Course Design for Quality Online Education: Effective Strategies from the Viewpoint of Undergraduate Teaching Assistants

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced colleges and universities to suddenly transition to a mostly-to-fully online teaching format. Given the nature of the transition and general reservations about online instruction, many were concerned educational quality and achievement would be compromised by large margins. We sought to determine what course design features, if any, helped support undergraduate educational achievement during a sudden transition to 100% online instruction. We addressed our research aim using adapted principles for reflexive thematic analysis, the discernment of ways to interpret data using diverse perspectives and the critique of assumptions (RWJ Foundation, 2008). Following instructor request (JDT), two undergraduate teaching assistants (CEH, JDS) independently discerned design feature quality, instructor assumptions, and student response to features (i.e., anonymous feedback,participation patterns). Analysis was applied to one asynchronous upper-division, general education, writing-intensive kinesiology course (38 enrolled students, 2020 Spring Term). A reiterative process was used, with undergraduate teaching assistants making comparisons to their experience completing the course in-person the previous term (Winter 2020). Five design features evidently helped to support educational achievement during the sudden transition to 100% online instruction: discussion boards, summary slides, reminder emails/slides, video lectures, and posted lecture slides. Students valued the “constant stream” of communication and opportunity to self-pace. Discussion boards incentivized content application and promoted appreciation of peers’ viewpoints, both of which helped with learning and writing-to-learn.The five design features, in combination, provided high fidelity with in-person instruction. We will discuss our findings, limitations of our study, and potential ways to improve the design of online courses based on our results

Translational toxicology in setting occupational exposure limits for dusts and hazard classification – a critical evaluation of a recent approach to translate dust overload findings from rats to humans

Background We analyze the scientific basis and methodology used by the German MAK Commission in their recommendations for exposure limits and carcinogen classification of “granular biopersistent particles without known specific toxicity” (GBS). These recommendations are under review at the European Union level. We examine the scientific assumptions in an attempt to reproduce the results. MAK’s human equivalent concentrations (HECs) are based on a particle mass and on a volumetric model in which results from rat inhalation studies are translated to derive occupational exposure limits (OELs) and a carcinogen classification. Methods We followed the methods as proposed by the MAK Commission and Pauluhn 2011. We also examined key assumptions in the metrics, such as surface area of the human lung, deposition fractions of inhaled dusts, human clearance rates; and risk of lung cancer among workers, presumed to have some potential for lung overload, the physiological condition in rats associated with an increase in lung cancer risk. Results The MAK recommendations on exposure limits for GBS have numerous incorrect assumptions that adversely affect the final results. The procedures to derive the respirable occupational exposure limit (OEL) could not be reproduced, a finding raising considerable scientific uncertainty about the reliability of the recommendations. Moreover, the scientific basis of using the rat model is confounded by the fact that rats and humans show different cellular responses to inhaled particles as demonstrated by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) studies in both species. Conclusion Classifying all GBS as carcinogenic to humans based on rat inhalation studies in which lung overload leads to chronic inflammation and cancer is inappropriate. Studies of workers, who have been exposed to relevant levels of dust, have not indicated an increase in lung cancer risk. Using the methods proposed by the MAK, we were unable to reproduce the OEL for GBS recommended by the Commission, but identified substantial errors in the models. Considerable shortcomings in the use of lung surface area, clearance rates, deposition fractions; as well as using the mass and volumetric metrics as opposed to the particle surface area metric limit the scientific reliability of the proposed GBS OEL and carcinogen classification.International Carbon Black Associatio