1887

Access Microbiology open research platform logo

Volume 4, Issue 8

A guide to pedagogical research for scientists from a biological sciences background Open Access

This article is part of the Pedagogy collection.

Abstract

How we teach science and engage with the public, particularly in fast moving subjects such as microbiology, are constantly being reflected upon, improved and innovated. This has led to a significant increase of pedagogy publications by microbiology educators in higher education that have had a positive impact on teaching quality, student retention, progression and course satisfaction as well as how science is communicated with the public. In this paper we describe the different types of pedagogical manuscripts that biological scientists could write and the benefits that derive from doing so. We provide a glossary of terms often seen in educational literature. Project design and qualitative and quantitative research methodologies are discussed, highlighting ethical and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) considerations. Suggestions are made regarding how to network with colleagues who are also keen on writing pedagogical papers as well as examples of good practice. Lastly, a handy how-to-start guide aims to help with first steps. We hope that this paper will be a useful survival manual for colleagues who wish to engage in exciting pedagogical research in the field of microbiology and the broader biological sciences.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): microbiology , outreach , pedagogical language , pedagogical methodology , pedagogy and project design
© 2022 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000416
2022-08-18
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/acmi/4/8/acmi000416.html?itemId=/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000416&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Fahnert B. Edging into the future: education in microbiology and beyond. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2016; 363:fnw048 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Merkel S. ASM task force on curriculum guidelines for undergraduate microbiology. the development of curricular guidelines for introductory microbiology that focus on understanding. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2012; 13:32–38
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Smith DP, Hoare A, Lacey MM. Who goes where? The importance of peer groups on attainment and the student use of the lecture theatre teaching space. FEBS Open Bio 2018; 8:1368–1378 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Wilkinson TS, Nibbs R, Francis NJ. Reimagining laboratory-based immunology education in the time of COVID-19. Immunology 2021; 163:431–435 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Theobald EJ, Hill MJ, Tran E, Agrawal S, Arroyo EN et al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020; 117:6476–6483 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Oliveira A, Feyzi Behnagh R, Ni L, Mohsinah AA, Burgess KJ et al. Emerging technologies as pedagogical tools for teaching and learning science: a literature review. Human Behav and Emerg Tech 2019; 1:149–160 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Burke C, Power C. The challenges of teaching microbiology. Microbiol Aust 2010; 31:3 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Sancho P, Corral R, Rivas T, González MJ, Chordi A et al. A blended learning experience for teaching microbiology. Am J Pharm Educ 2006; 70:120 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. de A F F Finger J, de Menezes JBF, de Melo Franco BDG, Landgraf M, Raspor P et al. Challenges of teaching food microbiology in Brazil. Braz J Microbiol 2020; 51:279–288 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Roberts AP. Swab and send: a citizen science, antibiotic discovery project. Future Sci OA 2020; 6:FSO477 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Redfern J, Bowater L, Crossley M, Verran J. Spreading the message of antimicrobial resistance: a detailed account of a successful public engagement event. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2018; 365:fny175 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Efthimiou G. Coccus pocus 2019: a microbiology-inspired scary story competition. Access Microbiol 2020; 2: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Advance HE website. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/historical-insights-teaching-phd-student accessed 1 December 2021
  14. Wiers-Jenssen J, Stensaker B, Gr⊘gaard JB. Student satisfaction: owards an empirical deconstruction of the concept. Qual in High Educ 2002; 8:183–195 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Huber B, Barnidge M, Gil de Zúñiga H, Liu J. Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Underst Sci 2019; 28:759–777 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Patel S, DeMaine S, Heafield J, Bianchi L, Prokop A. The droso4schools project: long-term scientist-teacher collaborations to promote science communication and education in schools. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2017; 70:73–84 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Creative thinking quest game site. https://daisyabbottitchio.itch.io/creative-thinking-quest accessed 1 December 2021
  18. Archer L, Dawson E, DeWitt J, Seakins A, Wong B. “Science capital”: a conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. J Res Sci Teach 2015; 52:922–948 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. BERA Ethical guidelines for educational research. https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018-online accessed 1 December 2021
  20. Bryman A. Social Research Methods, 5th ed. Oxford University Press; 2015
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. BMJ 2004; 328:1312–1315 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Sharma G. Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. Int J Applied Res 2017; 3:749–752
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Nyumba OT, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N, Geneletti D. The use of focus group discussion methodology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol 2018; 9:20–32 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Cridland EK, Jones SC, Caputi P, Magee CA. Qualitative research with families living with autism spectrum disorder: recommendations for conducting semistructured interviews. J Intellect Dev Disabil 2014; 40:78–91 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ennos R, Johnson ML. Statistical and Data Handling Skills in Biology London: Pearson; 2018
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Meth 2017; 16:
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Evans GL. A novice researcher’s first walk through the maze of grounded theory: rationalization for classical grounded theory. Grounded Theory Rev 2013; 12:
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Chun Tie Y, Birks M, Francis K. Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Med 2019; 7: [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lederman NG, Lederman JS. What is a theoretical framework? a practical answer. J Sci Teacher Educ 2017; 26:593–597 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Spicer S. The nuts and bolts of evaluating science communication activities. Semin Cell Dev Biol 2017; 70:17–25 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. McEvoy JP. Interactive problem-solving sessions in an introductory bioscience course engaged students and gave them feedback, but did not increase their exam scores. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2017; 364: [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. St Clair-Thompson H, Graham A, Marsham S. Exploring the reading practices of undergraduate students. Education Inquiry 2017; 9:284–298 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lacey MM, Campbell SG, Shaw H, Smith DP. Self-selecting peer groups formed within the laboratory environment have a lasting effect on individual student attainment and working practices. FEBS Open Bio 2020; 10:1194–1209 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. St Clair-Thompson H, Graham A, Marsham S. Exploring the reading practices of undergraduate students. Education Inquiry 2017; 9:284–298 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Bassindale T, LeSuer R, Smith D. Perceptions of a program approach to virtual laboratory provision for analytical and bioanalytical sciences. J Forensic Sci Educ 2021; 3:
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Duckett CJ, Hargreaves KE, Rawson KM, Allen KE, Forbes S et al. Nights at the museum: integrated arts and microbiology public engagement events enhance understanding of science whilst increasing community diversity and inclusion. Access Microbiol 2021; 3:000231 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Melville L, Habgood MPJ, Kyvelou A, Smith N, Lacey M. eds Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited; 2018 pp 404–413
  38. McEvoy JP, Kay A. The saturation game: teaching protein–ligand binding with a playing card analogy. J Chem Educ 2020; 97:3727–3730 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Efthimiou G, Tucker NP. Microbes against umanity, a workshop game for horrible students: using a creative card game in higher education microbiology teaching. Access Microbiol 2021; 3:000186 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Plague Inc. https://www.ndemiccreations.com/en/22-plague-inc accessed 1 December 2021
  41. GameDr website. https://www.gamedrlimited.com/ accessed 1 December 2021
  42. Racaniello VR. Social media and microbiology education. PLoS Pathog 2010; 6:e1001095 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Piantola MAF, Moreno ACR, Matielo HA, Taschner NP, Cavalcante RCM et al. Adopt a Bacterium - an active and collaborative learning experience in microbiology based on social media. Braz J Microbiol 2018; 49:942–948 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. López-Goñi I, Giner-Lamia J, Álvarez-Ordoñez A, Benitez-Páez A, Claessen D et al. #EUROmicroMOOC: using twitter to share trends in microbiology worldwide. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2019; 366:fnz141 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Singla N, Kumar MB, Badyal D. Introduction of social media learning tool in teaching of microbiology. SE Asian Jnl Med Educ 2020; 14:53 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Hemyari C, Zomorodian K, Ahrari I, Tavana S, Parva M et al. The mutual impact of personality traits on seating preference and educational achievement. Eur J Psychol Educ 2012; 28:863–877 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lipson SM, Gair M. The recording of student performance in the microbiology laboratory as a training, tutorial, and motivational tool. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2011; 12:48–50 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hubbard K. Using Data-Driven Approaches to Address Systematic Awarding Gaps. In Thomas DSP, Arday J. eds Doing Equity and Diversity for Success in Higher Education. Palgrave Studies in Race, Inequality and Social Justice in Education Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2021
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Rawlinson KE, Duckett CJ, Shaw H, Woodroofe MN, Lacey MM. Family-focused campus-based university event increases perceived knowledge, science capital and aspirations across a wide demographic. Int J Sci Educ, Part B 2021; 11:273–291 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Okpala CO, Okpala AO, Smith FE. Parental involvement, instructional expenditures, family socioeconomic attributes, and student achievement. J Educ Res 2001; 95:110–115 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. de Fraga F. Towards an evolutionary perspective in teaching and popularizing microbiology. J Microbiol Biol Educ 2018; 19: [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. O.Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N, Geneletti D. The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol 2018; 9:20–32 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Skjott Linneberg M, Korsgaard S. Coding qualitative data: a synthesis guiding the novice. QRJ 2019; 19:259–270 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Archer Ker L, Dawson E, DeWitt J, Godec S, King H et al. Science Capital Made Clear King’s College London; 2016
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Aubrey K, Riley A. Understanding and Using Educational Theories Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2022
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/acmi/10.1099/acmi.0.000416
Loading

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error