Article
Amy M. Wiles*
Figure Analysis: An Implementation
Dialogue
From the Department of Biology, Mercer University, Macon, Georgia
31207
Abstract
Figure analysis is a novel active learning teaching tech-
nique that reinforces visual literacy. Small groups of stu-
dents discuss diagrams in class in order to learn content.
The instructor then gives a brief introduction and later
summarizes the content of the figure. This teaching tech-
nique can be used in place of lecture as a mechanism to
deliver information to students. Here, a “how to” guide is
presented in the form of an in-class dialogue, displaying
Keywords: visual literacy; active learning; multimedia instruction;
undergraduate biology education
Introduction
Although students today are being raised in a “visual culture,”
they are not necessarily “visually literate” [1]. Repeatedly ask-
ing students to interpret diagrams and demonstrating the cor-
rect way to interpret those diagrams can increase the visual
literacy of students. Additionally, deep learning occurs when
students engage in conversational communication to explain
diagrams [2], and textual explanations also play a role in facil-
itating the students’ understanding of visual symbolism [3]. A
novel teaching technique called figure analysis [4] addresses
both visual literacy and active learning by conversation, and it
can be used in a variety of class settings and throughout
undergraduate education. Importantly, this active learning
technique can replace lecture as the dominant means by
which information is delivered to students as long as that
information can be clearly presented visually.
Figure analysis is unique in that it challenges students
to acquire new information from their own visual interpreta-
Volume 44, Number 4, July/August 2016, Pages 345–348
*Address for correspondence: Amy M. Wiles, Department of Biology,
Mercer University, Macon, Georgia 31207.
E-mail: wiles_am@mercer.edu
Received 27 August 2015; Revised 3 November 2015; Accepted 12
January 2016
DOI 10.1002/bmb.20960
Published online 19 February 2016 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com)
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
the difficulties in visual interpretation that some students
may experience while figure analysis is being implemented
in an upper-level, cell biology course. Additionally, the dia-
logue serves as a guide for instructors who may imple-
ment the active learning technique as they consider how to
respond to students’ concerns in class. V C 2016 by The Inter-
national Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
44(4):345–348, 2016.
tion of figures while participating in small group discussion
of that information. Figure analysis is similar to but distinct
from other types of “think-pair-share” related activities,
such as “see-think-wonder” [5], because students are not
only critically thinking about the image, but crucially, they
are also discovering content and gaining knowledge for
themselves as their first exposure to the material.
The author has provided information on the implemen-
tation of this teaching technique, including suggestions on
how to select an appropriate textbook as well as results of
student satisfaction with the technique [4]. Here the author
presents a “how to” guide in the form of an example dia-
logue that may occur in an upper-level cell biology class-
room in which the technique is being employed. A dialogue
format is presented, representing common types of conver-
sations between students and between students and the
instructor, so that instructors may gain a sense of what the
classroom may be like if they implemented the figure
analysis intervention. An explanation of these interactions
is given throughout.
A Figure Analysis Implementation
Dialogue
Figure analysis is comprised of four phases: introduction,
examination, discussion, and summarization. A fifth phase,
review, may be added for more difficult material. Students
should have their textbooks with them or be provided
345
 Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education

“Retrieval of soluble ER resident proteins. ER resident proteins that escape from the ER are returned by vesicle trans-
FIG 1 port. (a) The KDEL receptor present in both vesicular tubular clusters and the Golgi apparatus captures the soluble ER
resident proteins and carries them in COPI-coated transport vesicles back to the ER. (Recall that the COPI-coated
vesicles shed their coats as soon as they are formed.) Upon binding its ligands in the tubular cluster or Golgi, the KDEL
receptor may change conformation, so as to facilitate its recruitment into budding COPI-coated vesicles. (b) The
retrieval of ER proteins begins in vesicular tubular clusters and continues from later parts of the Golgi apparatus. In the
environment of the ER, the ER resident proteins dissociate from the KDEL receptor, which is then returned to the Golgi
apparatus for reuse. We discuss the different compartments of the Golgi apparatus shortly.” [6].V C 2015 from Molecular

Biology of the Cell, Sixth Edition by Alberts et al. Reproduced by permission from Garland Science/Taylor & Francis
Group LLC.

diagrams by the instructor. Figure 13-25 from Molecular
Biology of the Cell [6] is used here as an example (Fig. 1).
Notes to the reader are presented in italics.
Beginning with phase 1, the Instructor gives a limited
introduction to the material presented in the figure to be
examined.
Instructor: Alright, we left off last time talking about
vesicular trafficking from the ER to the Golgi Apparatus.
The best-characterized ER resident signal sequence is
KKXX [6], that’s two lysines followed by two other amino
acid residues. KKXX is found on proteins that reside in the
ER membrane. For soluble proteins, a KDEL sequence is
present at the C-terminus. Okay, I want you to take a few
minutes to look at Figure 13-25 in your text (Fig. 1).
Moving to phases 2 and 3, examination and discussion
by students, the Instructor gives the students about
20 seconds and then begins to walk around the room, lis-
tening in on discussions and responding to questions when
appropriate.
Instructor: I don’t hear any conversation over here. . .
Student A: We don’t know what to talk about!
Instructor: Just tell your neighbor what you see. And
point to the figure as you talk about it.
Student A: Uh. . . Okay, there’s a blue COPI coat around
this part of the Golgi, and it’s binding to the green Ys.
Instructor: The KDEL receptors? What else?
Student B: The pink proteins bind to the green recep-
tors. I guess I should say the ‘soluble ER resident proteins’
bind to the KDEL receptors.
Student A: So is the light grey part the lumen of the
Golgi? Because that matches with what they’re showing in
part B. And that would put the COPI coat in the cytosol.
Instructor: Yes. Keep talking about it! You’re off to a
good start.
When first asked to talk about figures, some groups of
students are at a loss. The instructor walks around the room,
looking for students who do not seem to be engaged and asks
them to start by pointing out what they see. The instructor lis-
tens to their attempt and guides them to begin using terminol-
ogy, helping them to understand that, for instance, the “Y” is
a representation of the KDEL receptor. The instructor contin-
ues to prod them. Through practice, students begin to use
appropriate nomenclature in their descriptions. Students also
work through interpretations of the parts of the cell, noting
locations of represented molecules.
The instructor listens to another group:
Student C: But it’s showing the COPII coats on the
vesicles from the ER but not on the vesicles from the Golgi.
I’m totally confused.
Student D: Wait, the figure legend says that COPI coats
are shed right after they pinch off. I forgot that, too. Stu-
dents underline the sentence in the figure legend.

346 Figure Analysis: Dialogue

 Students help each other work through the figures and
the information, and the instructor often does not intervene
in the conversations that she overhears. Students are
encouraged to read the legend in addition to examining the
figure. Here, students are reminded of information they had
discussed as part of earlier figures, and they are the ones
making the connections to previous material rather than the
instructor making the connections for them. Students are
also encouraged to take notes in their books or notebooks.
At another group:
Student E: Okay, so the COPII coats helped the vesicles
pinch from the ER, then they fused to make the vesicular
tubular cluster (VTC) and the COPI coats take everything
back again.
Student F: So why are the receptors taking the resident
proteins out of the ER if they’re only going to bring them
back again? Students E and F struggle for a while, and
then ask the same question of the passing Instructor.
Instructor: Look carefully at the vesicles in the ‘for-
ward pathway.’ What do you see?
Student F: There are receptors, and there are ER resi-
dent proteins.
Instructor: And how are they arranged?
Student F: Oh! The receptors haven’t bound the pro-
teins yet! So they’re not taking them to the Golgi. Students
write it down.
Here, students observe an occurrence (receptors move
from the ER to the Golgi and back again) but attempt to
apply it before interpreting all of the information displayed
(ligands are bound to some receptors only after vesicles
form the VTC). Again, students take notes on their observa-
tions and the information they have observed.
Yet another group:
Student G is flipping back to look at Figure 13-24 [6],
which shows formation of VTCs and demonstrates the
action of motor proteins in creation of the cis Golgi net-
work: Okay, so the motor proteins are moving the VTCs
along while the COPI-coated vesicles are pinching off of it.
And those are targeted to the ER.
Student H raises hand to ask question of the passing
Instructor: So do the vesicles heading back to the ER use
Rab and SNAREs like we talked about last time?
Instructor: Yes, they just haven’t included them in the
figure for clarity. Making announcement to class: To make
sure you get how it all fits together, you might want to
draw it all out, including SNAREs and motor proteins. You
could even add the formation of the COPI and COPII coats,
if you wanted! Students draw some in their textbooks.
A common question from students is what is missing
from the diagram. In order for a diagram to convey infor-
mation, the composer had to choose what to highlight and
what to leave out so that the particular information would
not get lost in the other detail. In an example such as this,
the instructor often encourages students to think about
how the information presented builds upon previous mate-
Wiles
rial and about how systems previously examined work
together for a complete effect. Here, the instructor inter-
rupts the small group discussions to make this recommen-
dation. The instructor may also interrupt discussions to
draw the attention of the class to a certain part of the dia-
gram that several groups seem to be struggling with or to
suggest a way to think about the figure or its context.
An earlier group continues its discussion:
Student F: It looks like the KDEL receptors aren’t
always bound to the resident proteins.
Student E: Yeah, and not all of the KDEL proteins are
retrieved before the VTCs become part of the Golgi. It looks
like retrieval keeps happening in each cisterna. Students
write it down.
Here students have identified further information con-
tained within the figure. This may be supplemented with their
reading of the text and any further instructor comments.
For this figure, the students have used approximately five
minutes of class time for discussion in small groups. Some fig-
ures may lend themselves to additional questions, as following:
Instructor: Okay, class. I’ve got a question for you.
How is it possible that the KDEL receptor binds tightly
enough to its substrate, the KDEL signal sequence, in the
Golgi but is able to release it once it is returned to the ER?
And along the same lines, how it is not able to bind to the
sequence when it’s in the ER to begin with?
Small group discussions begin, with several confused
looks.
Student C: There’s a concentration difference?
Instructor: There is, but the concentration of ER resi-
dent proteins is actually higher in the ER than in the VTCs
and Golgi, and it will continue to decrease as more of the
proteins are removed back to the ER. So the ER resident
proteins are moving against their concentration gradient.
Anyone else? Close examination of this figure will reveal
the concentration difference.
Student G: A conformational change happens?
Instructor: You’re on the right track, but why? Some
students in the back look like they might have it but are
not volunteering an answer. The Instructor invites them to
share what they’ve discussed.
Student F: Is it the pH? The students have read para-
graphs on the same page as the figure, which reveals the
answer.
Instructor: Yes! The pH is lower in the Golgi Apparatus
than in the ER because of proton pumps in the Golgi [6].
The pH difference is enough to allow the KDEL signal
sequence access to its binding site on the receptor in the
Golgi and the higher pH in the ER causes a conformational
change resulting in the release of the ER resident protein
into the ER lumen. The vesicles coming from the ER or the
Golgi have pHs similar to their organelle of origin.
Not all material may be delivered in a figure. While this
particular idea of the effect of pH on the KDEL receptor’s
binding affinity is not represented in Fig. 1, it could be. The
347

figure’s composer, however, chose to leave this information
out of the figure, likely for the sake of clarity. This provides
an opportunity for the instructor to ask a critical thinking
question of the students as a means of instruction.
This question, small discussion, and answer take a little
over two minutes. The Instructor now moves to phase 4: sum-
marization. In a small class, no more than perhaps 24 students,
the Instructor may choose to ask a student to stand at the front
of the room and summarize the figure for the class rather than
the instructor supplying the summarization herself. After the
student presentation is complete, the instructor would correct
or extend upon material missed by the student once he was fin-
ished summarizing so that all points that the instructor wanted
to make are clear and correct. The Instructor’s summary alone
is presented here, without a student summary.
Instructor: Let’s look at this figure together. COPII
bends the membrane of the ER, allowing the pinching off of
vesicles. And we’ve already talked about that process in
detail. Most soluble ER resident proteins are excluded from
the vesicles because they aggregate in the ER, but some
happen to escape in the ‘forward pathway.’ The KDEL
receptors are also taken up in the vesicles. These form into
VTCs, as we’ve already talked about, and move to become
the cis Golgi network. Once vesicles fuse with the VTC, the
pH is low enough that the receptors can begin to bind to
their substrate. The bound receptors then can enter the
‘retrieval pathway’ as they interact with a COPI coat form-
ing on the cytosolic face of the VTC or Golgi. These coats
then quickly dissociate, and the vesicles are targeted to the
ER. All pinching and fusion of vesicles takes place as we’ve
already talked about. Are there any questions?
The instructor may choose to add a fifth phase, review,
if the material in the figure is particularly difficult, or if the
figure contains a considerable amount of material. This fig-
ure should not require review unless students were partic-
ularly confused by a concept.
Conclusion
When first implementing figure analysis in the classroom,
students may be reluctant to speak to each other or have
difficulty determining how talk about a figure, as such Stu-
dents A and B in the dialogue. The instructor may ask
these students guiding questions and demonstrate how to
interpret a figure. A document camera also may assist in
this demonstration; the instructor can point to the figure as
he or she describes it. Students should be reminded to take
notes on their group discussion.
348
Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology Education
More basic figures may not need much summary, espe-
cially if the instructor can tell that students are grasping
the concepts. For more difficult figures, or if there are
many questions that students have during the summary, it
may be helpful to allow the students another two minutes
to review the figure and explanation with their neighbors.
It is important to use a textbook with clear, well-designed
visual aids or to supplement the text with well-designed fig-
ures, otherwise students may be arriving at incorrect inter-
pretations of the information based on poorly designed fig-
ures. Features to consider in choosing textbooks and figures
to use with this technique are discussed in [4]. Students are
also encouraged to supplement figure analysis and their
instructor’s summary with their own reading of the text.
Figure analysis introduces students to the analysis of
visual information while they are asked to interpret and
explain diagrams in class. As an active learning technique,
it also promotes students’ engagement in class. Although
some figures may take longer for students to discuss than
the lecturer would normally spend on them, the students
may absorb other content more quickly as they discuss it.
Ultimately, the time spent in class is balanced such that the
same amount of material may be presented as compared to
a more traditional lecture.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Dr. Craig Coleman for assistance with
image formatting. The author has no conflicts of interest to
declare.
References
[1] Felten, P. (2008) Visual literacy. Change 40, 60–64.
[2] Mayer, R. E. (2003) The promise of multimedia learning: using the same
instructional design methods across different media. Learn. Instruct. 13,
125–139.
[3] Pauwels, L., in L. Pauwels (2006) A theoretical framework for assessing
visual representational practices in Knowledge building and science com-
munications, Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Prac-
tices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication, Dartmouth
College Press, Hanover, New Hampshire, pp. 1–25.
[4] A. Wiles. Figure analysis: A teaching technique to promote visual literacy
and active learning. Biochem Mol Biol Edu. In press.
[5] Ritchhart, R., Church, M., and Morrison, K. (2011) Making Thinking
Visible: How to Promote Engagement, Understanding, and Independence
for All Learners, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
[6] Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Morgan, D., Raff, M., Roberts, K., and
Walter, P. (2015) Molecular Biology of the Cell, 6th ed., Garland Science,
New York.
Figure Analysis: Dialogue