Impact of instructional formate of peer review process on motivation to learn and educational goal achievement in middle school Biology

Vi har undersökt hur instruktionernas utformning inför deltagande i en kamratrespons påverkar högstadieelevers motivation att lära sig samt måluppfyllelse av kunskapskravet att utforma egen undersökning i ämnet biologi. Efter en kort genomgång av hur en egen undersökning ska utformas fick eleverna från tre åk 7 klasser och två åk 8 klasser i uppgift att utforma en egen undersökning i ämnet biologi. Uppgiften var utformad efter nationella provet del 3 från 2017. Vid nästa lektion blev elever indelade i par efter likvärdig måluppfyllelse. Slumpmässigt fick elevparen antingen förenklade, ospecificerade instruktioner som inbjöd till öppen, elevledd dialog eller detaljerade, punktformade instruktioner som uppmuntrade till en specifik innehåll och samtalsstruktur. Vi genomförde en enkät före och efter deltagandet i kamratresponsen som uppmätte elevens motivation att lära sig de olika kunskapskraven för biologi i högstadiet samt elevens upplevelse av deltagandet och sitt eget lärande. Uppgiften bedömdes efter Skolverkets bedömningsmall för rättning av nationella prov. Vi fann inga belägg för att elevers motivation att lära sig kunskapsmålen i ämnet biologi påverkades av varken kamratrespons som helhet eller instruktionernas utformning. Däremot fann vi en högre förbättringsgrad av måluppfyllelse bland de elever som fick de detaljerade, strukturerade instruktionerna jämfört med de förenklade, öppna instruktionerna. Vi drar slutsatserna att kamratrespons är ett användbart pedagogisk verktyg för att ge individuell formativ bedömning som leder till förbättrad måluppfyllelse under arbetes gång i kunskapskravet att forma egen undersökning och att utformningen av instruktionerna bör vara tydliga och detaljerade för att nå maximal resultat

The endangered Arctic fox in Norway—the failure and success of captive breeding and reintroduction

The Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus L.) is listed as extinct in Finland, endangered in Sweden and critically endangered in Norway. Around 2000 there were only 40–60 adult individuals left, prompting the implementation of conservation actions, including a captive breeding programme founded from wild-caught pups. The initial breeding trials failed, probably because of stress among captive animals, and the programme was radically changed in 2005. Eight large enclosures within the species’ historical natural habitat were established, which had the positive effect of all pairs breeding in 2007. As of 2015, 385 pups (yearly average 37) were produced. In this ongoing programme, pups are released the winter (January–February) following their birth and have had an average first-year survival of 0.44. The release sites are prepared with artificial dens and a network of supplementary food dispensers, designed to work exclusively for the Arctic fox. After just four to seven years of releases, populations have been effectively re-established in three mountain areas where the species had been locally extinct. One of the newly re-established populations has become the largest population in Norway. Several other populations, including Swedish ones, have benefited considerably from successful immigration of released foxes. The number of wild-born pups that are descendants of released foxes has likely exceeded 600, and in 2014 50% of all free-living breeding pairs in mainland Norway included released foxes or their descendants. The Norwegian Arctic fox captive breeding programme has proven to be an important conservation action for the recovery of the Scandinavian Arctic fox population

The endangered Arctic fox in Norway—the failure and success of captive breeding and reintroduction

The Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus L.) is listed as extinct in Finland, endangered in Sweden and critically endangered in Norway. Around 2000 there were only 40–60 adult individuals left, prompting the implementation of conservation actions, including a captive breeding programme founded from wild-caught pups. The initial breeding trials failed, probably because of stress among captive animals, and the programme was radically changed in 2005. Eight large enclosures within the species’ historical natural habitat were established, which had the positive effect of all pairs breeding in 2007. As of 2015, 385 pups (yearly average 37) were produced. In this ongoing programme, pups are released the winter (January–February) following their birth and have had an average first-year survival of 0.44. The release sites are prepared with artificial dens and a network of supplementary food dispensers, designed to work exclusively for the Arctic fox. After just four to seven years of releases, populations have been effectively re-established in three mountain areas where the species had been locally extinct. One of the newly re-established populations has become the largest population in Norway. Several other populations, including Swedish ones, have benefited considerably from successful immigration of released foxes. The number of wild-born pups that are descendants of released foxes has likely exceeded 600, and in 2014 50% of all free-living breeding pairs in mainland Norway included released foxes or their descendants. The Norwegian Arctic fox captive breeding programme has proven to be an important conservation action for the recovery of the Scandinavian Arctic fox population

Pattern and timing of diversification of Cetartiodactyla (Mammalia, Laurasiatheria), as revealed by a comprehensive analysis of mitochondrial genomes

The order Cetartiodactyla includes cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) that are found in all oceans and seas, as well as in some rivers, and artiodactyls (ruminants, pigs, peccaries, hippos, camels and llamas) that are present on all continents, except Antarctica and until recent invasions, Australia. There are currently 332 recognized cetartiodactyl species, which are classified into 132 genera and 22 families. Most phylogenetic studies have focused on deep relationships, and no comprehensive time-calibrated tree for the group has been published yet. In this study, 128 new complete mitochondrial genomes of Cetartiodactyla were sequenced and aligned with those extracted from nucleotide databases. Our alignment includes 14,902 unambiguously aligned nucleotide characters for 210 taxa, representing 183 species, 107 genera, and all cetartiodactyl families. Our mtDNA data produced a statistically robust tree, which is largely consistent with previous classifications. However, a few taxa were found to be para- or polyphyletic, including the family Balaenopteridae, as well as several genera and species. Accordingly, we propose several taxonomic changes in order to render the classification compatible with our molecular phylogeny. In some cases, the results can be interpreted as possible taxonomic misidentification or evidence for mtDNA introgression. The existence of three new cryptic species of Ruminantia should therefore be confirmed by further analyses using nuclear data. We estimate divergence times using Bayesian relaxed molecular clock models. The deepest nodes appeared very sensitive to prior assumptions leading to unreliable estimates, primarily because of the misleading effects of rate heterogeneity, saturation and divergent outgroups. In addition, we detected that Whippomorpha contains slow-evolving taxa, such as large whales and hippos, as well as fast-evolving taxa, such as river dolphins. Our results nevertheless indicate that the evolutionary history of cetartiodactyls was punctuated by four main phases of rapid radiation during the Cenozoic era: the sudden occurrence of the three extant lineages within Cetartiodactyla (Cetruminantia, Suina and Tylopoda); the basal diversification of Cetacea during the Early Oligocene; and two radiations that involve Cetacea and Pecora, one at the Oligocene/Miocene boundary and the other in the Middle Miocene. In addition, we show that the high species diversity now observed in the families Bovidae and Cervidae accumulated mainly during the Late Miocene and Plio-Pleistocene. © 2011 Académie des sciences