Symbiotic or parasitic? Valuing our post-graduate students in the research environment

This blog  is written by Prof. Roberto Weinberg from the School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment at Monash University who, amongst other accomplishments, was recently awarded the Science Faculty Dean's Award for Post Graduate Supervision 

 Symbiosis. The relationship between research students and supervisors is based on symbiosis: a collaborative effort directed at research. Candidates learn to do science and their efforts are an essential ingredient of our research output. Research students are at the core of our research efforts.

The best days in my supervisor life are those where, with one of my students, we sit in front of a new data set and start building a map of possibilities, paths, experiments all leading to new insights. These are days of great excitement, creativity and exchange, which I hope fire up the student’s curiosity and drive. Like many symbiosis, there is some tension in the relationship: large amounts of reading, steep learning curves, strict scientific thinking, demand for high-level questioning, quality documentation and writing, and numerous questions left unanswered, new questions raised, certainties dissolved. 

  

Some symbiotic relaitionships may turn parasitic.  Supervisors sapping the energy and directing the scientific production of students for their own gain, while providing minimum input and arguing that “a no input policy” is good for student independence. Conversely, students failing to reach maturity and draining supervisor’s energies and knowledge without adding to the shared knowledge of the team.

 Now we are faced with increased downward pressure in what constitutes a PhD  and with that there will be further pressure in this symbiosis. The issue is reducing our completion times. Soon after I arrived at Monash, over 10 years ago, a senior admin academic was making the case to a large cohort of academics that we needed to improve completion rates no matter what. “Err, no matter what?” someone interjected “will this not lead to an erosion of the quality of our PhD thesis? ” and the as expected the reply was the hypocritical “absolutely not”. Well, ten years on we are faced with even stronger requirements to reduce completion times. We are now faced with the conundrum of how to adapt our expectations to this imposed reality. Can we adapt the research questions to simpler, less risky ones? How far down can we take the content of a PhD thesis and still maintain an internationally acceptable level?  How can we shorten the maturation period that candidates need to start producing outcomes? How is this symbiosis going to flourish in the future?  

Considering that students carry out the bulk of our research, the way we adapt to this new imperative will impact on our collective research outcomes. This also means that now more than ever, we need to make our best efforts to attract the absolute best PhD candidates.  Outstanding Schools and individual researchers are often happy to wait and catch what falls in their net. We need a sharp change in attitude.  If our aims is to develop truly outstanding research, we need to actively seek the best students and then provide them with the best possible research environment. In this regard, high pressure for short completion times may not always be helpful.

Read More

Student use of mobile devices in science practicals: Perceptions, impediments and the future

Technological advancements are rapidly changing the way students use and interact with educational materials. Students now have access to a range of electronic devices that make learning more interactive, flexible and mobile. In the USA, a national study of student use of technology found that students are drawn to and recognise the benefits of technologies and prefer classes with online components. In Australia, the DEEWR Digital Education Advisory Group forecast that due to the rapid uptake of smart devices by students, teaching and learning settings are moving to a ‘bring your own device’ environment, where the choice of technology is paramount.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/johanl/

While undergraduate science curricula present text-based learning materials to students predominantly in hard copy formats, the increased affordability, functionality and portability of electronic devices calls for evaluation of more technologically “savvy” ways to deliver these materials. Electronic notebooks, or e-Manuals, may be one such means. Depending on the software and device, an e-Manual can facilitate online submission of assignments, provide direct access to ‘authentic’ internet materials, enable integration of multimedia files and permit digital inking for drawings and figures. Furthermore, e-Manuals have the added advantage of allowing staff to update and add to learning materials in real-time, as well as reducing both printing and environmental costs.

Despite the potential advantages of using e-Manuals in education, there have been only a few isolated efforts to integrate electronic devices across several domains, including food chemistry, education, and chemistry research. Furthermore, very little has been reported on student perceptions of their readiness to utilise such platforms, or concerns they may have about the viability of e-Manuals for practical activities. 

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/snre/

Device use and ownership

First year biology students were surveyed at commencement of their degree studies about ownership and confidence in using personal computers, including desktops, laptops, tablets and smartphones. The majority of students (57%, n=1209) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I feel confident enough to use my mobile device to write up my practicals directly into an e-Manual”. Yet despite this indicated confidence, half of the students agreed or strongly agreed that an e-Manual would be “more difficult to use than a printed manual”.  Furthermore, although e-Manuals provide many additional features when compared to hardcopy formats, most students were either ambivalent or thought that an e-Manual would not enhance the learning process (neutral - 54%, disagree-strongly disagree - 33%).

Hardcopy vs Electronic use: A disconnect

Student reluctance to engage with the e-Manual is likely due to the disconnect in the use of hardcopy versus electronic devices within the practical environment. Learning is facilitated by active reading, which involves the physical manipulation of text by way of writing, annotating, and/or drawing. While personal computers, in particular tablet devices, attempt to replicate these processes they are not yet as efficient or user-friendly. Students commonly undertake many active reading strategies during practical activities and this may be the preferred way for them to support their learning. The use of an e-Manual for reading information, following instructions and gathering data runs into issues with syntopical reading, which involves simultaneous use of more than one document or page.  In addition, inking tools for writing and drawing remain inefficient and awkward, and do not adequately mimic the experience of drawing on paper.

Image credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Another concern raised by students was the potential for damage to personal electronic devices during practical sessions by exposure to laboratory chemicals or breakage due to physical impact.  Despite this misgiving, it is envisaged that such events would be no more common than with regular use outside the learning environment, due to strict safety protocols already in place. Protective covers could be added to further reduce such risks. Potential loss of data resulting from such events may be mitigated by ensuring that students regularly back up electronic data, either to a portable storage device or cloud-based storage system.

Software availability

At the commencement of this project in mid-2013, an educational technologist was employed to conduct a full market analysis of the software available to support an e-Manual. Despite an extensive analysis, there does not appear to be software currently on the market that fulfils our requirements. These include accurate replication of a paper-based practical manual, with other key criteria being digital inking, text entry, online submission, and integration of multimedia and internet content. Until such software becomes available, students will quite understandably continue to have misgivings about the advantages of using e-Manuals.

Facilitating change for students and staff

It is inherently clear that the transition from hardcopy to electronic learning formats requires a carefully planned management strategy that encourages and supports both students and staff in the transition process. When experiencing change, it is not the change itself that takes people out of their comfort zone, but rather the loss of something that is closely held and viewed as important, that can create discontent. In the instance of transitioning to an e-Manual, it seems that the ease, nostalgia and comfort of using paper to read, take notes and draw may be the biggest hurdle for students.

To navigate the period of disequilibrium during the transition phase to an e-Manual, it is essential that academic and teaching managers have the resources to support tutors and students. This support should involve additional training for tutors and subsequent coaching and technical support for students. It is also crucial that alternative methods to mitigate the experience of loss are identified. For instance, students not wishing to use aspects of an e-Manual (e.g. the desire to continue to draw diagrams on paper) are shown alternatives during the interim (e.g. taking photo of drawn diagram and inserting it into the e-Manual).

Once the obstacles that make students reluctant to use technology for practical activities are removed or overcome, the value of e-Manuals for such modes of learning may be more fully realised.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project has been provided by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

Aspects of this project were also funded by the Monash University Science Faculty Teaching Innovation Fund and this work was conducted by the authors in collaboration with Bruce Weir, Simon Clarke and Chris Thompson

This is an edited copy of a recently published report for the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) news (2014, 36, 24-25). The report was written by Dr Sherrie Caarels, Dr Gerry Rayner and Dr Rowan Brookes, in the School of Biological Sciences.

Read More

Balancing teaching and research in the era of “ERA”

Rowan -  Coral Warr, recipient of the 2014 Dean's Excellence in Teaching Award for Excellence, writes an informative blog about juggling the demands of a teaching and research academic.

Teaching and research staff come in many flavours, and have different balances between the two areas of academic activity. I genuinely love both teaching and research, do both equally, and continue to do so 13 years into my academic career. Teaching is immensely rewarding and satisfying, and the good feelings it brings help buffer against the unpredictable rollercoaster ride that is research.

These days due to immense pressure regarding research success, it can feel hard to justify spending lots of time on developing new teaching approaches and innovations. Sometimes you feel you should just do the same thing year after year and conserve all your energy for research. But if you are someone who loves teaching, continually trying to improve is really just a necessity to feel happy and satisfied that you are doing your job well. And of course teaching is the core business of universities, and no matter how much pressure we feel about our research we need to be great educators too. 

I think we can be confident that our leaders all know this and in fact support us putting time and energy into our teaching (even though it may not always seem so). As evidence of this, I was this year awarded the Dean's Excellence in Teaching Award for a number of innovative teaching approaches I have developed. While it’s great to get this recognition, much more important is the enjoyment I’ve had developing and implementing every one of them, and how working on them has helped me through some tough times with research. 

Image Credit: Flickr - kosmolaut

But how do we juggle the two core academic activities of teaching and research to find the time to be innovative? I’ve tried different ways of doing this during my career, and seen what works best for some of my colleagues too. And of course, what I see is there is no one size fits all solution. It depends on your personality, on your type of research (eg. are you lab or field-based), on the size of your research group, and other activities you are engaged in. For example, early in my career the School kindly put all my teaching in one semester with the idea that the other semester is then all free for research. 

Some staff really like this. But for me it just didn’t work, for two reasons. First, as someone supervising a lab-based research program, the research didn’t stop during the semester I was teaching. I still had to do all my research tasks. This was tough. Second, I found I like the structure teaching provides. In my non teaching semester I had a big “to do” list but none of the tasks had deadlines. They got done eventually but I felt inefficient compared to when I was teaching and accomplishing lots of tasks all the time. And I missed all the rewards that teaching continually provides. 

So for me having my teaching and research spread throughout the year works best. But you may be completely different. Hopefully everyone has a Head of School who understands this and is willing to implement different strategies for different staff.

When is the best time to work on teaching improvements? Well this falls into the category of do as I say and not as I do! Of course it is straight after the teaching event when you realise what you could have done better or differently. Does it happen then for me? Well no, rarely. But what I do is implement reflective practice. Either straight away, or at the latest at the end of a block of teaching, I make notes in this regard. That way if I can’t get to it until a later time I can remember what the issues were and what I might try to change.

So while it might feel it takes too much of your time to be innovative with your teaching, the rewards in terms of personal satisfaction are immense. And, as we all know, it only takes a few students to tell you how much they loved something, or that they now understand something, to make it all worthwhile.

Associate Professor Coral Warr is the Deputy Head of the School of Biological Sciences. She is a molecular and cellular geneticist whose research focuses on how cells respond to signals from their environment, using the fruitfly Drosophila as a model organism. She is a passionate teacher of genetics and teaches at all undergraduate levels.

Read More

Tutoring supports 1st year transition to university

For many students, the first year of university is tough! The learning curve can be steep regardless of whether you are straight out of high school or you are returning to study.  The Science Faculty at Monash University recognises that each individual faces different challenges and provides a variety of support services to address those needs.

In 2011, the Science Faculty received Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program funding from the Government to support low socioeconomic status (SES) students in their studies at university. We saw this as an opportunity to supplement our existing learning centres (all providing free tutoring) and create new ones so that we could provide this service to all 1^st year students in each of our five schools.

Photos of our Geosciences learning centre in action

Importantly we also wanted the tutors in the learning centres to provide pastoral care offering further support beyond assistance just with academic content (figure 1). Pastoral care is especially important for low SES students because these students are often the first in their family to attend university. These students may lack social and cultural capital in the university environment, which can negatively impact their success in their studies.

Figure 1. Academic support and pastoral care provided through our science learning centres 

I want to share a story that illustrates how our free tutoring service can help distressed first-year students in their transition to university.

Many students don’t proactively seek support from our tutors, but one student that stands out to me had been waiting for an opportunity like this after failing some of her first units. This student was very hard-working, but despite her best efforts she found studying at university much more difficult than her preparatory TAFE courses and she started to doubt her abilities. Being a refugee, this student often expressed how lucky she felt to be able to attend university in Australia. She also showed an enormous passion for learning and because of this it was inspiring to see how much she wanted to make a difference in the world. She felt that her education was the key to achieving her dreams.

After an initial conversation she decided to attend one and eventually all three of the learning centres for her science units. After a lot of hard work from her and the tutors who assisted her, she passed all of her units that semester. That was a huge confidence boost for her to know that she had the capacity to achieve her goals. Perhaps an even greater success was the fact that while she was reluctant to speak to her lecturers in her first year fearing she would be wasting their time, her attitude changed during her second year. She realised people wanted to help her to succeed and her confidence enabled her to talk to her lecturers regularly and seek help when needed.

This is one of many success stories of the learning centres but this one (perhaps because it was one of the first) continues to inspire me to work in education. From the feedback we receive each semester we know the tutoring service is helping hundreds of first-year students in small ways and in large.

If you are interested in learning more about the logistical side (costs, format, hours of operation etc.) of how our learning centres work please contact me.

Further reading:

Yan, C. (2013). Integrated learning centres: enhanced life and learning support for all students. FYHE Conference Proceedings 2013.

Devlin, M., Kift, S., Nelson, K., Smith, L.,& McKay, J. (2012) Effective teaching and support of students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds: Resources for Australian higher education. Retrieved from www.lowses.edu.au

Carmen Yan is the HEPPP Project Officer and Student Experience Coordinator in the Faculty of Science. She is the coordinator of the Faculty of Science Learning Centres and works closely with academic staff from each of the science schools to support first-year students and in particular those who from a low SES background. Carmen can be found on Google+ and invites you to add her to your ‘circles’.

Read More

1 technology 3 ways: A simple cost-effective way to enhance your teaching

 I’ve always been a bit of a technology junkie, but if I am going to use technology in my teaching, the most important question is “does it work?” The answer will depend on what each of us is trying to achieve. Here I describe 3 ways to use interactive whiteboards for you to try: as a monitor, for group work and as a presentation tool.

Student annotating a poster on one of the smartboards.

First, a bit of background. A few years ago Monash set up an educational technology sandpit. After using it a few times with my small (35) class of BSc (Advanced with Honours) students, it was really hard to go back to plain walls and PowerPoint in the mainstream core science tutorials. But with 500-600 students in tutorials of about 20-25 students, how could this be achieved economically?

The answer was to install 4 of the simplest smartboards, a large old-school white board across the back, and some new furniture. It turns out the hardest thing was to get all the different University services to all work together and I am really grateful for Reynold Dias for his efforts in this. It took a year, but with plaster still on the floor and wet paint on the walls, the rooms were ready to the first day of semester 1. 

The new set up in the science tutorial rooms ST1 and ST2. Students work in table groups. Here they are accessing and discussing types of scientific literature.

Electronic whiteboards are not new technology. They are in almost every primary school – in fact if you are unsure about how to use one, I’ve found that at least one student in every class has a parent who is a primary school teacher and knows all about them. I use them to do the same things we used to do when we with traditional whiteboards and one simple screen at the front of the room, but better and then some.

 Prior to these new teaching spaces being developed we adopted ‘Notebooks‘ (HP2760s if you like specifics) to encourage student collaboration (Allie Ford organised this). These notebooks worked well, and Allie Ford and KirstiAbbott creatively applied the technology to other things we did such as analysing posters, inking PowerPoints and so on. 

 There were several problems with this technology: Even though I arranged for the Wi-Fi signal to be boosted and additional power outlets to be put in all over the place there were still issues with flat batteries and signals dropping out. Sure, we could ask students to bring their own devices but that doesn’t promote collaborative learning and it can disadvantage those without them. Other technologies may be as good or better for certain activities but I like the Smartboards because they can are flexible. Here are three.
 

(1) As a monitor. The touch screen is a great way to be more involved in the subject matter and promotes discussion and group decision-making. Students can use the computer and board next to their table to access primary literature or the Web of Science. When using the experimental space, I had noticed that students were reluctant to type in their passwords up on the big screen, so in the new rooms each group have a wireless mouse and keyboard as well. In another workshop they might use the Web to find out about some new ‘health’ product, highlighting aspects that indicate it might be really be pseudoscience. Students can also download the materials from the learning management system in real time, saving printing – and paper and the environment and time.

(2) To promote group work. We ask the students to analyse good and bad features of conference posters. We used to project examples on a screen at the front and have a class discussion – something particularly intimidating to the quieter students, or those whose English is not that good. Now students download examples from Moodle, and annotate them (as a group of 4-5) around the board. They also brainstorming their essay topics. This is not rocket science and educationally is the same as using sheets of A3 paper, but being bigger everyone can have a go. An added bonus is that they save it and email it to themselves.

Student presenting their conference poster on their research project. The format promotes discussion and interaction between students as they move around the room.

(3) For Presentations. Each week we try and get students to present something to the whole class such as their analysis of the posters or what they have discovered about dodgy products. There is no need to throw the image to the front – students can just move around the room. Students still give one formal presentation from the front, but that is clearly a different skill with a specific learning outcome. The BSc (Advanced) group go one further, and have a mock conference with posters on each screen. The resolution isn’t brilliant, but they don’t need to spend money getting their posters printed, as in the past. Electronic posters are becoming more common anyway, whether we like them or not.

The Monash Educational Technology fair this past week was a good moment to reflect on what has and hasn't worked as I’ve tried out different technologies.

At the beginning of this journey we all had a lot of fun trying out all the bells and whistles in the University’s experimental teaching space. The lights were funky, the beanbags were well used, the side-lit glass walls were great for making notes (one reason why I wanted to keep a large old-school white boards in the new tutorial rooms). But when I really thought about it, some things were just fun whereas others had become integral to the way I wanted to teach.  It was the multiple interactive whiteboards that I really missed. It hasn't been all that expensive to install them, and they can be integrated pretty simply into whatever you might be doing already.

I am now so used to using the smartboards that I can't imagine running our classes in any other way. They make all sorts of things we used to do easier and more fun. But this has been just the next step along the road from printed materials, to whiteboards and projectors, to computer labs and notebooks.

I wonder what will come next?

Enjoy the journey!

Associate Professor Ros Gleadow is co-ordinator of the core science program at Monash University and has taught SCI2010 “Scientific Practice and Communication” for 8 years. In her other life she is a plant scientist in the School of Biological Sciences studying the effect of climate change on plants that kill, and the immediate past President of the Australian Society of Plant Scientists. You can follow her on Twitter @RosGleadow

Post updated 27 Oct 2013 to fix broken links and change video format

Read More