Commentary: Molecular visualization tools are good teaching aids when used appropriately

Abstract

Molecular visualization tools such as RasMol [1], Chime [2], and kinemage images made with Mage [3] have caught the imagination of the biochemistry and molecular biology community. A search of the World Wide Web brings up numerous sites that utilize such tools. In the previous issue of Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ., Jane and David Richardson described their experience teaching molecular three-dimensional literacy [4]. Marion O'Leary has written a Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. editorial on the need for such education [5]. However, my experiences with molecular visualization have, to date, not been very positive. When RasMol [1] was cutting edge new software a colleague invited me to attend one of his lectures featuring a three-dimensional dissection of hemoglobin. It was an abject failure judging by the body language of the audience, who were listless at seeing one plane section through hemoglobin followed by some clever keyboard commands and then more plane sections. This lecture was less than optimal, because the lecturer failed to be in eye, and emotional, contact with the students and failed to link the gee-whiz display to the course and assessment. The lecturer was well motivated to show that he was on top of the latest advances in molecular visualization and to share this with the students. However, technology, regardless of how up to the minute, is no substitute for relating the significance of the subject matter to the students. Computer displays, and I include PowerPoint lectures here, have no intrinsic educational magic that excuses teachers from the hard work of connecting with the students. In this Feature section on Multimedia in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, White et al. [6] evaluate the effectiveness of molecular visualization software for teaching protein structure. They assert “it is difficult to effectively communicate the complex three-dimensional structure of proteins using traditional two-dimensional teaching media” [6]. Nevertheless I believe that most of my contemporaries learned three-dimensional principles of chemical structure to a high standard using two-dimensional textbooks and occasional real physical models. This is no more difficult to accept than the construction of the pyramids by the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptians had rudimentary tools, yet they achieved great engineering feats. Today we have great visualization tools, but is the learning outcome any different to the rudimentary teaching aids of pre-computer times? I have used kinemage images [3] to animate my lectures on immunoglobulins and enzymes for several years, and I never had the feeling from the class that they wanted more of this form of lecture support. I also provide students with an extensive range of kinemage images both on a take-home CD-ROM and within our open computer lab. My exhortations to use this resource seem to go unheeded. We achieve rave reviews for our computer-delivered teaching of tutorials and multiple choice questions but never a comment on the kinemage material. Part of this might be attributed to the form of assessment, which is on two-dimensional paper. Students can get 100% for reproducing the simplistic mechanistic diagrams I have shown in lectures. They do not seem to perceive a reward for any higher level of understanding (or for having fun playing with images). White et al. [6] present hard evidence that molecular visualization software led their students to be able to apply structure concepts in a novel situation. To me this is the Holy Grail of teaching. White et al. [6] conclude that the combination of visualization lecture and lab was an effective way to communicate this material. Confucius said, “There are many paths to the truth,” and so too are there many ways to molecular visualization. I suspect that White et al. [6] succeeded, in part, through the way that they integrated the software into their course structure. Also, the average age of their students was 22.3 years. This is an age when most students have overcome the rigid compartmentalization of knowledge that characterizes younger learners. Mature learners can make associations and generally function at a higher level of abstraction than fresh undergraduates. It is also an age at which pure interest can be a strong motivation. My limited use of visualization software has not encouraged further use in lectures or lab, but the clear success of the classes of White et al. [6] provide a basis to reassess my ambiguous commitment to this software. Clearly more studies like this are needed that focus on how to use molecular visualization tools appropriately and assess the results of this use on student learning so that skeptics like me can be won over.