PART 17: STRAND 17
Science Teaching at the University Level
Co-editors: Jenaro Guisasola & Paula Heron
CONTENTS
Chapter Title & Authors Page
241 Introduction
Jenaro Guisasola & Paula Heron
242
STARBIOS2 - Engaging with Responsible Research Through Science Education
Doris Elster
1943
243
Technology-Enhanced Learning Supporting Engagement, Assessment, and Reflection in Higher Education Science
Joseph Roche
1945
244 Scaffolding Research-Like Laboratory Projects for First-Year Students Rikke Frøhlich Hougaard & Birgitte Lund Nielsen
1959
245 Development and Evaluation of a Chemistry Test for Higher Education Bianca Paczulla, Vanessa Fischer, Elke Sumfleth & Maik Walpuski
1959
246
Criteria-Based Assessment of Knowledge in Biology in Higher Education
Veronica Flodin & Jessica Slove Davidson
1964
247
High School and University Students’ Understanding of Solubility and Solubility Product Concepts. A Phenomenographic Approach
D. Zuazagoitia, O. González & M.C. Domínguez-Sales
1971
248 Species Diversity as a Factor in the Design of Food Chains Luka Praprotnik & Gregor Torkar
1980
249
Practical Performance Assessment of Experimental Competence in Science Teacher Education Laboratory Classes
Fabian Poensgen & Christiane S. Reiners
1987
250 Surveying University Students’ Problem Solving Skills in Realistic Settings David Woitkowski
1996
STRAND 17: INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION: TRANSFORMING UNIVERSITY-LEVEL SCIENCE EDUCATION
During the last few decades there have been significant changes in society and in the environment that have driven changes in the teaching of science at all educational levels, including higher education (NRC 2015). New demands in science education frequently challenge the efficacy of traditional teaching at the university level. The scientific community needs to change science and technology teaching to make it effective and relevant to a diverse university student population. The new social needs are very different from those in the past, when the main objective of science education was to train a small number of students to become future scientists. Scientific-technological education at the university level now needs to support and train a diverse student population where the actual use of knowledge, not just memorization, is increasingly important (Report European Commission 2013). Science education research shows that it is necessary to change university instruction in a way that changes the way students think about science, about solving scientific problems, and allows them to practice the scientific skills of the scientific-technical community. (Hake 1998, McDermott 2001).
The “Science Teaching at the University Level” strand (strand 17) focuses on the relationship between research in science education and teaching and learning in higher education. The nine articles that make up strand 17 of the ESERA Conference Proceedings e-book illustrate that inquiry-based teaching is fundamental to the process of university education. The studies are based on data collected with different tools such as questionnaires, surveys and interviews. The results are mainly focused on learning problems, related to conceptual understanding and scientific practices in a wide range of aspects, such as cognitive, affective, and social. The research presented includes the analysis of teaching processes with various purposes. Two articles deal with analyzing the attitudes, behaviors and interests of students towards
“Responsible Research” in scientific research (Elster) and on the benefits and challenges of technology-enhanced learning (Roche). Another article focuses on evaluating the results of an educational action focused on proposing authentic research to students in the form of research works (Hougaard and Nielsen). Two articles analyze the improvement of learning evaluation formats considering aspects that range from structural factors, psychological and physical resources, study behavior, study motivation and study performance (B. Paczulla et al.), to evaluation criteria in study program and competences (Flodin and Davidson). Four other articles analyze the conceptual learning and/or scientific skills of students in traditional teaching in lectures (Zuazagoitia et al; Praprotnik and Torkar), in the laboratory (Poensgen and Reiners) and in problem solving (Woitkowski).
The collection of articles included in this section shows the need to investigate science teaching processes using a variety of methodological approaches and in different contexts. The combination of complementary methodological tools and types of analysis can support a systematic analysis of science education practices with the aim of reforming learning and teaching. The “Science Teaching at the University Level” strand was defined for the first time in the 2015 Conference and has remained as a strand in the following congresses in 2017, 2019 and, in the next 2021. The number of contributions has been growing with 16 oral communications in 2015, 25 in 2017 and 34 in 2017. However, the number of studies submitted for the e-book ESERA Conference Proceedings is a low proportion of those submitted.
Consequently, the number selected for the e-book is low. In 2015, 4 papers were published, 8 in 2017 and 9 in 2019. However, research in science education is increasing at the university level, as shown by the large increase in research published in high-impact journals. Thus, it will be necessary to disseminate and share the results of the e-book proceedings with the community of university professors. Having a specific strand on teaching and learning problems at the university is necessary for the discussion and dissemination of advances in science teaching at the university.
Jenaro Guisasola & Paula Heron References
Hake, R.R. (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A sixthousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, American Journal of Physics.
66, 64–74.
McDermott, L.C. (2001). Oersted Medal lecture 2001: Physics Education Research- The key to student learning, American Journal of Physics. 69, 1127–1137.
NRC-National Research Council. (2015). Guide to Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Committee on Guidance on Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Report to the European Commission on Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. (2013) . ISBN 978-92-79-30360-9. In:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/
library/reports/modernisation_en.pdf
STARBIOS2 - ENGAGING WITH RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH THROUGH SCIENCE EDUCATION
Doris Elster
Institute of Science Education, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
The purpose of this theoretical paper is to present and discuss a strategy to implement the concept of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in the Faculty Biology and Chemistry at the University Bremen using science education as a promoter of this process. The project is part of STARBIOS2 (Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible Biosciences), a European project funded in the HORIZON 2020 program Science With And For Society (Swafs) (see http://starbios2.eu). It aims to implement Action Plans to promote RRI in partner institutions of six European countries. Based on the experiences a model and guidelines has been elaborated to facilitate the implementation of RRI in other research institutions.
The University of Bremen is one of the 12 partners of STARBIOS2. The Bremen team develops, conducts and evaluates an Action Plan with Science Education as a trigger for the structural transformation process. The Action Plan aims in the performing of a series of educational building blocks with the goal of raising the awareness of RRI issues. The vision is to implement RRI in the future concept of the Faculty of Biology and Chemistry.
Keywords: Responsible Research, Higher Education, European project
CONTEXT AND RELEVANCE TO SCIENCE EDUCATION
STARBIOS2 – Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible Biosciences - is a European project that has received funding from the Framework Programme HORIZON 2020 (coordinator: Universitá di Roma Tor Vergata, Italy). The goal of STARBIOS2 is to raise the awareness of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and to better align research to the needs of the society. Therefore, structural transformation processes in six European research institutions (in Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, and United Kingdom) and three non-European entities (in Brazil, South Africa, and United States), all active in the field of biosciences, are initiated and tailored in respect to their culture, rules and procedures. The processes are focussing on the five RRI key issues: Public Engagement, Gender, Education, Open Access, and Ethics (Colizzi et al., 2019).
The University Bremen is a member of the STARBIOS2 consortium. The goal is to raise the awareness of RRI by conducting a transformation process in regard to RRI issues in the Faculty of Biology and Chemistry (one of the 12 faculties of the University Bremen). This process is triggered by the Institute of Science Education with the goal to provide future researchers and teachers with new capacities for attracting children and youth to science and technology (Elster et al., 2016; 2019a,b).
THEORETICAL FRAME
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) represents a contemporary view of the connection between science and society. The goal is to create a shared understanding of the appropriate roles of those who have a stake in the processes and products of science and technology, scientists as well as educators and the general public. It is estimated that a shared understanding
and mutual trust will lead to safe and effective systems, processes and products of innovation.
RRI can be defined as ‘a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovative process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society)’ ( Sutcliffe, 2011:19).
In the Horizon 2020 framework RRI is built on the following key dimensions (Von Schomberg
& Von Schomberg, 2013):
• Societal Engagement and technology transfer focus on the promotion of the engagement of all societal actors in the R&I process;
• Gender aims at favouring gender equality within research institutions as well as in the Research and Innovation (R&I) content;
• Science Education aims to provide future researchers with news capacities for attracting children and youth to science and technology;
• Open Access focuses on making research and innovation transparent and accessible through making Open Access a reality; and
• Ethics aims in ensuring high quality research results and ethical standards.
This framework of RRI allows research institutions to raise the awareness of current and future scenarios regarding the science and technology advances.
Enhancing Responsible Research in Biosciences
The European project STARBIOS2 aims to contribute to the advancement of the RRI strategy by fostering structural change in biosciences research institutions. The hope is to cope with one of the main risks for European research: its inadequate connection with society by changing the institutional culture, values and procedures in a holistic manner (STARBIOS2 Consortium, 2016; Colizzi et al., 2019).
To reach these goals the project comprises three steps:
In a first step, six European STARBIOS2 partners in Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, and United Kingdom develop, evaluate and implement six RRI Action Plans (APs) in their research institutions. The experiences about the APs’ implementation form the base for the development of new practical knowledge. They are the starting points for the development of tailored APs Based in three non-European entities in Brazil, South Africa and United States.
In a second step, a complex learning process about the implementation of APs is initiated. That that allows the members of the partner institutes to learn from each other. Questions about supporting and hindering structures are reflected. The goal is a better understanding about the different possible ways of the implementation of RRI in biosciences research institutions.
In the third step, the outcome of the learning process results in the development of a sustainable model and a set of guidelines on RRI implementation, aimed at providing recommendations on how to deal with resistances to RRI in research institutions (Declich et al., 2019). As each community of the participating Higher Education Institutes is characterized by its own features, culture, languages, networks, communication means and power dynamics it is important to
identify multiple RRI strategies tailored to each research institute (STARBIOS2 Consortium, 2016).
Science Education as a Trigger to Attain Responsible Research
The University of Bremen is a relatively young university with 12 faculties and about 20 000 students. Faculty Biology and Chemistry takes part in the STARBIOS2 project with the goal to develop a tailored AP for the implementation of a RRI mission statement. To reach this goal a whole-institute-approach based on a bottom up – top down is conducted. Therefore, af a Core Team of scientists and science educators as well as an Extended Team with important stakeholders of the faculty (dean, vice dean, member of the quality management) and representatives of the status groups students, doctoral students and researchers has been set up.
A central goal is the initiation of a negotiation process of RRI issues (among stakeholders, researchers, students) and the inclusion of RRI in the future concept (mission statement) of the faculty.
To reach these goals a roadmap (fig.1) is set up (Elster et al., 2016; 2019a).
Figure 1. Roadmap for structural change at the University Bremen (Elster et al., 2016).
1) We started with a comprehensive state-of-the-art analysis of literature and research programmes. The findings of the analysis built the basis for the development of interview guidelines. The interviews were conducted with different focus group(s) (doctoral students, students, researchers, and/or educators; n=21). Based on the interview results a RRI questionnaire survey was conducted on-line at the faculty (n=163). From the findings of the interviews and the questionnaire survey criteria for the successful promotion of the specific RRI issues were deduced. The criteria formed the basis of a first draft of recommendations.
2) The development of RRI specific educational building blocks comprised the development of RRI modules and reflective activities in respect to the RRI keys. These building blocks (5) and reflective activities (6) were conducted and evaluated within the different focus groups or in the outreach lab Backstage Science (with school classes). They formed the base for the educational intervention.
3) The goal of the RRI educational intervention was the connection of the key-specific building blocks to a RRI training programme in accordance of the needs and the interest of the specific target group(s). The results contributed to a further development of the RRI recommendations and the RRI future concept of the faculty.
4) For structural transformation and change the goal was to foster sensitiveness and awareness in respect to RRI through dialogue with important stakeholder, offer of academic lectures, and transparency by a user-friendly website, good practice examples, and recommendations at the faculty level and at the university level.
EDUCATIONAL CONCEPTS TO PROMOTE RRI IN BREMEN
Science education has an important role to educate the future scientists and university students.
What scientists do, how they work, innovate and make decisions are important subjects for contemporary science education. While science and technology develop, science education needs to renew itself and work along with the developments in science and technology. New developments and technologies are very often controversially discussed in society. Therefore, a useful model for the processes of communication between researchers and the public is needed. It forms the basis of educational and didactical interventions.
In the case of the University Bremen new educational models should trigger the raising of awareness of RRI issues and an inspiring and fruitful structural change regarding RRI issues.
As a consequence, within the Starbios2 project new educational concepts are developed at the level of students’ individual training by RRI reflective activities, RRI modules as inspiring practices, and RRI in the curricula of academic programmes.
A Communication Model between Researchers and the Public
Our communication model is based on the Common Ground Theory of Bromme (2000) and the Model for Communication about Biotechnology based on Ben France and John K. Gilbert (2006). In everyday communication, interaction partners encounter different perspectives. The question of how mutual comprehension arises in the case of different perspectives or knowledge especially in the expert and layman communication. The Common Ground Theory postulates that every act of communication presumes a common cognitive frame of reference between the partners of interaction called the common ground. All contributions to the process of mutual understanding serve to establish or ascertain and continually maintain this common ground (Bromme, 2000). ‘Two people´s common ground is, in effect, the sum of their mutual, common, or joint knowledge, beliefs, and suppositions.’ (Clark, 1996: 3)
Researchers in the field of biosciences face the challenge to persuade ‘the public’ of the rightness of their case, whilst ‘the public’ is trying to argue a scepticaly or even contrary case.
A model that might be of use in any field where technological controversy takes place was set up by France and Gilbert (2006). They took the idea of a communicating community, defined as relatively coherent social group engaging in communication with itself. The authors differentiate in the biotechnology communities and the public communities. Each of the communities has a certain ‘view’ on biotechnology that is made up of four ‘dimensions’: their understanding of the nature of science and biotechnology; understanding of the key concepts
and models used in biotechnology; perceptions of the nature of risk; and beliefs and attitudes about biotechnology.
Similar to Bromme´s definition of a ‘common ground’ (Bromme, 2000) France and Gilbert (2006) define a ‘search room’ as a virtual arena where the ‘views’ of the communities of scientists and the public communities are exchanged. ‘Where there are elements of the views that are in common to the two, communication is possible. Where there is no commonality, the degrees of understanding reached must be used to construct a mutual understanding that may evolve into an agreement exchange.’ (France & Gilbert, 2006: 2).
Fig. 2 The inclusive communication model for biosciences (Elster et al, 2019a)
Within our Starbios2 project in Bremen we have to expand this model in respect to the RRI issues. Firstly, we defined a RRI literate researcher is a person who 1) perceives sensibly to detect questions related to RRI issues related to societal engagement and technology transfer, gender, ethics, open access publications and science education; 2) who is willing to apply its knowledge of RRI issues; 3) who actively acts to disseminate RRI issues in the context of research and the research institution. Secondly, we expanded France and Gilbert´s four
‘dimensions’ by a fifth dimension, the RRI literacy. And thirdly, we extended the model which specifically focused on biotechnology to a more comprehensive view on biosciences. Our inclusive communication model is summarized in figure 2.
Promotion by RRI Reflective Activities
The promotion of critical thinking is considered one of the key issues of good scientific RRI education. Students and researchers should be encouraged to critically question about what is responsible and conscientious practice within their scientific domain. They should be aware of societal needs and that research is not oblivious towards societal values.
Reflexive capacities are crucial for understanding the role and responsibilities of research.
Therefore, students and researchers should be aware of the interrelationship of their own research with other areas of science. The goal is to open the view to collaborate and coproduce knowledge with researchers as well as professionals outside their own fields and with interested citizens.
Within the Starbios2 project a series of reflective activities in respect to the societal engagement, contextualization of research, publication open access, gender in research, diversity team management, ethics in science communication are developed, tested and evaluated. They are summarized in the RRI toolbox at the local website (https://blogs.uni- bremen.de/starbiosbremenenglish/)
RRI Modules as Inspiring Practices
In the context of Starbios2 at University of Bremen the concept of raising awareness of RRI issues through RRI educational building blocks is based on the Citizen-SIP educational model.
The model is based on Problem-based Learning (PBL) in socio-scientific contexts (SSC) and Inquiry-based Science Education (IBSE) with a specific focus on Citizenship Education (CE).
Problem-based learning stands for self-determined and discovering learning, action-oriented teaching, interdisciplinary learning and self-evaluation. Participants learn to analyse a topic or question, to find and use suitable sources of information, and finally to compare, select and implement solutions. Socio-scientific issues (SSI) are open-ended, multifaceted social issues with conceptual links to science (Sadler, 2011). PBL in socio-scientific contexts in authentic research projects as ‘real-world scenarios’ offers powerful opportunities to develop critical thinking on the nature of science and its implications (Lederman et al., 2014). IBSE is an appropriate educational instrument to acquire process skills and an adequate view of the Nature of Science (Capps & Crawford, 2013) as well as a meaningful understanding in a societal context. Citizen Education takes into account the moral and social function of education at a socio-political level.
RRI in science education requires that students have creative thinking and problem solving skills. RRI deals with dilemmas and uncertain situations where students’ arguments are as important as the scientific facts. Examples of RRI modules developed at the University of Bremen are ‘Promotion of Risk Literacy in Regard to Nanotechnology’ (Eschweiler & Elster, 2018), ‘Wake up – Sensitisation of adolescents for the stem cell donation for leukaemia patients’ (Holzer & Elster, 2019), and ‘Biodiversity loss and climate change in the Wadden Sea’ (Müller & Elster, 2018). These modules are developed in doctoral and master studies in cooperation of scientists, science educators and teacher candidates. The modules are evaluated in in-service trainings, pre-service education and schools.
RRI in Curricula of the Bachelor´s and Master´s programmes
University students as nascent researchers should acquire knowledge and skills needed to work responsibly during their academic experiences. In their academic development, ideas and concepts of RRI should be fostered and developed throughout the formative process of education. Traditional academic hierarchies should be modified to enhance the voluntary participation and debate among the students. In an atmosphere of openness and trust, students should be encouraged to draw their own conclusions and provide valuable contributions to the debate.
The integration of research and teaching can provide valuable ways of enhancing student learning experiences. Nevertheless, the linking can be challenging and the understanding of a
‘research-based education’ and ‘research-informed teaching’ within and between disciplines is diverse. The ‘nexus’ of research and teaching is influenced by the departmental structural arrangements for organising research and teaching activities, and a potential gap in making connections between staff research outputs and students´ learning when this research is too far ahead of the undergraduate curriculum to be accessible to students (Jenkins, 2004). Graffiths (2004) and Healey (2005) distinguish five ‘Research-informed teaching’ approaches:
• Research-led (RL): Students learning “about” the research of others.
• Research-oriented (RO): Students learning about research processes.
• Research-based (RB): Students learning as researchers.
• Research-tutored (RT): Students learning through critiquing research.
• Scholarship of teaching and learning (STL): Enquiring and reflecting on teaching and learning.
In the bachelor’s biology programme and in the different master’s programmes at the Faculty Biology and Chemistry all five approaches of research-informed teaching are offered. They provide different avenues for RRI learning. Whereas during the bachelor’s programme different concepts, ideas, relevance and aims of research and RRI are discussed (RL and/or RO), the integration in research groups and writing of the bachelor theses offers the possibility of students learning as researcher (RB). That allows them to relate RRI processes in the own field and the role of responsibility in these processes. Especially within the associated modules
‘interdisciplinary key qualifications’ students learn about criteria for good research and ethical issues in scientific writing.
In the master’s programmes of biosciences students focus on the specific topics of their fields of research and research-tutored (RT) learning may be at the core. Science chats and master seminars allow doing and experiencing dialogical reflection on research and innovation (STL) and a perspective with the wider society.
RRI in the curricula of PhD programmes
Most of the reflective activities developed in Starbios2 projects are targeted to PhD students and young researchers. When doing more or less self-reliant research the application of RRI issues is important. The assessment of possible societal impacts of one´s own concrete research activities as well ethical issues of research receive increased importance. The goal is to propose adoptions to better align a research project with societal needs, values and expectations.
A good practice example at the University of Bremen is the Graduate School NanoCompetence – Research, Mediation, Design. This interdisciplinary graduate school combines the expertise of natural sciences and humanities, aiming at enlightening society about the applied aspects of nanotechnology. (https://www.nano.uni-bremen.de/)
Especially in the doctoral programme of Science Education RRI is reflected and RRI issues like socio-scientific issues and contexts, how to deal with gender and diversity as well as ethical questions are fields of investigation in doctoral studies (see e.g. Birkholz, 2019).
DISCUSSION – A NEW CHALLENGE FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) represents a contemporary view of the connection between science and society. The goal is to create a shared understanding of the appropriate roles of those who have a stake in the processes and products of science and technology, scientists as well as educators and the general public. It is estimated that a shared understanding and mutual trust will lead to safe and effective systems, processes and products of innovation (Sutcliffe, 2011).
Especially the Biosciences have the responsibility to form links to the society. STARBIOS2 aims to cope with this risk of the loose connection of research and society, by promoting the increasing alignment of European research with the needs and values of society (Colizzi at al, 2019).
Science education has an important role to educate the future scientists. What scientists do, how they work, innovate and make decisions are important subjects for contemporary science education. While science and technology develop, science education needs to renew itself and work along with the developments in science and technology. New educational models should trigger an inspiring and fruitful structural transformation regarding RRI issues. RRI in science education requires that students have creative thinking and problem solving skills. RRI deals with dilemmas and uncertain situations where students’ arguments are as much important as the scientific facts. Therefore integrating RRI in science education requires a change in teaching methods and strategies in the higher education sector.
This paper demonstrates a possible way of supporting and steering of a structural transforming process in the Faculty Biology and Chemistry. Science educators play an important role in this process by supporting communication and negotiation between different stakeholders as well as offering didactical models and materials for the implementation of RRI issues. Educational building blocks, reflective activities, RRI modules, and curricula enrichment for bachelor´s, master´s and doctoral programmes have been reflected and further developed. A on-line RRI toolbox tailored for Faculty´s needs has been set up. Based on formative evaluation of RRI activities, a broad literature analysis, interviews and a faculty-wide questionnaire survey the Booklet of Recommendations “Towards a Sustainable and Open Science – Enhancing Responsible Research and Innovation in the Biosciences at the University of Bremen” (Elster, Barendziak, & Birkholz, 2019b). It will now be discussed and negotiated. Together with the on-line RRI toolbox it will form the sustainable outcome of the four-year-long process of RRI structural transformation and development of a RRI mission statement tailored to the Faculty Biology and Chemistry.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 709517.
REFERENCES
Birkholz, J. (2019). Untersuchungen zur Wirksamkeit von Gruppenreflexionen auf das Wissenschaftsverständnis im Schülerlabor Backstage Science. Dissertation. Bremen, Universität Bremen.
Bromme, R. (2000). Beyond one´s own perspective. The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 115-133). Toronto: Toronto University Press
Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-Based Instruction and Teaching About Nature of Science: Are They Happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 497-526.
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Colizzi, V., Mezzana D., Ovseiko, P.V., Caiati, G., Colonnello, C., Declich, A., Buchan, A.M., Edmunds, L, Buzan, E., Zerbini, L., Djilianov, D., Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., Bielawski, K.P., Elster, D., Salvato, M,, Alcantara, L.C.J., Minutolo, A., Potestà, M., Bachiddu, E., Milano, M.J., Henderson, L.R., Kiparoglou, V., Friesen, P., Sheehan, M., Moyankova, D., Rusanov, K., Wium,
M., Raszczyk, I., Konieczny, I., Gwizdala, J.P., Śledzik, K., Barendziak, T., Birkholz, J., Müller, N., Warrelmann, J., Meyer, U., Filser, J., Khouri Barreto, F., Montesano, C. (2019). Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BIOSciences (STARBIOS2): Protocol for a Horizon 2020 Funded European Multicenter Project to Promote Responsible Research and Innovation. JMIR Res Protoc0l 8(3):e11745 https://www.researchprotocols.org/2019/3/e11745/ (assessed January 19th, 2020)
Declich, A., & Starbios2 Project Partners (2019). Guidelines on RRI implementation in biosciences organisations. https://starbios2.eu/2019/starbios2-guidelines-on-rri-implementation-in- bioscience-organisations/ (assessed January 19, 2020)
Holzer, J., & Elster, D. (2019). Wake up. Predictors of stem cell donation for leukemia patients. In: E- Proceedings of ESERA 2019 conference, 26-30 August 2019, Bologna, University Bologna, forthcoming.
Elster, D. (2016). Deliverable 5.1 First Interim Report, University of Bremen, Bremen.
Elster, D., Barendziak, T., Birkholz, J. (2016). Science Education as a Trigger to Attain Responsible Research and Innovation. In Pixel: New Perspectives in Science Education, Conference Proceedings 2017, Florence/Libreria Universitaria Edizioni.
Elster, D., Barendziak, T., Birkholz, J. (2019a). Towards a sustainable and open science. Enhancing responsible research and innovation in the biosciences at the University of Bremen. Bremen:
University of Bremen.
Elster, D., Barendziak, T., Birkholz, J. (2019b). Science Education as a trigger for RRI structural change. In: A. Declich and Starbios2 Project Partners (Eds.) Guidelines on RRI implementation in biosciences organisations (pp. 87-92). https://starbios2.eu/2019/starbios2-guidelines-on-rri- implementation-in-bioscience-organisations/ (assessed January 19, 2020)
Eschweiler, M., & Elster, D. (2018). Development of an analysis tool to promote the communication of knowledge about nanotechnology. In: In: Pixel (Ed.) New Perspectives in Science Education, Conference Proceedings 2017, Florence, Liberia Universitaria, 649-652.
France, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (2006). A model of communication about biotechnology. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers in cooperation with The New Zealand Biotechnology Learning Hub.
Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research- teaching nexus: The case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education 29, no. 6: 709– 26.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: Exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry- based learning. In Reshaping the University: New Relationships Between Research, Scholarship and Teaching, edited by R. Barnett, 67– 78. Maiden head, UK: McGraw- Hill/Open University Press.
Jenkins, A. (2004). A Guide to the Research Evidence on Teaching- Research Relations. York, UK:
The Higher Education Academy. Available online: https:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/ files/
id383_ guide_ to_ research_ evidence_ on_ teaching_ research_ relations.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2019.
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio- scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry.
Science & Education, 23(2), 285-302.
Müller, N., & Elster, D. (2018). Promoting teacher students´ system competence by the development of a system approach in an interdisciplinary seminar. In: Pixel (Ed.) New Perspectives in Science Education, Conference Proceedings 2018, Florenz, 284-289.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer Starbios2 Consortium (2016). Leaflet, Paris: Sparks & Co.
Sutcliffe, H. (2011). A report on Responsible Research and Innovation for the European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science- society/document_library/pdf_06/rri-report-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf (2019-01-05)
Von Schomberg, V. & Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation.
In R. Owen, M. Heintz, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible Innovation (pp. 51-74). London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED LEARNING SUPPORTING ENGAGEMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND REFLECTION IN
HIGHER EDUCATION SCIENCE
Joseph Roche¹
1Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
In this paper, the results of a study conducted in higher education science across three groups of early-career scientists in the same university—undergraduate students, masters students, and doctoral students—will be presented. All three groups were taking similar versions of a Science & Society module that focused on the roles and responsibilities of scientists. The students from these groups provided short continuous feedback before, during, and after each lecture in the module, and focus groups were conducted with the students at the end of each module. The main factors being considered were the benefits and challenges of technology- enhanced learning in regards to student engagement, assessment, and reflection. This work highlighted that while the benefits are numerous, the challenges can often vary depending on the students’ current level of higher education science.
Keywords: Higher Education, Technology, Reflection.
INTRODUCTION
In this study, technology-enhanced learning was compared across three different stages of higher education science: undergraduate, masters, and doctoral level. There have long been concerns about the standard of teaching in higher education science (Sunal et al., 2001). One of the ways to address such concerns and raise these standards is to integrate technology into the learning experience with the view of supporting student creativity, innovation, engagement, assessment, and reflection (Johnson & Carruthers, 2006).
The guiding research question was:
“What are the benefits and challenges of technology-enhanced learning in higher education science?”
This was tackled by breaking down the work into two sub-questions:
1. “How do these benefits and challenges relate to engagement, assessment, and reflection?”
2. “How do they compare between students in undergraduate, masters, and doctoral level courses?”
Technology was used to support engagement in this study through the use of audience response systems and virtual learning environments. In higher education there has been growing emphasis on finding ways for students to engage in lectures using their own smart devices,
such as tablets or smartphones (Stowell, 2015). This follows the gradual move away from outdated radio frequency transmitters (‘clickers’) towards software solutions that rely on smart devices (Kay & LeSage, 2009; Koppen & Langie, 2013). For this study, engagement was facilitated and evaluated across three levels of higher education science using contemporary audience response systems.
Both self-assessment and peer-assessment were supported through the Blackboard Learn virtual learning environment (Heaton‐Shrestha, et. al., 2007). Students uploaded their assignments and then anonymously reviewed and graded their classmates’ work. Technology can speed up the assessment process, which aligns with the recommendations of Brookfield (2015) who noted that when it comes to providing student feedback: “immediacy is valued by students and demonstrates your responsibleness, an important element of authenticity” (p. 192).
While reflection is often used as a means of practice-based professional learning (Thompson, 2000), this process of self-assessing personal development can offer early-career scientists a way to better understand their own learning.
METHOD
This work began by carrying out literature reviews of the three chosen areas of technology- enhanced learning: engagement, assessment, and reflection. Student feedback from the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral level students was recorded using reflection questions before and after each lecture on a Science & Society module.
Before each lecture the students were asked to record their initial understanding of the concepts that were going to be covered in class. After the lecture, the students were asked to reflect on their understanding of the concept, if it had changed, as well as any aspects of the lecture that were significant to them.
One of the goals of the module was to help early-career scientists to “take responsibility for their own learning” (Hall, 1996, p. 112). The module was underpinned by a general framework of social constructivism (Hodson & Hodson, 1998), but with a focus on how values, perceptions of socioscientific issues, and ethics all play a role in creating a mutual understanding of the world around us (Arghode, Yalvac, & Liew, 2013).
The students engaged in the lectures using software called “Poll Everywhere” — an audience response system that facilitates democratic decision-making in audiences (Shon & Smith, 2011; Kappers & Cutler, 2015). The students were asked to anonymously and independently provide feedback on their learning following the recommendations of Hughes, Kooy, and Kanevsky (1997) and answered questions using their own smart devices (spare iPads were provided to students without access to a smart device of their own). This use of audience response systems is common for large-scale events such as public lectures and festivals (Roche, Cullen, & Ball, 2016; Roche, Stanley, & Davis, 2016).
Reflective practice was integrated into the module in terms of teaching (Brookfield, 1995) and the students’ reflective writing assignments (Bolton, 2010). At each level (undergraduate, masters, doctoral) a representative subset of the students took part in a focus group to provide
feedback on their experience of the technology-enhanced aspects of the module. The focus groups followed the protocol described in Roche et al., (2017).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
As was expected, when addressing the research questions, technology-enhanced learning in higher education science posed both benefits and challenges (Table 1). Engagement through mobile technology was found to be a beneficial method of facilitating safe, anonymous, whole- class discussions in real-time. This was especially useful in large classes, and was found to be especially meaningful for participants who did not feel confident speaking out in a lecture.
Such students found seeing their contributions appear anonymously on the lecture screen empowering.
For some masters students, and a larger group of doctoral students, there was a feeling that digital engagement deprived them of the opportunity to actively engage in lectures. This could be due to the smaller class sizes at masters and doctoral level, growing confidence to engage at those levels, or an average age difference compared to the undergraduate students. All of these factors are worthy of further consideration and follow-up research.
As has been found elsewhere, self and peer-assessment worked best when the students and staff jointly determined the criteria and marking rubrics (Dochy, Segers, & Sluijsmans, 1999). This is particularly relevant as many universities move more towards e-learning, distance learning, blended learning, and flipped classroom approaches. It is becoming increasingly important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches for student learning at different stages of higher education science.
Using technology to support reflection was found to equip students with valuable tools to observe, gather information, analyse, and draw conclusions on their own learning and development. Given the challenges that early-career scientists are facing (Powell, 2016; Roche
& Davis, 2017) such skills are more pertinent than ever. The students responded best to having a clear model to follow.
One of the biggest challenges to emerge was balancing the burden on students to be continuously providing feedback, which was reported as more of an issue for the masters and doctoral students. The students discussed this in similar terms to the reflection “burnout”
referred to by Anderson (1992, p. 308). While the drawbacks of technology-enhanced learning are smaller than the number of benefits, they could become more pronounced if several types of technology-enhancements are combined. This multiplier effect also requires further investigation. This would help form a framework for technology-enhanced learning that is determined by the needs of the students at different levels of higher education science.
Table 1. Benefits and challenges of technology-enhanced learning in relation to student engagement, assessment, and reflection.
Type of Technology- Benefits Challenges
enhanced Learning
Engagement through mobile technology
Anonymity
Facilitates real-time whole class discussions
Empowering for less confident students
More suitable for large undergraduate classes
Reduces opportunities for oral discussion in small groups (especially for postgraduate students)
Self and peer-assessment Gives more ownership and agency to students in their assessment
Reduces burden on staff to provide formative feedback
Critiquing a classmate’s
work can be an
uncomfortable experience for some students
Reflection Facilitates faster personal insights for students on their learning
Develops critical thinking skills
Risk of reflection burnout
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. (1992). Journal writing: The promise and the reality. Journal of Reading, 36(4), 304-309.
Arghode, V., Yalvac, B., & Liew, J. (2013). Teacher empathy and science education: A collective case study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(2), 89-99.
Bolton, G. (2010). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom.
San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher education, 24(3), 331-350.
Heaton‐Shrestha, C., Gipps, C., Edirisingha, P., & Linsey, T. (2007). Learning and e‐learning in HE:
The relationship between student learning style and VLE use. Research Papers in Education, 22(4), 443-464.
Hall, C. (1996). Key teaching roles of a university lecturer and their integration into the quality systems of a New Zealand university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(2), 109-120.
Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: A Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79(289), 33-41.
Hughes, H. W., Kooy, M., & Kanevsky, L. (1997). Dialogic reflection and journaling. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 70(4), 187-190.
Johnson, H., & Carruthers, L. (2006). Supporting creative and reflective processes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(10), 998-1030.
Kappers, W. M., & Cutler, S. L. (2015). Poll Everywhere! Even in the Classroom: An Investigation into the Impact of Using Poll Everywhere in a Large-Lecture Classroom. Computers in Education Journal, 6(20), 140-145.
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827.
Koppen, E., & Langie, G. (2013). Replacement of a clicker system by a mobile device audience response system. In Proceedings of the 41st SEFI annual conference: Engineering Education Fast Forward (pp. 1-8). Leuven, Belgium.
Powell, K. (2016). Young, talented and fed-up: scientists tell their stories. Nature News, 538(7626), 446.
Roche, J., Cullen, R. J., & Ball, S. L. (2016). The Educational Opportunity of a Modern Science Show. International Journal of Science in Society, 8(3), 21-30.
Roche, J., & Davis, N. (2017). Should the science communication community play a role in political activism?. Journal of Science Communication, 16(1), 1-4.
Roche, J., Davis, N., O’Boyle, S., Courtney, C., & O’Farrelly, C. (2017). Public perceptions of European research: an evaluation of European Researchers’ Night in Ireland. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 374-391.
Roche, J., Stanley, J., & Davis, N. (2016). Engagement with physics across diverse festival audiences.
Physics Education, 51(4), 1-6.
Shon, H., & Smith, L. (2011). A review of Poll Everywhere audience response system. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29(3), 236-245.
Stowell, J. R. (2015). Use of clickers vs. mobile devices for classroom polling. Computers &
Education, 82, 329-334.
Sunal, D. W., Hodges, J., Sunal, C. S., Whitaker, K. W., Freeman, L. M., Edwards, L., Johnston, R. A.,
& Odell, M. (2001). Teaching science in higher education: Faculty professional development and barriers to change. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 246-257.
Thompson, N. (2000). Theory and practice in the human services. Buckingham: Open University Press.
SCAFFOLDING RESEARCH-LIKE LABORATORY PROJECTS FOR FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS
Rikke Frøhlich Hougaard¹ and Birgitte Lund Nielsen
21 ST Learning Lab, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
2 ST Learning Lab, Aarhus University & VIA University College, Aarhus, Denmark Research-based teaching is the cornerstone of university teaching. A central part of research- based teaching relates to students’ work in inquiry-based projects where they make sense of and use research literature. Collaborative work with research methods and literature in the laboratory might be a key to develop students’ sense of belonging to a specific academic field within the STEM disciplines. During the first years of studies, such teaching is however often challenged since novice students do not yet have the qualifications to work with an authentic research project. The present paper discusses findings from two first year courses in the study programs of chemistry and biotechnology, respectively. In both courses, students work with authentic research in the form of research papers and laboratory work with research-like activities. A comparison of the design of the two courses shows differences, e.g. in the extent of student autonomy, collaboration, feedback and peer-feedback. Students’ learning experience, perceived learning outcomes and sense of belonging at the department were investigated with repeated questionnaires with open reflections and likert-scale questions.
Based on these data possibilities and challenges related to designing research-like learning experiences for first-year students are discussed.
Keywords: Laboratory work in science, higher education, learning communities
INTRODUCTION
First-year university students’ retention to the university and to the field of science and technology studies in particular is frequently discussed. Tinto (2017) suggests a focus on how to support students’ persistence emphasizing a student perspective instead of an institutional perspective (‘retention’). Understanding students’ persistence can be approached by theories about intrinsic motivation referring to their experience of competence, autonomy and also relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). ‘Sense of belonging’ referred to by Tinto (2017) as determinant for persistence is a complex construct with some similarity to ‘relatedness’. It is dependent both on efficacy beliefs before entering the university and on students experience of being invited into a community of practice with peers and academics. Hence, there are reasons to believe, that being invited into collaboration about research, which can be seen as the core of the subject and its methods, might affect student persistence.
The present study involving cases from laboratory-intensive studies at the faculty of Science
& Technology (ST) was inspired by the model of research-based education from Healey (2005) (figure 1) referring to both students’ active involvement in research-processes and their work with research as content. Healey and Jenkins (2018) suggest that university students can be involved in research-like activities from an early stage in their studies: “..given suitable support and encouragement many more students – and at an earlier stage in their courses – can be
engaged in discovery activities than many staff initially think is possible ..” (Healey & Jenkins 2018:54).
Figure 1. Research-based education (after Healy, 2005)
Healey and Jenkins (2018) discuss how to define ’undergraduate research’ referring to this definition: ”..an inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that makes an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline” (Healey & Jenkins, 2018: 54).
They suggest a broad understanding of the term “original contribution” and emphasize that you can speak about students’ learning through research and inquiry even if the knowledge produced during the learning process is not necessarily new for the research society. This links to research in science education in particular about inquiry-based approaches such as IBSE (Inquiry based Science Education) and 5E (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate).
From technology education the so-called FITS model illustrates learning through design (Breukelen, Michels, Schure & de Vries, 2016) in iterative phases. The latter model inspired the phases used to represent the design of the two courses studied in here, namely 1) Preparation, 2) Experimental design, 3) Investigation, and 4) Report. Intentionally, these stages reflect the stages in an authentic research project.
In higher education the potential of transforming the traditional ‘cookbook like laboratories’
towards more inquiry-based approaches have been discussed in decades of research (Hofstein
& Kind, 2012; Reid & Shah, 2007). Our previous work has evidenced how students’ learning outcomes from laboratory teaching can be enhanced even with ’smaller’ redesigns involving elements of ’guided inquiry’ (Nielsen & Hougaard, 2018). This involves designing for learning both before, during and after a laboratory class, e.g. using pre-lab activities to make students engage with the content and methods, and scaffolding dialogue and critical reflection on data and methods during the activities in the laboratory (Nielsen & Hougaard, 2018).
In general academics believe strongly in the importance of research-based teaching with a direct link between research and teaching, but the term is not always used unambiguously (Robertson, 2007; Visser-Wijnveen et al., 2010). It can be used about transmission of research results to students, considering how the research performed at the local institution is integrated in the teaching or, alternatively, about challenging how students understand knowledge, knowledge-creation and research. However, there is no simple relationship between research productivity and teaching effectiveness of schools (Hattie & March, 1996; Brew 2001). How to frame students’ work with research-based content and methods is basically a pedagogical
Research-tutored
§ Students are engaged in discussing research, writing
papers/essays etc.
Research-based
§ Students are involved in inquiry-based projects
Research-led
§ Students are taught about research (content) in the
actual discipline
Research-oriented
§ Students are taught about research-relevant skills and
methods Emphasis on
research-content
Emphasis on research processes, methods and problems
Student-focused: Students as active participants
Teacher-focused:
Students as audience
question about: “..attention to the design of the curriculum and how students learn” (Healey &
Jenkins, 2018).
At the faculty of Science & Technology at our university there is increasing emphasis on making students engage with research at early stages of the study programs. This has led to the development of several courses where first-year students work with primary research literature and laboratory work referring to this. The research presented here, refers to two specific courses
“Introduction to Chemistry research” (ICR) and “Biotechnological project” (BTP). It is the purpose of both courses to give students an experience of working with research, but the designs of the courses are markedly different, as will be described below. In both courses, it was a challenge is to engage first-year students with complex research literature and research- like methods. The dilemma is that although it is difficult for the students, there are reasons to believe that a key to stimulating their persistence and sense of belonging at the university is indeed to scaffold them in collaborative work with research-like methods and content from cutting-edge research (Reid & Shah, 2007). This leads on to the following research questions.
Research questions
• How are the courses “Biotechnological project” (BTP) and “Introduction to Chemistry research” (ICR) designed and which activities do the students engaged in, during the phases of, 1) Preparation, 2) Experimental design, 3) Investigation, and 4) Report?
• What do the students emphasize as learning outcomes, possibilities and challenges after participating in one of the two courses?
• What characterizes the students’ sense of belonging at the university in the beginning and after their second semester of study (including the BTP or ICR courses)?
• In which ways do the two courses contribute with a research-like experience for the students?
METHODS
The project operates implicitly with a design based research approach (Barab & Squire, 2004).
The authors have been involved in suggesting minor elements in the course designs represented below in relation to the first research question. The findings from the present study are presented for the teachers to inform future redesign. The questions about perceived outcomes etc. were examined using a pre and post questionnaire with both likert-scale questions and essay questions for open reflections. The pre-questionnaire contained questions about the students’ experiences from the first semester including questions about perceived outcomes from various teaching formats, their experience of mastering, and their expectations for the specific courses. Furthermore, there were items about sense of belonging (adapted from Trujillo & Tanner, 2014). These items were repeated in the post-questionnaire which also included questions about perceived outcomes, challenges as experienced by the students and experiences from working with cutting-edge research. Data analysis included frequency analyses and cross tabulations. Essay answers were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). The pre-questionnaire was distributed to all students at a teaching session in the two courses in February 2019, with responses from 35 students from BTP and 34 from ICR.
Post-questionnaire was distributed (electronically) in May/June 2019 after the end of the course, and answered by 20 students from BTP and 26 from ICR (58% and 76%, respectively).
A non-response analysis showed no systematic differences in answers in pre-questionnaire comparing respondents and missing answers from post-questionnaire.
RESULTS
In the following, the design of the two courses are illustrated (figure 2), and the perceived outcomes, challenges and possibilities are reported for the two cases one by one. Finally, the answers to the last two research questions are presented as a comparative analysis.
Figure 2. A schematic representation of students’ tasks during the four phases of the redesigned courses:
A) BTP B) ICR. Both courses account for 1/6 of the workload of the respective semester. Light blue boxes represent collaborative activities.
Design of the two courses
The BTP course (figure 2A) is offered at the second semester of the Biotechnology Engineering program. During a Preparation phase (phase 1) students attend introductory lectures and highly guided cookbook labs. In addition, they choose between different topic for their project and read one or a few research papers related to the topic. The topics (”Biosynthesis af Indigo”,
1 week Introduction
5 weeks
“Cook-book” experiments 6 weeks Project work
2 weeks Report
Fase 4 Report
Oral exam Analyse data
Formulate research question Fase 1
Preparation
Fase 3 Investigation Fase 2
Experimental design
Share analyses with peers
Introduction to project themes
Read scientific papers
Peer-feedback Report draft
Peer-feedback
Perform experiments
Supervision
Collaborative reflections Design
experiments
Hand-in report
”Cookbook”
experiments
A
Phase 2 Experimental design
Most frequently defined by research group, but variants may occur.
Report 2 Phase 3
Investigation
Data analysis
SupervisionSupervision
Data analysis Experiment 2 Experiment 1 Phase 1
Preparation Lectures
Read instructions Read scientific papers Choose between predefined experiments 2 Weeks Lectures
2 weeks Research group 1
2 weeks Research group 2
1 week presentation
Phase 4 Report
Feedback
Feedback
Oral presentation Peer-feedback Report 1
B
”A cure for Phenylketonuria”, or”Development of antibiotic peptide”) are determined by the course lecturer. Common to all projects is that the students must clone and express a gene.
During the Experimental Design phase (Phase 2) the students work in groups and auto- nomously decide which experiments to perform, and they make a project plan. After peer and teacher feedback, students adjust their plans and perform the planned experiments under guidance by teaching staff during the Investigation phase (Phase 3). At the end of the semester, in the Report phase (Phase 4), students hand-in a draft report for peer-feedback and subsequently a final report for assessment at the final exam. During all four phases of this design, emphasis has been put on scaffolding students´ inquiry and collaboration, e.g. via peer- feedback activities. Particular effort is put into the experimental design phase, where students work on designing the experimental setup.
The ICR course is offered at the second semester of the bachelor program in chemistry. The main intention with the course, as expressed by the course teacher is, that students gain experience with cutting-edge research in an authentic research laboratory and engage in collaboration with staff. The course is organized with a preparation phase (Phase 1) with a series of invited lectures about cutting-edge research at the department. The course coordinator assigns two experiments, offered by different research groups to groups of 2-4 students. The two student groups followed in this study performed the experiment ”Growing one-crystal topological insulators” or “Investigating protein structures at a biomaterial surface with femtosecond laser light”, respectively. In most cases, the experiment is predetermined by the research group and described in a cookbook-like manual. The students do not necessarily engage in any activities related to experimental design (Fase 2). During the investigation phase (Phase 3), the students work on two consecutive, but typically unrelated experiments, in two different research groups. Each experiment is reported in a lab report during the report phase (Phase 4). A collaborative task was designed for this phase, where students provide peer- feedback on a draft version on the oral presentation before a final presentation was assessed by the teacher.
Perceived outcomes, challenges and possibilities: BTP
In the post questionnaire 85% of the students reported a high or very high learning outcome from the BTP course as represented in figure 3. In both pre and post questionnaires, students were asked about their perceived learning outcomes from a broad range of teaching formats not restricted to this specific course. It can be seen in the representation in figure 3 that the majority (78 %) of students value the learning outcome from project work high or very high before the project work. In the post-questionnaire at the end of the second semester this number increases to 97 % (compare light blue columns with the dark blue).
