Progressive development of scientific literacy through assessment in inquiry-based biomedical science curricula

A key outcome of science education is the development of graduates' scientific literacy, defined as "an individual's scientific knowledge, and use of that knowledge to identify questions, to acquire new knowledge, to explain scientific phenomena, and to draw evidence-based conclusions..." (OECD, 2010; pg 137). These skills are reflected throughout the Science Threshold Learning Outcomes (Jones, Yates and Kelder, 2011). To progressively develop such advanced skills within a broad major like biomedical science, it is essential to guide students along critical learning pathways. We have designed a series of inquiry-based classes to scaffold the development of these skills and vertically-integrated these across the curriculum (Zimbardi, Bugarcic, Colthorpe, Good and Lluka 2013), with this design receiving national recognition as best practice (Elliott, Boin, Irving, Johnson and Galea 2010; Kirkup and Johnson 2013). To facilitate skills development within these classes, students undertake increasingly complex assessment tasks as they progress through each course, requiring them to draw on their developing content knowledge to propose and undertake experiments, and to make conclusions based on their findings and evidence from scientific literature. Longitudinal analysis of a variety of assessment tasks from students across four semesters demonstrates the developmental trajectory of these skills. Specifically, they demonstrate increases in their ability to formulate testable hypotheses with measurable outcomes, their appreciation of cutting-edge methodologies and deeper understanding of the contestable nature of increasingly complex areas of scientific knowledge. This article reports on the design and use of these assessment tasks within the series of inquiry-based curricula, and their impact on the progression of student learning

Ayurvedic formulations: potential COVID-19 therapeutics?

Background: While Molnupiravir and Paxlovid have recently been approved for use in some countries, there are no widely available treatments for COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Herbal extracts have been used to treat respiratory clinical indications by Ayurvedic medicine practitioners with minimal adverse reactions and intense research efforts are currently under way to develop some of these formulations for COVID-19 treatment. Methods: Literature search for in silico, in vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies on the topic of Ayurvedic formulations for potential COVID-19 treatment, in order to present the current state of current knowledge by integrating information across all systems. Results: The search yielded 20 peer reviewed articles on in silico studies examining the interaction of phytoconstituents of popular Ayurvedic formulations with SARS-CoV-2 components and its receptors; five articles on preclinical investigations of the ability of selected Ayurvedic formulations to inhibit functions of SARS-CoV-2 proteins; and 51 completed clinical trials on the efficacy of using Ayurvedic formulations for treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19. Clinical data was available from 17 of the 51 trials. There was a considerable overlap between formulations used in the in silico studies and the clinical trials. This finding was unexpected as there is no clearly stated alignment between studies and the traditional pathway to drug discovery– basic discovery leading to in vitro and in vivo proof of concept, followed by validation in clinical trials. This was further demonstrated in the majority of the in silico studies where focus was on potential antiviral mechanisms, while the clinical trials were focused on patient recovery using oral treatments. In all 17 clinical trials where data was available, Ayurvedic treatments lead to a shorter period to recovery in participants with COVID-19. Conclusion: The most commonly used Ayurvedic treatments for management of respiratory symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection appear to have prophylactic and/or therapeutic properties. It would be of particular interest to assess synergistic and concomitant systemic effects and antiviral activities of individual phytoconstituents and their combinations in the Ayurvedic treatments

Development and analysis of scientific argument in oral presentations of undergraduate science students

An essential goal of science education is to help students develop effective scientific thinking, which is characterised by rigorous, evidence-based reasoning. However science graduates must also be able to effectively communicate that reasoning through scientific argument, via the process of developing and communicating claims, evidence and reasoning in the context of science (Sampson, Grooms & Walker, 2009). This study developed and validated a method for analysing the quality of scientific arguments in oral presentations of 2nd and 3rd year undergraduate biomedical science students. Our findings suggest that students make a lot of unfounded claims and struggle to provide the evidence and theoretical backing to support these claims, let alone the reasoning that links this support to the claims. These findings led to an intervention to increase the focus on scientific reasoning in assessment of oral presentations, through revised assessment criteria and the provision of specific guidelines for students. Subjectively, this has led to an increase in the quality and quantity of each element of scientific reasoning being presented. This project has modelled the use of evidence-based assessments to inform teaching improvements to ultimately facilitate the development of highly qualified scientists, skilled in scientific argument and communication. References Sampson, V., Grooms, J. & Walker, J. P. (2009) Argument-Driven Inquiry. Science Teacher, 76, 42-47

Progressive development of scientific literacy through assessment in inquiry-based biomedical science curricula

A key outcome of science education is the development of graduates’ scientific literacy, defined as “an individual’s scientific knowledge, and use of that knowledge to identify questions, to acquire new knowledge, to explain scientific phenomena, and to draw evidence-based conclusions…” (OECD, 2010; pg 137). These skills are reflected throughout the Science Threshold Learning Outcomes (Jones, Yates and Kelder, 2011). To progressively develop such advanced skills within a broad major like biomedical science, it is essential to guide students along critical learning pathways. We have designed a series of inquiry-based classes to scaffold the development of these skills and vertically-integrated these across the curriculum (Zimbardi, Bugarcic, Colthorpe, Good and Lluka 2013), with this design receiving national recognition as best practice (Elliott, Boin, Irving, Johnson and Galea 2010; Kirkup and Johnson 2013). To facilitate skills development within these classes, students undertake increasingly complex assessment tasks as they progress through each course, requiring them to draw on their developing content knowledge to propose and undertake experiments, and to make conclusions based on their findings and evidence from scientific literature. Longitudinal analysis of a variety of assessment tasks from students across four semesters demonstrates the developmental trajectory of these skills. Specifically, they demonstrate increases in their ability to formulate testable hypotheses with measurable outcomes, their appreciation of cutting-edge methodologies and deeper understanding of the contestable nature of increasingly complex areas of scientific knowledge. This article reports on the design and use of these assessment tasks within the series of inquiry-based curricula, and their impact on the progression of student learning

The Development of Undergraduate Science Students’ Scientific Argument Skills in Oral Presentations

The Science Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) developed recently as part of the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards project, reinforce that the ability to develop evidence-based, well-reasoned arguments and to clearly communicate those arguments in a variety of communication modes, are key graduate attributes (Jones, Yates & Kelder, 2011). However, in practice, specific measurement of these skills is limited, particularly in oral presentations. This study describes the initial literature-based development of a rubric for the evaluation of scientific argument in oral presentations (Toulmin, 1958; Sampson, Grooms & Walker, 2009), and the reiterative, data-driven process of refinement of that rubric. The rubric reflects the established framework for the scientific argument, by including criteria for claim, evidence and reasoning, and evaluates these three components across standards that represent the variation within a mid-level undergraduate cohort. Using this rubric, we evaluated the ability of undergraduate science students to communicate scientific arguments in an oral presentation task in which they presented data acquired from an inquiry-based practical (Bugarcic, Zimbardi, Macaranas & Thorn, 2012). Students demonstrated the ability to make claims, supply evidence and articulate reasoning that linked claims with supporting evidence. However, the standard of these elements was varied, and the structure of students’ arguments was not always complete. Using an action-research approach, these initial findings were used to develop student guidelines and alter the curriculum in a subsequent iteration of the course. This intervention resulted in students presenting more complete and higher-quality arguments. Overall, this study reports on the development of the rubric and describes the design and impact of an evidence-driven teaching intervention that enhances students’ scientific argument development in oral presentations

Parkinson disease-linked Vps35 R524W mutation impairs the endosomal association of retromer and induces α-synuclein aggregation

Endosomal sorting is a highly orchestrated cellular process. Retromer is a heterotrimeric complex that associates with endosomal membranes and facilitates the retrograde sorting of multiple receptors, including the cation-independent mannose 6-phosphate receptor for lysosomal enzymes. The cycling of retromer on and off the endosomal membrane is regulated by a network of retromer-interacting proteins. Here, we find that Parkinson disease-associated Vps35 variant, R524W, but not P316S, is a loss-of-function mutation as marked by a reduced association with this regulatory network and dysregulation of endosomal receptor sorting. Expression of Vps35 R524W-containing retromer results in the accumulation of intracellular α-synuclein-positive aggregates, a hallmark of Parkinson disease. Overall, the Vps35 R524W-containing retromer has a decreased endosomal association, which can be partially rescued by R55, a small molecule previously shown to stabilize the retromer complex, supporting the potential for future targeting of the retromer complex in the treatment of Parkinson disease

Are students reading my feedback? Using a feedback analytics capture system to understand how large cohorts of biomedical science students use feedback

Feedback is one of the most potent teaching strategies known to produce student learning gains (Hattie, 2009). However, the provision of feedback has been identified as one of the weakest elements of university practices (Graduate Careers Australia, 2012). Although there are many theoretical frameworks for improving feedback provision (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Nicol & Macfarlane Dick, 2006; Sadler, 2010), little is known about how students actually use feedback (Jonsson, 2013). Many authors contend that students commonly ignore feedback (Boud & Molloy, 2013), with some empirical evidence that students do not collect or read written feedback (Sinclair & Cleland, 2007), or ignore it when they do not understand what it means (Still & Koerber, 2010). The increasingly widespread adoption of online marking and feedback tools facilitates students’ access to their feedback, but until now there has been no systematic characterise the patterns of student access of this feedback, nor how this impacts on their subsequent performance (Ellis, 2013). We have developed, and extensively trialled, a Feedback Analytics Capture System (FACS, previously called UQMarkUP) which synthesises large-scale data on digital feedback provision, how students access feedback, and changes in students’ academic performance (Zimbardi et al., 2013). Specifically, FACS captures detailed information about the audio, typed and hand-drawn annotations markers insert in situ in electronic assessment submissions, and the marks awarded across a variety of systems, including detailed criteria-standards rubrics. FACS also collects detailed information about how students access this feedback, logging the timing and nature of every mouse click a student uses to interact with the feedback-embedded document. In this exploratory study, we investigated the frequency, timing, and patterns in how students access their feedback. Analyses of FACS data from laboratory reports submitted for summative assessment in two biomedical science courses in level 1 (n=1781 students) and level 2 (n=389), in Semesters 1 and 2, 2013, revealed that the vast majority of students opened their feedback. In the level 1 course 93% students opened Report 1, 92% opened Report 2, 87% opened Report 3 and 85% opened Report 4. In contrast, far fewer students in the level 2 course opened their feedback, and fewer students opened Report 1 (68%) than Report 2 (82%). Although a similar pattern existed for how long students had their feedback open (level 1 Report 1: 12±8 hours; Report 2: 3.4±1.6 hours; Report 3: 2.1±1.4 hours; Report 4: 43±7 minutes), the level 2 reports now reverted to greater duration of interaction with Report 1 (5.6±0.6 hours) than Report 2 (1.2±0.3 hours). The number of students accessing feedback surges 1-2 days after feedback release, followed by a persistent tail of students accessing the feedback for the subsequent two months. In this context of undergraduate biomedical science laboratory assessments, students are not only collecting and reading their feedback, but they are interacting with it extensively. There may also be potential maturational, course-specific, and interaction effects that shape feedback use, and require further exploration as we expand this feedback analytics approach across a broader range of educational contexts