13 instructors with primary instructional appointments in these fields, focusing on how they think about and also teach structure and function in their courses. We focused on how they define the component terms, "structure" and "function," their personal learning development, and how they view the interactions among these three disciplines. Overall, we found that context and terminology appear to be key factors in these conversations, as well as in the classroom. These instructors, in reflecting on their own educational development, do not consider that they developed their understanding in an undergraduate classroom. Instead, they focused on research experiences, graduate studies, postdoctoral work, or even, teaching appointments as essential points for their own knowledge. These instructors held strong opinions about interactions among the disciplines, both from the perspectives of cross-talk and what their students experience. These opinions generally center on individual instructors' opinions of other disciplines, apparent inclination to collaborate on teaching across disciplinary lines, and general preconceptions of other fields. Overall, this work has implications on the path forward for undergraduate teaching and learning of structure and function.

Undergraduate Chemistry and Biology Students’ Use of Causal Mechanistic Reasoning to Explain and Predict Preferential Protein–Ligand Binding Activity

“…The fact that students suggested the idea that chemistry and biology courses should emphasize and clarify the connections between structure, properties, and function and that it is critical to do so for a sustained understanding and use of the content makes this an important area of investigation. Research exploring students’ understandings of ideas about SPF relationships in the contexts of specific phenomena relevant to chemistry and biology is limited; , however, in a recent publication, Yoho et al found that faculty in chemistry, biology, and biochemistry all emphasized the importance of these relationships in each discipline but also the importance and challenges (via instructor opinions) of bridging the disciplines using these ideas …”

“…The fact that students suggested the idea that chemistry and biology courses should emphasize and clarify the connections between structure, properties, and function and that it is critical to do so for a sustained understanding and use of the content 26 SPF relationships in the contexts of specific phenomena relevant to chemistry and biology is limited; 10,14 however, in a recent publication, Yoho et al found that faculty in chemistry, biology, and biochemistry all emphasized the importance of these relationships in each discipline but also the importance and challenges (via instructor opinions) of bridging the disciplines using these ideas. 27 ■ PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER Given (1) our interest in students building connections via CMR between chemistry and biology, (2) the importance of context in activating resources and how this might impact students' explanations, and (3) a gap in the literature studying student responses across these disciplines, we investigated student engagement in CMR using a task centered around protein−ligand binding, a biological structure−function phenomenon that can be explained using chemical principles associated with structure and properties. This task, however, serves as just one part of a three-part activity.…”

Potential for Chemistry in Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, and Transdisciplinary Teaching Activities in Higher Education

“…For example, gene expression in bacteria is largely dependent upon binding interactions of certain macromolecules and DNA, but it would simply take too long to teach and understand gene expression at this level of detail. The practical value of these chemistry-related bioscience subjects has made them heavily integrated into other areas of biology, bioengineering, and biomedicine curricula. ,,, …”

“…A notable barrier to MITT curriculum design is ensuring curricular coherence and integration, especially when there are disagreements between staff from different disciplines about the specific content and methodology of delivery . A potential solution to issues of curricular coherence and integration is to ensure interactions between academics during all stages of curriculum design with regular meetings with module leaders presenting module plans to ensure awareness of the curriculum structure (potentially including modules taught by a multidisciplinary team of academics talking about a particular phenomenon, e.g., enzyme binding as a cross-cutting example of structure and function in biology, biochemistry, and chemistry) . This broad awareness offers opportunities for constructive overlaps between modules, thereby ensuring the best eventual outcome for staff and students who may find it challenging to make a connection between their background knowledge and its relation to other topics, topic sequencing for students from different backgrounds, and effective communication in multidisciplinary teams …”

“… ,, Examples that highlight the importance of the recognition of the underlying chemical principles in other disciplines include supramolecular interactions in biological processes (e.g., protein assembly, gene expression, etc.) that could be included in molecular biology and biochemistry curricula. ,,− Drennan and co-workers’ interdisciplinary introductory chemistry course resulted in increases in student assessment that the course instructors “inspired interest” in chemistry and “used good examples” (old curriculum, 5.50 ± 1.29; new curriculum, 6.36 ± 0.97) and increases in the overall course rating (old curriculum, 5.15 ± 1.29; new curriculum, 5.99 ± 1.22) . Frey and co-workers described interdisciplinary, application-oriented tutorials covering chemistry in the context of biology, engineering, and environmental sciences, enhancing the students’ appreciation of chemistry in the world around them (with improvements in exam scores; old curriculum, ca.…”