Regulation of Spermatogenesis: Differentiation of GFP-labeled Stem Cells and the Function of Cytoplasmic Bridges

During spermatogenesis, different genes are expressed in a strictly coordinated fashion providing an excellent model to study cell differentiation. Recent identification of testis specific genes and the development of green fluorescence protein (GFP) transgene technology and an in vivo system for studying the differentiation of transplanted male germ cells in infertile testis has opened new possibilities for studying the male germ cell differentiation at molecular level. We have employed these techniques in combination with transillumination based stage recognition (Parvinen and Vanha-Perttula, 1972) and squash preparation techniques (Parvinen and Hecht, 1981) to study the regulation of male germ cell differentiation. By using transgenic mice expressing enhanced-(E)GFP as a marker we have studied the expression and hormonal regulation of beta-actin and acrosin proteins in the developmentally different living male germ cells. Beta-actin was demonstrated in all male germ cells, whereas acrosin was expressed only in late meiotic and in postmeiotic cells. Follicle stimulating hormone stimulated b-actin-EGFP expression at stages I-VI and enhanced the formation of microtubules in spermatids and this way reduced the size of the acrosomic system. When EGFP expressing spermatogonial stem cells were transplanted into infertile mouse testis differentiation and the synchronized development of male germ cells could be observed during six months observation time. Each colony developed independently and maintained typical stage-dependent cell associations. Furthermore, if more than two colonies were fused, each of them was adjusted to one stage and synchronized. By studying living spermatids we were able to demonstrate novel functions for Golgi complex and chromatoid body in material sharing between neighbor spermatids. Immunosytochemical analyses revealed a transport of haploid cell specific proteins in spermatids (TRA54 and Shippo1) and through the intercellular bridges (TRA54). Cytoskeleton inhibitor (nocodazole) demonstrated the importance of microtubules in material sharing between spermatids and in preserving the integrity of the chromatoid body. Golgi complex inhibitor, brefeldin A, revealed the great importance of Golgi complex i) in acrosomic system formation ii) TRA54 translation and in iii) granule trafficking between spermatids.

Intercultural bridges in teenagers' theatrical events : performing self and constructing cultural identity through a creative drama process

The overriding aim of this drama educational case study is to deepen the understanding of meaning making in a creative intercultural youth theatre process and to examine it in the context of the 10th European Children's TheatreEncounter. The research task is to give a theoretical description of some key features of a creative drama process as the basis for theory about meaning makingin physical theatre. The first task is to illuminate the culture-historical connections of the multilayered practice of the EDERED-association. The second taskis to analyse and interpret theatrical meaning making. The ethnographical research site is regarded as a theatrical event. The analysis of the theatrical eventis divided into four segments: cultural contexts, contextual theatricality, theatrical playing and playing culture. These segments are connected with four research questions: What are the cultural contexts of a creative drama process? How can the organisation of the Encounter, genres, aesthetic codes and perception ofcodes be seen to influence the lived experiences of the participants? What are some of the key phases and characteristics in a creative practice? What kind of cultural learning can be interpreted from the performance texts? The interpretative question concerns identity and community (re)construction. How are the categories, `community´ and `child´ constructed in the Encounter culture? In this drama educational case study the research material (transcribed interviews, coded questionnaire answers, participant drawings, videotaped process text and performance texts) are examined in a multi-method analysis in the meta-theoretical framework of Dewey's naturalistic pragmatism. A three-dimensional research interest through a combination of lived experiences, social contexts and cultural-aesthetical practices compared with drama-educational practices required the methodological project of cultural studies. Furthermore, the critical interpretation of cultural texts is divided into three levels of analyses which are called description, structural analysis and theoretical interpretation. Dialogic validity (truthfulness, self-reflexivity and polyvocality) is combined with contextual validity (sensitivity to social context and awareness of historicity) and with deconstructive validity (awareness of the social discourses). My research suggests that itis possible, by means of physical theatre, to construct symbolic worlds where questions about intercultural identity and multilingual community are examined and where provisional answers are constructed in social interaction.

"Riikka Kuoppala, Fanni Niemi-Junkola, Pekka Niskanen" Galleria Forum Box, Helsinki 2011

Kuvataidenäyttely Galleria Forum Boxissa Helsingissä Riikka Kuoppalan, Pekka Niskasen kanssa. Videoteokset Yksi ja monta (One and Many) ja Nitan King (Nita´s King), 2010

Thinking Outside the Box: Enhancing Science Teaching by Combining (Instead of Contrasting) Laboratory and Simulation Activities

The focus of the present work was on 10- to 12-year-old elementary school students’ conceptual learning outcomes in science in two specific inquiry-learning environments, laboratory and simulation. The main aim was to examine if it would be more beneficial to combine than contrast simulation and laboratory activities in science teaching. It was argued that the status quo where laboratories and simulations are seen as alternative or competing methods in science teaching is hardly an optimal solution to promote students’ learning and understanding in various science domains. It was hypothesized that it would make more sense and be more productive to combine laboratories and simulations. Several explanations and examples were provided to back up the hypothesis. In order to test whether learning with the combination of laboratory and simulation activities can result in better conceptual understanding in science than learning with laboratory or simulation activities alone, two experiments were conducted in the domain of electricity. In these experiments students constructed and studied electrical circuits in three different learning environments: laboratory (real circuits), simulation (virtual circuits), and simulation-laboratory combination (real and virtual circuits were used simultaneously). In order to measure and compare how these environments affected students’ conceptual understanding of circuits, a subject knowledge assessment questionnaire was administered before and after the experimentation. The results of the experiments were presented in four empirical studies. Three of the studies focused on learning outcomes between the conditions and one on learning processes. Study I analyzed learning outcomes from experiment I. The aim of the study was to investigate if it would be more beneficial to combine simulation and laboratory activities than to use them separately in teaching the concepts of simple electricity. Matched-trios were created based on the pre-test results of 66 elementary school students and divided randomly into a laboratory (real circuits), simulation (virtual circuits) and simulation-laboratory combination (real and virtual circuits simultaneously) conditions. In each condition students had 90 minutes to construct and study various circuits. The results showed that studying electrical circuits in the simulation–laboratory combination environment improved students’ conceptual understanding more than studying circuits in simulation and laboratory environments alone. Although there were no statistical differences between simulation and laboratory environments, the learning effect was more pronounced in the simulation condition where the students made clear progress during the intervention, whereas in the laboratory condition students’ conceptual understanding remained at an elementary level after the intervention. Study II analyzed learning outcomes from experiment II. The aim of the study was to investigate if and how learning outcomes in simulation and simulation-laboratory combination environments are mediated by implicit (only procedural guidance) and explicit (more structure and guidance for the discovery process) instruction in the context of simple DC circuits. Matched-quartets were created based on the pre-test results of 50 elementary school students and divided randomly into a simulation implicit (SI), simulation explicit (SE), combination implicit (CI) and combination explicit (CE) conditions. The results showed that when the students were working with the simulation alone, they were able to gain significantly greater amount of subject knowledge when they received metacognitive support (explicit instruction; SE) for the discovery process than when they received only procedural guidance (implicit instruction: SI). However, this additional scaffolding was not enough to reach the level of the students in the combination environment (CI and CE). A surprising finding in Study II was that instructional support had a different effect in the combination environment than in the simulation environment. In the combination environment explicit instruction (CE) did not seem to elicit much additional gain for students’ understanding of electric circuits compared to implicit instruction (CI). Instead, explicit instruction slowed down the inquiry process substantially in the combination environment. Study III analyzed from video data learning processes of those 50 students that participated in experiment II (cf. Study II above). The focus was on three specific learning processes: cognitive conflicts, self-explanations, and analogical encodings. The aim of the study was to find out possible explanations for the success of the combination condition in Experiments I and II. The video data provided clear evidence about the benefits of studying with the real and virtual circuits simultaneously (the combination conditions). Mostly the representations complemented each other, that is, one representation helped students to interpret and understand the outcomes they received from the other representation. However, there were also instances in which analogical encoding took place, that is, situations in which the slightly discrepant results between the representations ‘forced’ students to focus on those features that could be generalised across the two representations. No statistical differences were found in the amount of experienced cognitive conflicts and self-explanations between simulation and combination conditions, though in self-explanations there was a nascent trend in favour of the combination. There was also a clear tendency suggesting that explicit guidance increased the amount of self-explanations. Overall, the amount of cognitive conflicts and self-explanations was very low. The aim of the Study IV was twofold: the main aim was to provide an aggregated overview of the learning outcomes of experiments I and II; the secondary aim was to explore the relationship between the learning environments and students’ prior domain knowledge (low and high) in the experiments. Aggregated results of experiments I & II showed that on average, 91% of the students in the combination environment scored above the average of the laboratory environment, and 76% of them scored also above the average of the simulation environment. Seventy percent of the students in the simulation environment scored above the average of the laboratory environment. The results further showed that overall students seemed to benefit from combining simulations and laboratories regardless of their level of prior knowledge, that is, students with either low or high prior knowledge who studied circuits in the combination environment outperformed their counterparts who studied in the laboratory or simulation environment alone. The effect seemed to be slightly bigger among the students with low prior knowledge. However, more detailed inspection of the results showed that there were considerable differences between the experiments regarding how students with low and high prior knowledge benefitted from the combination: in Experiment I, especially students with low prior knowledge benefitted from the combination as compared to those students that used only the simulation, whereas in Experiment II, only students with high prior knowledge seemed to benefit from the combination relative to the simulation group. Regarding the differences between simulation and laboratory groups, the benefits of using a simulation seemed to be slightly higher among students with high prior knowledge. The results of the four empirical studies support the hypothesis concerning the benefits of using simulation along with laboratory activities to promote students’ conceptual understanding of electricity. It can be concluded that when teaching students about electricity, the students can gain better understanding when they have an opportunity to use the simulation and the real circuits in parallel than if they have only the real circuits or only a computer simulation available, even when the use of the simulation is supported with the explicit instruction. The outcomes of the empirical studies can be considered as the first unambiguous evidence on the (additional) benefits of combining laboratory and simulation activities in science education as compared to learning with laboratories and simulations alone.