OP's article lists the Krebs cycle as an example, to me the Krebs Cycle is a prime example of how not to teach biology.
Most high schools and every biology course uses the cycle as a milestone of learning, but usually teaches it by pure rote learning, words that have no meaning. Oxaloacetate turns into citrate via the citrate synthase and Acetyl CoA (I had to look this up; of course I learned it three times by heart and forgot immediately after the exam). Most of my teachers taught it like this, a meaningless collection of words and steps that you have to rote learn.
Except for my microbiology professor! We spent a semester learning about the basics of biochemistry, why reactions have to happen the way they happen, until we all had a relatively clear logic. We learned the Krebs cycle at the end, as a special kind of application and use case of the inherent logic. We want to 'reactivate' NAD+ into NADH, so we need an H+. But look at our Malate! There's a nice H dangling there in the OH group. Hs are taken off by dehydrogenases because they de- the hydrogen, so surely our helper is called the malate dehydrogenase. And it is! What happens to an O that has it's H taken away? the most usual outcome is a double-binded O. Which is why our oxaloacetate looks the way it does. If you know what malate looks like you know what oxaloacetate looks like. (And so on).
Of course you can't explain the entire cycle and its terms this way, as names like malate are there for historic reasons, but it gets you far closer to the inherent beauty of the thing. It's just a pity it's usually taught by rote.
Most high schools and every biology course uses the cycle as a milestone of learning, but usually teaches it by pure rote learning, words that have no meaning. Oxaloacetate turns into citrate via the citrate synthase and Acetyl CoA (I had to look this up; of course I learned it three times by heart and forgot immediately after the exam). Most of my teachers taught it like this, a meaningless collection of words and steps that you have to rote learn.
Except for my microbiology professor! We spent a semester learning about the basics of biochemistry, why reactions have to happen the way they happen, until we all had a relatively clear logic. We learned the Krebs cycle at the end, as a special kind of application and use case of the inherent logic. We want to 'reactivate' NAD+ into NADH, so we need an H+. But look at our Malate! There's a nice H dangling there in the OH group. Hs are taken off by dehydrogenases because they de- the hydrogen, so surely our helper is called the malate dehydrogenase. And it is! What happens to an O that has it's H taken away? the most usual outcome is a double-binded O. Which is why our oxaloacetate looks the way it does. If you know what malate looks like you know what oxaloacetate looks like. (And so on).
Of course you can't explain the entire cycle and its terms this way, as names like malate are there for historic reasons, but it gets you far closer to the inherent beauty of the thing. It's just a pity it's usually taught by rote.