Today it seemed that many of us were least comfortable with the breadboard exercise. On the other hand, it seemed many were most excited when it worked. Did the physical nature of this analogy help your understanding of the bacterial photography system? How do the computer modelling and electronic modeling compliment each other in helping our understanding of this system?

I enjoyed trying to figure out the breadboard exercise and the right way for it to function. I think if this concept or analogy is brought into the class early on and revisited numerous times through each lab, it would help a student to see the cell as a machine, composed of many devices and parts (although I would need much more practice). This could be a great model to break down the information and look at it discretely.

I felt that the computer modeling was extremely helpful in furthering my understanding of the system. I would love to use the program with students. The breadboard, on the other hand, I don't think I'd use in class. It seemed too much of a sidetrack to conduct the whole thing for an analogy. I could see maybe spending a couple minutes on describing a picture of the breadboard or perhaps use it as a demo that's already set up. (On a personal note, although it was frustrating, especially when several of our materials were faulty, I did find it rather fun to play around with the breadboard.)

Once I got the circuitry down the whole model made a lot of sense. The computer and physical modelling fit together perfectly. Through the computer model you got to see the nuts and bolts of the mechanism. The breadboard was great for showing an analogy of what is happening in the photography system. Though the breadboard was frustrating at first I feel that the modelling that was done through it was necessary to see how the system works. It is also a great example of how modelling is used to explain topics in science which is a concept that some students do not grasp well