Pushing the Boundaries 2006

Dr Chris Willmott* and Dr Jane Wellens†

Web authoring as a pedagogic tool an example

from the biosciences

University ofLeicester

* Dept of Biochemistry, and

† Staff Development Unit University of Leicester

cjrw2@le.ac.uk

University ofLeicester

The Activity • Students work in teams of 4-5 to produce a website reviewing other web-based materials on a specified bioethical topic

• Should include a background briefing on science underlying the issue and fairly reflect the diversity of informed ethical opinion on the topic

• Also give a 15 min presentation of their site to peers

University ofLeicester

Why bioethics? • Concerns issues at the “cutting edge” of biology

• Issues frequently in popular press, impact of new biological & medical developments in wider society

• QAA Benchmarking statements (2002) make nine specific recommendations re ethics teaching in biology

BUT… methodology applicable to broad range of topics

University ofLeicester

The Context

“Targeting biochemical knowledge to medical problems”

• Core for medical biochemists (~ 30)

• Optional study skills module for medics (~ 10)

• Run annually since 2002- Specific discussion of cohorts in 2002 and

2003

University ofLeicester

Aims and Objectives• Appreciate the science underlying a current controversial development in biomedicine

• Recognise the diversity of ethical opinion regarding the development of a current controversial development in biomedicine

• Distinguish the veracity of different web-based resources

• Use web-authoring software

• Work as a member of a team

• Present their website to peers

University ofLeicester

Tasks within project Include:

• Researching info on the WWW

• Deciding which sites to include

• Deciding on criteria for rating websites, and applying appropriate scoring system

• Designing their website

• Implementing the design

University ofLeicester

Example criteria used by students • Visual appearance

• Ease of navigation

• Quality of information

• Relevance of information

• Links and references

• Bias?

University ofLeicester

Topics (2003) • Genetic patenting

• Therapeutic cloning and stem cell research

• Use of human material (inc foetal tissue)

• Genetic screening (inc PGD)

• Clinical trials (inc use of placebos)

• Use of animals in research & alternatives

• Healthcare and developing countries

• Gene therapy

• Xenotransplantation

University ofLeicester

Assessment of exercise • 66% for the website

• 34% for the presentation

• Peer assessment to weight allocation of marks within a team (adapted from Conway et al, 1993)

• Contributing overall 20% to mark for module

University ofLeicester

Weighting students’ contributions • Each student awards a mark of 1 to 5 to each member of their team (inc themselves) for a number of different criteria• Average mark (= A):

Grand total (all scores for all students in team)Number of student in team

• Individual student total (= B):Sum of all that student’s scores awarded by

all team members (inc themselves) • Weighting for individual student:

Individual total (B) Average mark (A)

University ofLeicester

Potential problems • We have found this system to work well, but…

• An individual making a large contribution to a high scoring project can theoretically score >100%

• A student doing no work receives some credit

University ofLeicester

Training - lecture • Recognise different features of well-known websites (Uni homepage, BBC, Amazon, Guardian)

• Practical advice on authoring web pages (using Microsoft FrontPage), including:

- designing a page- developing a page into a web- a quick look at some simple HTML

• Tips, tricks and warnings

• Details of assessed activity

University ofLeicester

Training – hands-on exercise • Instructions e-mailed to students

• 2 hr session, supervised

• Asked to produce simple website, inc- absolute links (to WWW)- relative links (within web)- copy, paste and format text- copy and paste images

• Compress as zipped folder and e-mail to me

• Receive rapid feedback (formative)

University ofLeicester

Feedback on training

“I have never tried anything like this before and I could

actually do it, which I didn’t expect!”

“I’d always thought that designing a web page would be a very difficult thing, but the step-by-step instructions made the hole (sic) thing very painless and easy to understand. The lecture last week was a great introduction to web-design, so that coming to this practical. I had some idea what I was doing. Thanks very much A*”

“This was a very useful exercise because I had no idea before where to start if I wanted to design a web page, but it is something

that I wanted to be able to do.”

Category Before AfterChang

e

Knowledge about Bioethics

2.53 6.61 + 4.08

Interest in Bioethics 5.80 6.84 + 1.04

Interest in Web authoring 6.13 6.51 + 0.38

Evaluation by participants

Questionnaire-based survey before and after activity in 2002 and 2003 (n = 69, score out of 10)

Ability to produce a website (after) = 7.1 out of 10Only 11 out of 72 had any prior experience

Bioethics issues listed by students

Topic2002Befor

e

2002After

2003Befor

e

2003After

Xenotransplantation 25.7* 44.1 10.8 92.1

Cloning 77.1 50.0 89.2 29.0

Animal expts/testing 48.6 85.3 37.8 73.7

Use of human tissue/organs

5.7 44.1 2.7 73.7

Gene patenting 0 35.3 0 68.4

Genetic screening 14.3 67.7 2.7 29.0

Gene therapy 5.7 61.8 5.4 55.3

* % of cohort citing topic (only topics mentioned by > 50% on at least one occasion are included)

Topics identified in first place 2002 (before) 2003 (before)

Cloning (16)Animal experiments (4)Gen engin./modfictn (3)Xenotransplantation (3)

Cloning (19)Animal experiments (5)Euthanasia (3)

2002 (after) 2003 (after)

Gene therapy (7)Animal experiments (5)Xenotransplantation (4)Genetic screening (5)Gene patenting (3)

Xenotransplantation (13)Use of stem cells (5)Gene therapy (4)Gene patenting (3)

Bioethics issues listed by students

Topic2002Befor

e

2002After

2003Befor

e

2003After

Xenotransplantation 25.7* 44.1 10.8 92.1

Cloning 77.1 50.0 89.2 29.0

Animal expts/testing 48.6 85.3 37.8 73.7

Use of human tissue/organs

5.7 44.1 2.7 73.7

Gene patenting 0 35.3 0 68.4

Genetic screening 14.3 67.7 2.7 29.0

Gene therapy 5.7 61.8 5.4 55.3

* % of cohort citing topic (only topics mentioned by > 50% on at least one occasion are included)

University ofLeicester

Influential news?

University ofLeicester

Influential news?

University ofLeicester

Examples student websites• Developing countries (2005)

• Human material (2002)

• Human material (2005)

• Pharmacogenetics (2005)

• Stem cells (2004)

• Xenotransplantation (2003)

• Xenotransplantation (2004)

University ofLeicester

Web-authoring v. Essay-writing?Both involve traditionally important skills, e.g.

• Seeking out appropriate sources

• Appraisal and incorporation of relevant material

In addition, web-authoring offers:

• Real-world engagement

• Acquisition of new and different skills

• Greater element of design and layout

• More fun?

University ofLeicester

Questions for further consideration1. To what extent are web-authoring and other

e-activities more appropriate tasks than essay writing for 21st Century citizens?

2. How can we help students to distinguish between “good” and “dubious” online sources?

University ofLeicester

References Conway R., Kember D., Sivah A. and Wu M. (1993) Peer assessment of an individual’s contribution to group project Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 18:45-56

QAA (2002) The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Benchmarking academic standards: Bioscience http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/biosciences.pdf (accessed 5 Jan 2006)

Willmott C.J.R. and Wellens J. (2004) Teaching about bioethics through authoring of websites Journal of Biological Education 39:27-31