AIM for change: Supporting first year learning of best practice in scientific writing with a flipped, embedded academic integrity module

Scientific writing is a fundamental professional skill but remains a daunting task for the trainee scientist. Understanding, synthesising and integrating research are essential scientific writing skills; however, appropriate use of the literature continues to be problematic with many students accidentally plagiarising because they lack paraphrasing and citation skills [1]. Materials to support students in developing these skills tend to be decontextualised, generic, and even ignored if they simply inform students about what plagiarism is without providing opportunities for hands-on training [2]. Furthermore, appropriate use of literature varies within professional disciplines, causing potential confusion if learned outside a given course of study. As writing scientific reports accounts for a substantial proportion of most undergraduate science assessments, discipline specific academic literacy resources must be embedded early in the science curriculum. Such resources enhance student learning, build confidence and support the development of competent, employable science graduates. Integrating discipline-specific resources requires disciplinary experts to re-evaluate curriculum design and teaching practice. At our university, this re-evaluation is encouraged through both institutionally driven and grassroots level initiatives. For example, the university promotes the embedding of First Year curriculum principles [3] into subject design for a scaffolded transition to university learning and has implemented the First Year Experience project, in which small interdisciplinary teams embark on curriculum change and share their findings at faculty-developed Communities of Practice. These initiatives supported our project on embedding an interactive online Academic Integrity Module (AIM) on academic literacy and professional skills in scientific writing in a first year core subject. By blending out-of-classroom exercises (flipped learning approach) with workshops incorporating peer-to-peer interaction, students engaged in independent learning that was strengthened in a supportive, ‘learning by doing’ environment. In the pilot program, engagement in the project was strong, as 60% of students completed the bespoke AIM even though no marks were associated with it. Evaluation surveys revealed that students identified the importance of academic integrity to a science career (Likert score 4.19, n=245) and had a better understanding of why the correct use of the scientific literature was important for a scientific career (Likert score 4.17, n=247). On average, students who completed the online AIM performed better for the referencing criterion in their assessment than those who did not attempt the AIM. Following the principles of good practice of SoTL [4] we disseminated our findings locally via university forums, showcasing our working example of embedding institutional initiatives in the discipline of science. This has lead to collaboration with other disciplines to further develop and reframe our online AIM for different contexts. Our project clearly demonstrates how institutional initiatives can be successfully implemented and embedded into a large, first year science subject with positive outcomes for students’ learning and changing practice within the University. 1.Devlin, Gray (2007) Higher Education Research & Development, 26:181-198. 2.Bretag et al. (2014) Studies in Higher Education, 39:1150-1169. 3.Kift et al. (2010) The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1:1-20. 4.Felten (2013) Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1:121-125

Evaluation of Common Methods for Sampling Invertebrate Pollinator Assemblages: Net Sampling Out-Perform Pan Traps

Methods for sampling ecological assemblages strive to be efficient, repeatable, and representative. Unknowingly, common methods may be limited in terms of revealing species function and so of less value for comparative studies. The global decline in pollination services has stimulated surveys of flower-visiting invertebrates, using pan traps and net sampling. We explore the relative merits of these two methods in terms of species discovery, quantifying abundance, function, and composition, and responses of species to changing floral resources. Using a spatially-nested design we sampled across a 5000 km2 area of arid grasslands, including 432 hours of net sampling and 1296 pan trap-days, between June 2010 and July 2011. Net sampling yielded 22% more species and 30% higher abundance than pan traps, and better reflected the spatio-temporal variation of floral resources. Species composition differed significantly between methods; from 436 total species, 25% were sampled by both methods, 50% only by nets, and the remaining 25% only by pans. Apart from being less comprehensive, if pan traps do not sample flower-visitors, the link to pollination is questionable. By contrast, net sampling functionally linked species to pollination through behavioural observations of flower-visitation interaction frequency. Netted specimens are also necessary for evidence of pollen transport. Benefits of net-based sampling outweighed minor differences in overall sampling effort. As pan traps and net sampling methods are not equivalent for sampling invertebrate-flower interactions, we recommend net sampling of invertebrate pollinator assemblages, especially if datasets are intended to document declines in pollination and guide measures to retain this important ecosystem service. © 2013 Popic et al

Approaches to study and conceptions of biology: Differential outcomes for generalist and vocational degree students

KEYWORDS: learning in biology, vocational learning, generalist science degree, Learner Profiling BACKGROUND: Students have diverse learning styles and a raft of instruments have been created and validated to examine learner characteristics such as approaches to study (Biggs, 1987; Biggs, Kember & Leung, 2001) and conception of discipline in various science-based courses, including maths (Crawford, Gordon, Nicholas & Prosser, 1998), physics (Prosser, Trigwell, Hazel & Waterhouse, 2000) and biology (Quinnell, May, Peat & Taylor, 2005). Student survey response data can be analysed statistically in a number of ways: for example, students returning similar responses (i.e. students who adopt similar orchestrations) can be characterised using hierarchical cluster analysis (see Trigwell, Hazel & Prosser, 1996; Trigwell Prosser & Waterhouse, 1999; Prosser et al., 2000). Such analysis has allowed us to monitor changes in these learning orchestrations over the course of a semester by extending the work of Prosser et al. (2000) and employing sequential hierarchical cluster analyses in a process we refer to as ‘Learner Profiling’ (Quinnell, May & Peat, 2012). We have demonstrated that 48% of students in an introductory university biology course changed their learning orchestrations from the start to the end of their first semester at university, with some orchestrations being more persistent than others (Quinnell et al., 2012). Biology, like other enabling science courses at first year level, involves service teaching to some extent, and we were interested to see whether students enrolled in vocational or professional degrees engaged with our curriculum differently from students enrolled in generalist degrees. With this in mind we are beginning to explore the notion of differences in learning agendas of our students and if this has an impact on how students engage with our biology curriculum. AIM: Our aim was to evaluate our learner profiling method as a means to inform curriculum design which must, by necessity, be suitable for students across a broad range of degree programs, i.e. generalist and vocational degrees. DESIGN AND METHODS: We profiled biology students as described previously (Quinnell et al., 2012) and employed post-hoc analyses to see how elements of the curriculum (good teaching, clear goals, independence, assessment, workload; as defined by Ramsden, 1991) correlate with the changes in Learner Profile. We also identified students are ‘generalist’ or ‘vocational’ based on their degree program. RESULTS: Interestingly, although perhaps not surprisingly, students enrolled in generalist degrees demonstrated greater engagement with our biology curriculum than those enrolled in vocational degrees. Our data provide some evidence that our curriculum: 1. supports generalist degree students whose conception of biology is sound and whose study approach is intrinsic, 2. is less than ideal for meeting the needs of students in vocational degrees, and 3. has failed to engage students who demonstrated dissonance at the start of semester. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a course in biology literacy would be more suitable to students in vocational degrees and a course that is biology content-rich would suit our generalist-degree students. REFERENCES: Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, Australian Council for Educational Research. Biggs, J., Kember D., & Leung D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology 71: 133-149. Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1988). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8, 455–468. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Hazel, E., & Waterhouse, F. (2000). Students’ experiences of studying physics concepts: the effects of disintegrated perceptions and approaches, European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 61-74. Quinnell, R., May, E., & Peat, M. (2012). Conceptions of Biology and Approaches to Learning of First Year Biology Students: Introducing a technique for tracking changes in learner profiles over time. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 1053-1074. Quinnell, R., May, E., Peat, M., & Taylor, C. (2005). Creating a reliable instrument to assess students’ conceptions of studying biology at tertiary level. Proceedings of the Uniserve Science Conference: Blended Learning in Science Teaching and Learning, 30 September 2005 (pp. 87-92) Sydney: Uniserve Science, The University of Sydney. http://science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/procs/wshop10/2005Quinnell.pdf Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in Higher Education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129-150. Trigwell, K., Hazel, E., & Prosser, M. (1996). Perceptions of the learning environment and approaches to learning university science at the topic level. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. (Retrieved 24 March 2011 from http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/trigwell2.html) Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse F. (1999). Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70

Improving the undergraduate science experience through an evidence-based framework for design, implementation and evaluation of flipped learning

© ASCILITE 2017 - Conference Proceedings - 34th International Conference of Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education.All right reserved. Flipped Learning (FL) is a student-centred pedagogical approach where new content is introduced prior to class which permits more time during class for active learning. Despite the growing body of evidence of the effectiveness of FL, many educators are reluctant to adopt this approach to teaching or are unsure of how to implement FL in their classes. Many students are uncertain of how to adapt their approaches to learning to a FL curriculum. In response to these challenges and calls for a robust framework to guide the design and implementation of FL, we developed the Flipped Teacher and Flipped Learner (FTFL) Framework based on the pedagogical literature. This paper reports on the use of our FTFL framework in the redesign of a large first year science subject from a traditional delivery to a FL delivery. We evaluated the efficacy of the redesign using a mixed methods approach with data on students' interactions with FL activities, and student and educator experiences. Findings from two iterations of the redesign indicate successful implementation of FL through high student engagement with online and class materials, and positive feedback from students and academics. Using the FTFL framework to guide the design and integration of FL, with an emphasis on clear communication, is key to our successful FL intervention and support of student learning

Enhancing engagement in flipped learning across undergraduate Science using the Flipped Teacher and Flipped Learner Framework

The flipped classroom describes one approach to blended learning in which new instructional content is delivered online prior to class, making time for more student-centred active learning during the face-to-face class. Despite the advantages of a flipped classroom approach, such as flexibility, more time for students to consolidate ideas, and more opportunities for collaborative learning and reflection (Kim, Kim, Khera & Getman, 2014), flipped classrooms are still under-researched and under-evaluated (Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015). Many academics are unsure of how to implement flipped classrooms and students often have difficulty adopting this approach to learning because they are used to traditional transmission approaches (Chen, Wang & Chen, 2014). To facilitate more student-centred blended learning in our faculty, we aimed to: 1. Use the “Flipped Teacher and Flipped Learner Framework” (Reyna, Huber & Davila, 2015) to design, implement, communicate and evaluate flipped learning activities in undergraduate Science subjects; and 2. Build students’ understanding of the advantages of the flipped classroom model in order to improve their overall engagement and approach to learning. The Flipped Teacher and Flipped Learner Framework (Reyna et al., 2015) identifies seven elements that are influential to implementing a flipped learning activity. Using this framework, flipped learning activities have been integrated into the Science curricula. In 2016, the Framework was applied in a first year and a second year subject. A mixed methods approach (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011) was used to evaluate the efficacy of the Framework, particularly the role of communication (element 6) of the benefits of flipped learning to students and academics. Student completion of pre-class online tasks was tracked through the learning management system. Within each subject, questionnaires were used to evaluate student experiences of flipped learning. Where applicable, student academic performance relating to flipped activities was evaluated. Preliminary data analyses indicate that the majority of students completed their online pre-class activities (e.g. >90% in the first year subject, n = 751 students). In the questionnaires, the majority of students in both subjects reported that they understood the benefits for their learning of completing online pre-work prior to face-to-face classes. Furthermore, the majority of students in the second year subject reported that the flipped classroom approach enhanced their learning. Our early results indicate that communicating to students and academics the rationale for using a flipped classroom approach is key to successful implementation of the flipped classroom model. Further testing of the framework in other subjects across the science degree will advance our understanding of the impacts of and best practice for flipped classrooms in Science higher education. References Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1-14. Chen, Y., Wang, Y., & Chen, N.S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead?. Computers & Education, 79, 16-27. Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Kim, M.K., Kim, S.M., Khera, O., & Getman, J. (2014). The experience of three flipped classrooms in an urban university: an exploration of design principles. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 37-50. Reyna J, Huber E, Davila YC (2015) Designing your Flipped Classroom: an evidence-based framework to guide the Flipped Teacher and the Flipped Learner. The 12th Annual Conference of the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, RMIT Melbourne, 27th to 30th October, 2015, pages 91-92

Calibrating assessment literacy through benchmarking tasks

© 2019, © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. In calibration tasks students assess exemplar texts using criteria against which their own work will be assessed. Typically, these tasks are used in the context of training for peer assessment. Little research has been conducted on the benefits of calibration tasks, such as benchmarking, as learning opportunities in their own right. This paper examines a dataset from a long-running benchmarking task (∼500 students per semester, for four semesters). We investigate the relationship of benchmarking performance to other student outcomes, including ability to self-assess accurately. We show that students who complete the benchmarking perform better, that there is a relationship between benchmarking performance and self-assessment performance, and that students appreciate the support for learning that benchmarking tasks provide. We discuss implications for teaching and learning flagging the potential of calibration tasks as an under-explored tool

The Flipped Teacher and the Flipped Learner Framework

We propose an 11 step framework to support educators and students to teach and learn with the Flipped Classroom (FC) model. Based on principles of blended and student-centred learning, organisational appearance, universal design and evaluation, the framework acts as a conduit between theory and good practice. Elements of the framework include: (1) planning stage, why and what to flip; (2) storyboard and lesson plan; (3) timing for activities; (4) online, (pre or post classroom) activities; (5) classroom work; (6) organisation of content; (7) visual design; (8) usability and accessibility; (9) building, testing and deployment; (10) communication of the benefits of the flipped model to students; and (11) evaluation and improvement. This paper will present the evidence behind each of these elements in a practical way to guide teachers and students through a flipped model of teaching and learning

Replication and Meta-Analysis of GWAS Identified Susceptibility Loci in Kawasaki Disease Confirm the Importance of B Lymphoid Tyrosine Kinase (BLK) in Disease Susceptibility

10.1371/journal.pone.0072037PLoS ONE88-POLN

Modelling low velocity impact induced damage in composite laminates

The paper presents recent progress on modelling low velocity impact induced damage in fibre reinforced composite laminates. It is important to understand the mechanisms of barely visible impact damage (BVID) and how it affects structural performance. To reduce labour intensive testing, the development of finite element (FE) techniques for simulating impact damage becomes essential and recent effort by the composites research community is reviewed in this work. The FE predicted damage initiation and propagation can be validated by Non Destructive Techniques (NDT) that gives confidence to the developed numerical damage models. A reliable damage simulation can assist the design process to optimise laminate configurations, reduce weight and improve performance of components and structures used in aircraft construction