Flipping the classroom:an effective approach to deal with diversity at higher education

Even though the flipped classroom is an increasingly popular method in education, a literature search shows a gap in research on this method in higher education. This article describes an experiment with two central questions: (1) How do students and lecturers assess the effectiveness of the FC method? And (2) What are crucial design elements? To be able to answer these questions we designed an experiment within a large-size, interdisciplinary, course. For three years we carefully monitored and evaluated the course. A mixed-method approach was used to collect data. Our findings show a positive contribution of the FC approach to the learning experience of students. We also found that a strong link between theory and practice is essential in the course design; combined with active learning we were able to involve students and stimulate them to reach a deeper level of understanding. Moreover, we believe that the FC approach offers opportunities to have a large interdisciplinary group, with different learning needs, work together on higher attainment levels

PLoS One

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221789.]

Harm–benefit analysis – what is the added value?:A review of alternative strategies for weighing harms and benefits as part of the assessment of animal research

Animal experiments are widely required to comply with the 3Rs, to minimise harm to the animals and to serve certain purposes in order to be ethically acceptable. Recently, however, there has been a drift towards adding a so-called harm-benefit analysis as an additional requirement in assessing experiments. According to this, an experiment should only be allowed if there is a positive balance when the expected harm is weighed against the expected benefits. This paper aims to assess the added value of this requirement. Two models, the discourse model and the metric model, are presented. According to the former, the weighing of harms and benefits must be conducted by a committee in which different stakeholders engage in a dialogue. Research into how this works in practice, however, shows that in the absence of an explicit and clearly defined methodology, there are issues about transparency, consistency and fairness. According to the metric model, on the other hand, several dimensions of harms and benefits are defined beforehand and integrated in an explicit weighing scheme. This model, however, has the problem that it makes no real room for ethical deliberation of the sort committees undertake, and it has therefore been criticised for being too technocratic. Also, it is unclear who is to be held accountable for built-in ethical assumptions. Ultimately, we argue that the two models are not mutually exclusive and may be combined to make the most of their advantages while reducing the disadvantages of how harm-benefit analysis in typically undertaken

Different approaches to research and innovation in physics education at college and university

In this article we report a Symposium organized by GTG-Physics Education Research at University (PERU) with different proposals that includes innovative educational approaches and research on problems of teaching-learning physics at university. In the second section, two research projects are described on teaching specific curriculum topics that present special difficulties for students. In the next section the third project on a work experience in the laboratory that takes into account the characteristics of scientific work, is presented. Finally, the fourth project presents a way to investigate the types of student reasoning. In the discussion, the importance of research projects that include not only conceptual understanding but also those areas such as laboratory work or "on-line physics courses" that involve practicing skills of scientific work, is highlighted.Publisher PD

Playing the role of a ‘boundary organisation’: getting smarter with networking

Please help us populate SUNScholar with the post print version of this article. It can be e-mailed to: [email protected] En BestuurswetenskappeSkool vir Publieke Leierska

Predictors of orbital convergence in primates: A test of the snake detection hypothesis of primate evolution

Traditional explanations for the evolution of high orbital convergence and stereoscopic vision in primates have focused on how stereopsis might have aided early primates in foraging or locomoting in an arboreal environment. It has recently been suggested that predation risk by constricting snakes was the selective force that favored the evolution of orbital convergence in early primates, and that later exposure to venomous snakes favored further degrees of convergence in anthropoid primates. Our study tests this snake detection hypothesis (SDH) by examining whether orbital convergence among extant primates is indeed associated with the shared evolutionary history with snakes or the risk that snakes pose for a given species. We predicted that orbital convergence would be higher in species that: 1) have a longer history of sympatry with venomous snakes, 2) are likely to encounter snakes more frequently, 3) are less able to detect or deter snakes due to group size effects, and 4) are more likely to be preyed upon by snakes. Results based on phylogenetically independent contrasts do not support the SDH. Orbital convergence shows no relationship to the shared history with venomous snakes, likelihood of encountering snakes, or group size. Moreover, those species less likely to be targeted as prey by snakes show significantly higher values of orbital convergence. Although an improved ability to detect camouflaged snakes, along with other cryptic stimuli, is likely a consequence of increased orbital convergence, this was unlikely to have been the primary selective force favoring the evolution of stereoscopic vision in primates

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

The harm benefit analysis (HBA) is the cornerstone of animal research regulation and is considered to be a key ethical safeguard for animals. The HBA involves weighing the anticipated benefits of animal research against its predicted harms to animals but there are doubts about how objective and accountable this process is.i. To explore the harms to animals involved in pre-clinical animal studies and to assess these against the benefits for humans accruing from these studies; ii. To test the feasibility of conducting this type of retrospective HBA.Data on harms were systematically extracted from a sample of pre-clinical animal studies whose clinical relevance had already been investigated by comparing systematic reviews of the animal studies with systematic reviews of human studies for the same interventions (antifibrinolytics for haemorrhage, bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, corticosteroids for brain injury, Tirilazad for stroke, antenatal corticosteroids for neonatal respiratory distress and thrombolytics for stroke). Clinical relevance was also explored in terms of current clinical practice. Harms were categorised for severity using an expert panel. The quality of the research and its impact were considered. Bateson's Cube was used to conduct the HBA.The most common assessment of animal harms by the expert panel was 'severe'. Reported use of analgesia was rare and some animals (including most neonates) endured significant procedures with no, or only light, anaesthesia reported. Some animals suffered iatrogenic harms. Many were kept alive for long periods post-experimentally but only 1% of studies reported post-operative care. A third of studies reported that some animals died prior to endpoints. All the studies were of poor quality. Having weighed the actual harms to animals against the actual clinical benefits accruing from these studies, and taking into account the quality of the research and its impact, less than 7% of the studies were permissible according to Bateson's Cube: only the moderate bisphosphonate studies appeared to minimise harms to animals whilst being associated with benefit for humans.This is the first time the accountability of the HBA has been systematically explored across a range of pre-clinical animal studies. The regulatory systems in place when these studies were conducted failed to safeguard animals from severe suffering or to ensure that only beneficial, scientifically rigorous research was conducted. Our findings indicate a pressing need to: i. review regulations, particularly those that permit animals to suffer severe harms; ii. reform the processes of prospectively assessing pre-clinical animal studies to make them fit for purpose; and iii. systematically evaluate the benefits of pre-clinical animal research to permit a more realistic assessment of its likely future benefits

Deliberating Animal Values: a Pragmatic-Pluralistic Approach to Animal Ethics.

Debates in animal ethics are largely characterized by ethical monism, the search for a single, timeless, and essential trait in which the moral standing of animals can be grounded. In this paper, we argue that a monistic approach towards animal ethics hampers and oversimplifies the moral debate. The value pluralism present in our contemporary societies requires a more open and flexible approach to moral inquiry. This paper advocates the turn to a pragmatic, pluralistic approach to animal ethics. It contributes to the development of such an approach in two ways. It offers a pragmatist critique of ethical monism in animal ethics and presents the results of a qualitative study into the value diversity present in the different ways of thinking about animals in the Netherlands. Carefully arranged group discussions resulted in the reconstruction of four distinctive moral value frameworks that may serve as instruments in the future process of moral inquiry and deliberation in the reflection on animal use. © 2010 The Author(s)