Transitions in higher education

This paper offers ideas towards a solution of some of the problems that arise due to the extension of higher education to an ever wider range of students: especially student drop‐out. It suggests that, as far as is practical, the design and delivery of higher education should be based upon the major changes or transitions which the students undergo. After a definition of ‘transition’ the paper discusses four major examples: transitions in knowledge, understanding and skills; autonomy; approaches to learning; social and cultural integration and the student’s self‐concept. The paper ends by drawing out some of the broader implications of this approach for the design and delivery of higher education

Learning outcomes: a conceptual analysis

Learning outcomes have become widely used in higher education, but also misused to the point of being controversial and a bureaucratic burden. This paper distinguishes three kinds of learning outcome found in current literature: (1) those used in individual teaching events; (2) those specified for modules or short courses; and (3) those specified for whole degree programmes. The nature of each is explored and their use in assessment and auditing is discussed, together with related notions such as the ‘corridor of tolerance’, emergent outcomes, etc. It is concluded that learning outcomes used in individual teaching events (1) are the most useful kind if employed flexibly, but that they cannot be specified exactly or used for auditing performance, and their relationship with assessment is complex. Learning outcomes specified for modules or short courses (2) state little more than a list of contents; they cannot be stated precisely and have limitations in guiding assessment. Learning outcomes specified for whole degree programmes (3) is a misuse of the term ‘learning outcome’

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field