• Audio Books
• Digital Textbooks

This article reports on a one-semester Advanced Cell Biology course that endeavors to bridge the gap between gaining basic textbook knowledge about cell biology and learning to think and work as a researcher. The key elements of this course are 1) learning to work with primary articles in order to get acquainted with the field of choice, to learn scientific reasoning, and to identify gaps in our current knowledge that represent opportunities for further research; 2) formulating a research project with fellow students; 3) gaining thorough knowledge of relevant methodology and technologies used within the field of cell biology; 4) developing cooperation and leadership skills; and 5) presenting and defending research projects before a jury of experts. The course activities were student centered and focused on designing a genuine research program.

Our 5-yr experience with this course demonstrates that 1) undergraduate students are capable of delivering high-quality research designs that meet professional standards, and 2) the authenticity of the learning environment in this course strongly engages students to become self-directed and critical thinkers. We hope to provide colleagues with an example of a course that encourages and stimulates students to develop essential research thinking skills. INTRODUCTIONDuring the past decade, the importance of engaging undergraduate students in research activities gained renewed attention internationally (Boyer Commission,; Simons,; Hu et al., ). Undergraduate students not only should acquire knowledge about the outcomes of past research done by others; they should also learn to initiate and do research themselves. Potential merits of undergraduate research activities are that students learn how researchers in the field work, think, and communicate and that students develop their critical, analytical, and creative thinking skills as well as their problem-solving abilities (DebBurman,; Zamorski,; Durning and Jenkins,; DiCarlo, 2006). There seems to be little disagreement on the importance of these potential merits. An important question, however, is how to organize undergraduate research activities within a limited 15-wk course structure.

In this article, we report on an Advanced Cell Biology course that focuses on the first part of the research process: the research design. Students in this course designed a genuine research program that included four interdependent PhD proposals. This process of designing research proposals accelerates the learning of valuable academic skills and attitudes. The authenticity of the learning environment created in the course seemed to be a crucial factor for the effectiveness of the course. Authentic Learning EnvironmentsIn the past three decades, constructivist educational philosophy has conquered ground in higher education. In short, constructivists challenge views of the learning process as the transmission of information to passive receivers. Instead, constructivists view learning as an active process of the construction of knowledge, mapping new information on prior knowledge.

This notion has led to the use of active-learning methods like problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, collaborative learning, and experiential forms of learning (Valcke,; Mayer, ). In contrast to instructor-led courses, in which students obtain a base of scientific facts through lectures and note taking, dynamic student-centered activities are emphasized that engage students actively in constructing knowledge. According to Newmann, however, active learning does not automatically lead to a deeper understanding and to the intellectual quality we strive for: “Even highly active students can produce work that is intellectually shallow and weak” (Newmann et al., p. Newmann makes a case for the use of “authentic” learning tasks—tasks that simulate real-world expert practice.

Authentic learning contexts of open-ended projects have been found to enhance a deep approach to learning; develop professional skills; and increase student motivation, engagement, and confidence levels (MacFarlane et al.,; Gulikers et al.,; Quitadamo et al.,; Gilardi and Lozza, ).A deep approach to learning is characterized by an intention to understand—focusing on the concepts applicable to solving problems, relating previous knowledge to new knowledge—and it has an internal or intrinsic motivational emphasis (Biggs, ). Conversely, a surface approach is characterized by an intention only to complete task requirements for assessment, associating facts and concepts unreflectively. Deep approaches establish a collaborative learning environment and use acquired theory, concepts, and knowledge to solve new problems. Research-based assignments typically call for a deep approach to learning because students need to manipulate the information and ideas in ways that create new meanings. The pedagogical principle is simple. Researchers learn far more from their own research than their peers, supervisors, or students do.

In doing research one learns to gather relevant and actual sources, detect new research questions, search for the best methods, communicate with peers, and present one's findings, and one gets to know the disciplinary research culture. So why not expose students to this powerful learning experience instead of telling them about it in lectures?According to Bereiter and Scardamalia ( ), immersion is the only promising way to help students acquire these skills: “If we want students to acquire the skills needed to function in knowledge-based, innovation-driven organizations, we should place them in an environment where those skills are required in order for them to be part of what is going on” (p. An authentic learning environment thus generates the cognitive learning processes aimed for. A second advantage of authentic learning environments is their motivational force. Allowing students to work on a topic of their interest stimulates intrinsic motivation, which in turn enhances students’ responsibility and their perseverance (Valle et al., ). Moreover, if students value the task at hand as worthwhile, for their future studies or their career in general, motivation will increase (Pintrich, ).

Authentic tasks like doing research are typically tasks that have a value beyond the school setting. In addition, when students are intrinsically motivated, they experience “interest, a sense of importance, challenge, even a sense of exhilaration. Learning is a pleasure” (Biggs, p. Context and Course OrganizationDutch science curricula integrate research-like experiences at the undergraduate level, but in many cases the level of research is limited to relatively small experiments that often have a “cookbook” character. To meet the reality of the research professional even more, we have developed an Advanced Cell Biology course in a liberal arts and science college (University College Utrecht UCU, the international undergraduate honors college of Utrecht University) at the upper-undergraduate (300) level that focuses on writing and defending a research proposal as an open-ended, authentic assignment.The UCU bachelor curriculum consists of minimally 24 courses with a maximum class size of 25 students each.

UCU students complete 4 courses per 15-wk semester, each course having a workload of about 200 h (7.5 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System credits) consisting of 60 contact hours (i.e., 4 contact hours per week in 2 sessions) and approximately 140 h of self study.All students who enter the Advanced Cell Biology course (300 level) are life science majors and have completed their prerequisites of an introductory biology course (100 level) and a textbook-based cell biology course (200 level). Students have had virtually no lab experience, with the exception of a 200-h science lab module. Over the past 7 yr, class size of the Advanced Cell Biology course varied between 12 and 25 students. Depending on class size, students were divided into three to four teams of four to six students each. Bridging the Gap between Textbooks and Scientific ResearchDuring the development of an undergraduate biology student into a skilled cell biology PhD student, an important step has to be taken, and that is to bridge the gap between textbook knowledge and scientific research skills. From textbooks the students learn the condensed knowledge from review articles and primary research on which general consensus has been reached by the scientific community, whereas in current research articles presented in journals, consensus about the observations and interpretations has generally not yet been reached.

The knowledge presented in primary research articles often still leads to discussions and debates between professionals as well as the requirement to design further research to resolve inconsistencies in the current knowledge about a specific topic. Therefore, the knowledge from the literature has to be translated into questions that have not yet been answered and for which the solution can be obtained in the laboratory using appropriate methods and techniques.

In addition, modern cell biological research also requires high-level academic skills and competences such as critical thinking, collaboration between scientists, and oral and written communication.This implies a big leap forward in students’ academic development. To achieve these skills and competences, students need to move from acquiring the disciplinary theory, neatly ordered in textbooks and lectures, to reading primary articles and engaging in the actual scientific discourse. Furthermore, students need to get acquainted with the way modern science is performed and which methods and technologies are currently used.

A second gap students need to bridge is that of comprehending the ideas of others toward finding a promising niche in cell biology research and formulating their creative research ideas in a convincing way using solid argumentation. A third shift concerns the degree of self-regulated learning in which students are expected to be able to work more independently and take full responsibility for their actions and decisions. These aspects are covered in the course objectives.

By the end of the course, students will:1. Have developed a critical attitude2. Have increased their understanding of the scientific discovery process and their ability to think scientifically3. Understand the state of the art in the chosen field of interest in cell biology4. Be able to identify research opportunities and formulate research questions and research hypotheses that are based on recent primary literature5. Understand techniques used in contemporary cell biology research6.

Have increased their ability to collaborate with peers and integrate individual talents7. Be able to communicate advanced scientific topics effectively both orally and in written form. Course DesignIn order to help students achieve these learning objectives, a mock research environment is created in which students act as young researchers, preparing a research program to be assessed by external experts using professional international criteria. The design of a research project has been chosen as the leading assignment. Within the limited course time, it is impossible to allow students to do a complete research project. Designing a research project is a compact and clearly defined stage in research, which gives students a good opportunity to get on top of the current cell biology research, including the methods and techniques used, and to acquire skills in critical thinking, cooperation, and communication.

Course OrganizationIn this course, the students develop a research program consisting of three or four research projects, each project comprising 4 yr and leading to a PhD thesis. The different research projects need to be coherent within the overall topic of the research program. Because students have to work together as well as individually, a hierarchical structure has been chosen to optimize communication between students. During the first class session, the students form three or four teams of four to six students each, and they elect a program leader as well as three or four project leaders, one per project team.

These people are responsible for communication between the student teams as well as with the teachers. Furthermore, these leaders are responsible for the coherence of the projects, ensuring that the projects together constitute a solid, interdependent, and coherent program.During class hours, all students meet with the instructor(s), present papers, and discuss their progress. The students use the nonclass hours (about 140) to read the literature, develop and discuss the project and the methodologies with their project team members, visit specialists, and prepare for the written and oral presentation of the research program. During the whole course, the students organize plenary meetings outside class hours to discuss the progress they make.

These meetings, in which the teachers are not involved, may reach frequencies of five times per week at the end of the course. The total workload of the teacher is approximately 200 h, consisting of class hours, reading different drafts of the proposals, and performing evaluations with the students on the progress of their projects and on the participation of the students in the course. The course is characterized by four different phases.Phase 1, weeks 1–4: Get to know the topic. A general topic is provided at the beginning of the course on which approximately eight research and eight review articles are distributed by the teachers. The research papers will be studied and presented by the students in duos, with a specific emphasis on the scientific questions and the methodology described. The students also present and discuss the review articles, which are aimed to broaden their knowledge in the specific field.

In both cases, all students are encouraged to question critically all aspects of the papers. Students receive a handout with suggestions on how to analyze an article, such as: What is the main question the authors want to solve? Did they use appropriate techniques?

Were control experiments included? Is the main question answered in the conclusion? In addition, students receive a handout that focuses on critically listening to the presentations by fellow students. Usually the teachers are specialists in the field of study and are aware of the new developments in this field. At the end of this phase, the students are able to select a focus within the overall topic of the research proposal.Phase 2, weeks 5–7: Identify a meaningful gap in the current knowledge. In this phase the students focus on the research field covering their interest by searching for (additional) recent primary literature and review articles with the aim to get a detailed understanding of the state of the art and to identify possible gaps in the current knowledge. The findings are presented in class in an informal way, leaving ample time for discussion on the topics of their research program and research projects.

These presentations may be short PowerPoint presentations or chalkboard talks. On average the students read at least 15 articles each in more or less detail. At the end of the phase, the students are able to formulate their research focus more precisely, suggest titles for the projects, and have a vague idea about the experimental approach. During class hours, the teachers act as critical scientists, asking critical questions about the proposals and suggestions made by the students.Phase 3, weeks 8–12: Propose detailed experiments using appropriate research methods and techniques. In this phase the students elaborate in detail on their research project by studying recent literature, visiting scientists in the laboratories of University Utrecht, or contacting scientists abroad by email. Findings, ideas, and proposals are discussed in class and in meetings outside class hours. The teachers may facilitate the visits of the students to specific research laboratories and the contact with specialists in the fields of interest.Phase 4, weeks 13–15: Finish the proposal and prepare for the jury defense.

In this phase the students finish writing their proposals and prepare the defense for the jury. The jury defense is very formal; the students prepare a PowerPoint presentation of 2 h, in which usually eight students participate to present the proposals of the various project teams. Usually the project teams choose the students with the best presentation skills. Following the presentation by the students, the defense takes another 1.5 h in which all students are involved. The jury members are asked to include students who did not present in the discussion. The teachers merely observe this event and are not involved in the presentation and defense.Examples of the research proposals are accessible at. Five Key Course Elements1.

Primary research papers: getting to know and critically evaluate the actual research. During the first 4 wk of the course, the students need to become familiar with the state of the art of the specific field of the program. To get the process started, the teachers choose a selection of recent primary research and review articles covering the field of study.

The students will study these papers with special emphasis on the questions and the technical and methodological approach addressed in the primary papers and present and discuss them in class. Primary literature serves as the most important means of communication within the scientific community. The highly technical and jargon-filled language that is used often represents an initial learning barrier for students. Primary literature addresses the frontiers of scientific inquiry and can be used to instruct students on the scientific method and the nature of scientific reasoning: A scientific article poses a research question, demonstrates the events that led to the answer, and poses new questions. In addition, it has been shown that the ability to comprehend and use primary literature improves critical-thinking skills as well as the understanding of scientific discussions and the research behind textbook knowledge (DebBurman, ). To be able to think beyond borders of current knowledge, the students have to develop a critical attitude toward published articles. They have to learn to question the methodology used in papers, to question the conclusions of the authors, and to question the approach of the authors.

Your code hit the buds on Time 11, 1930, and spread the statement one hand for cheats for digimon card battle players. Cheats for digimon card battle. Download free BeepStreet Sunrizer v1.2.4 WiN-OSX Incl Keygen-R2R. VST software for PC and Mac. Klevgrand DAW Cassette v1.0.0 Incl Keygen (WIN OSX) Team R2R 22 Dec 2018 WIN: 2.9MB OSX: 4.6MB Tape Deck Emulation DAW Cassette brings back the magic era of the 1980:s by emulating the sound. Fade in v1.2.395 incl keygen [hss1212]. DVD X Studios CloneDVD 6.0.1.3 http://tinyurl.com/k857pxy. ManyCam 3 1 41 Full Version 2013 Exe http://tinyurl.com/ley33ae.

By doing so, the students will become familiar with finding their own solution to the problems posed by the authors of the articles. This attitude is required to identify gaps in knowledge, to recognize research opportunities, and to be able to propose their own research question, the methodology to be used, and the approach to be followed.

Assessment of StudentsIn this course, the students are assessed individually and as a team, as outlined in. The individual assessment focuses on the quality of their active participation in this course and the quality of the academic skills they were able to show throughout the course. Furthermore, the teams are assessed with respect to the quality of the cooperation within teams (including problem-solving capacities) and the cooperation between teams.

The final product determines an important part of their final grade (40%) and consists of the following items: the novelty, originality, feasibility, and readability of the research proposal they managed to formulate. Finally, the quality of their final presentation and their performance during the jury defense is included. CreditActivities and productspointsIndividual35Active participation (e.g., in class discussions, presentations)20Excelled as an individual (e.g., in discussions/ideas/ leadership, as critical reader, or in any other program-supporting activity)15Group work25Cooperation in each project team (within team)15Cooperation between project teams (within program)10Final product40Readability/novelty/originality/feasibility of the research proposalMeets criteria of a national funding agencyPresentation and defenseRanking by juryTotal100. RESULTS OF COURSE EVALUATIONSThis course has been evaluated in several ways. Students evaluated this course through the UCU standard course evaluation form as well as with an additional evaluation form that focuses on the students’ learning gains. Results of both student evaluations of the six times the course has been given in the format described here are discussed below. Alumni were also asked to give their opinion of the course in hindsight, especially of how the course influenced their career.

Furthermore, the members of the jury were asked to assess the quality of the students’ work and also the quality of this specific course. Evaluation by the StudentsStudents evaluate the course with a standard online evaluation form with 16 items, which students score on a 5-point Likert scale, and 3 open-ended questions. The mean scores of the 11 relevant items of the standard course evaluations from 2003 to 2008 are compared with the mean scores of the other 300-level science courses in the same period (see ). Only the nine relevant items for this course format are presented; items about lecturing skills are left out. The results of the student ratings show that students evaluated the course positively. All items score highly except the item about the “assessment methods” (item 3 in ). According to the students’ comments, this was because, especially in the beginning of the course, students did not know exactly what was expected from them and what criteria the jury would use.

In this respect, the design of the course (student-driven learning community) is very different from the usual courses they followed. The main positive difference in the students’ ratings of Advanced Cell Biology, compared with other 300-level science courses, is the learning gain students experienced (item 2), with a mean score of 4.7 and 3.9 for the other 300-level science courses. The mean student rating of the overall quality of this course (item 11) is 4.5, which is significantly higher than the 3.9 mean score of the other 300-level courses.In addition to the standard online evaluation, students also reflected on their learning gains in another course-specific evaluation form, which focused on the development of specific skills.

Shows the results of the student evaluations of the opportunities this specific course offered to develop their skills. Student ratings were high on all skills (writing, presenting, discussing, cooperating, and problem solving), ranging from 4.5 to 4.8 on a 5-point scale. In their comments, given both in the open-ended questions of the UCU standard form and in the additional evaluation form, students reflected on their learning gains and their experiences of the course. Shows a selection of typical student comments on these issues. According to the students, they gained a deeper understanding of cell biology and of the research techniques. Moreover, they felt they could synthesize and apply the knowledge learned in previous courses. However, as one of the students stated, “I learned so much more than I could ever have gotten from a textbook.” Reading and critically evaluating primary articles seemed to be one of the most important learning experiences for the students.

Students also frequently mention the improvement of their teamwork skills. Although they have worked in teams quite often in their previous years, the intensive cooperation in this project during the whole semester considerably improved their skills to make use of each other's strengths. Furthermore, students mention their problem-solving skills, research-design skills, communication skills, and an increase in their self-regulation competence. Overall, the learning objectives, stated in, were amply met, according to the students. Students were asked to elaborate in two or three sentences on what they really learned in the course. For the purpose of this table, the responses are categorized according to the course objectives as described in Table 1.1.

Develop a critical attitude. In this course, I really learned how to think critically, and see flaws in our own work or that of other groups.

I also learned not to trust information in published papers and there is no such a thing as “accepted truth,” because results from a research should be defined with the cell types, methods used, etc. Getting a grasp on critical, scientific thinking that is essential for a future in research/clinical problem-solving strategies.2.

Increase student understanding of the scientific discovery process and how to think scientifically. This course was helpful to learn the academic process of writing such a project much more than learning the biological details. Overall, I think I have contributed to an interesting research proposal and could experience first-hand what is involved in such a process. It covers a different concept: it is valuable in gaining experience regarding the planning and coming-up with research. Valuable skills that are not really taught in other courses.3. Understand the state of the art in the chosen field of interest in cell biology. By reading papers, you still increase factual knowledge, e.g., cell types, techniques, etc.

Overall my knowledge and interest in cell biology has greatly increased. I also learned that “knowledge” is vital for further research. The originality and the fact that we were able to apply what we learned in the previous courses.4. Develop the ability to identify research opportunities and formulate research questions and hypotheses that are based on recent primary literature. To define an idea and then research the current knowledge from current publications. I found this a really good aspect of this course in developing this crucial skill.

I really learned to be creative in hypothesis formulation. Find the gaps in this picture and formulate a hypothesis.5. Understand techniques used in contemporary cell biology research. I learned a lot about methods for all sorts of fields in molecular and cell biology. I really learned application of techniques in your own research. By reading so many papers you become more acquainted with methods and experiments in the field of cell biology.6. Increase the ability to collaborate with peers and integrate individual talents.

I learned how to properly collaborate with other group members in such a way that we learn from and use each others strengths and complement each others weaknesses. Better understanding of group/cooperation dynamics. Cooperation, group work, accepting comments/critique.7. Increase the ability to communicate science effectively both orally and in written form (communication skills). The importance of arguing, supporting your decisions with arguments.

Experiencing how research proposals actually are written, the whole process. My writing skills have definitely improved from this. How to best present scientific information to both my own group and the entire class (and the jury). A selection of typical students’ statements from the evaluation forms is presented in. In general, students were enthusiastic about designing their own research program. Students took up the challenge, worked very hard, were very motivated, and managed to cooperate efficiently during the project. Although students experienced stress at times, they rather enjoyed the process and had a feeling of accomplishment at the end of the course.

One of the students summarized his or her experiences as follows:The course really challenges the students to think critically and creatively about research to be set up and research that has already been done. I think this course is a really great intermediate between school classes and the ‘real’ world of research.

It required so much more than just reading a book and making an exam, it was really helpful in developing reading, writing and presenting skills, but it also helped me to be able to better (and quicker) analyze papers, interpret figures etc. And at the end, after the jury presentation and everything, there is a feeling of pride, that you actually really accomplished something. Developing a critical attitude. Students can also realize that the field of cell biology is not so clear cut, many things are still unknown and have yet to be discovered. Therefore such a course gives excellent mental stimulation, and enables one to think critically.

Especially great that we learned to really critically discuss and review our own proposal and background papers. It will help us later!2. Below, we discuss the students’ comments, organized around the five key elements of the course, as described earlier.1.

Learning to work with primary articles, in order to get acquainted with the field of choice, to learn scientific reasoning, and to identify opportunities for further research. In the process of searching for a suitable research topic, students usually need to change the angle a few times, which requires additional reading of primary articles. Some students experienced this as frustrating; others said it taught them the fuzzy process of research. Most students, however, realized that the reading contributed to their knowledge about methods and experiments in the field of cell biology, that it was necessary to identify an interesting and challenging gap to focus their research on, and that it was helpful to evaluate and qualify novel findings that researchers presented. After a while, it became easier to understand the papers and to review them critically. Students found they were stimulated to think critically and not to take the scientific information for granted, even though respected researchers presented it.2. The formulation of a research project with fellow students that would fit in a coherent research program of four different projects.

Without exception, students liked the task of writing their own research proposal; it was challenging and motivating according to the students. They liked the idea of being involved in an attempt to advance the frontiers of scientific knowledge in a particular field and to create a unique piece of work based on questions that still need to be answered. This contrasts with most papers that students write, in which they usually collect and put together existing information. Some of the students experienced problems at the beginning of the course, from not knowing precisely what was expected of them, and some of them experienced stress at the end, because of the strict deadline and the pressure of an external jury judging their work.

However, in their comments at the end of the course, students appeared to be happy with the learning gain and proud of the quality of their work.The task of proposing a research project was new for students, and so was the responsibility of the roles that went with it. Students were expected to change their role from “course takers” to “near colleagues,” and the teachers accordingly changed their role from instructors to informed peers and facilitators. Typical facilitator tasks range from asking critical questions, providing constructive feedback, raising issues students should think about, providing tips on how to approach experts, helping to establish contact with specific researchers, and so on. On average, students adapted well, enjoyed the challenge, and took the responsibility we expected them to take, although some students would have preferred more instructional help and guidance in the beginning.3. Getting thorough knowledge of relevant methodology and technologies. Designing the methods section of the research plans was quite difficult for students. The reading of primary articles helped them get acquainted with the methodological possibilities, but as methodology sections in science articles are quite condensed, students found them difficult to understand in the beginning.

Because most of the students had little experience in the research lab, they had various practical questions for which they needed to consult experts.4. Cooperation and leadership. According to the students, group work in this course was very constructive. Students in some groups complained about unequal input by the different group members, but in most groups, students were very committed and cooperated in a good atmosphere.

The division of roles for each group member facilitated the teamwork; everybody had his or her own role, and students could rely on each other.5. The presentation and the defense of the research projects for a jury of experts.

The presentation of their work for an external jury was very motivating, according to the students. Students were eager to deliver their best work and worked very hard to present their cases to the jury and defend the choices they made. The final presentation gave students a feeling of accomplishment and pride. Problems Students FaceDuring the course, the students usually face several problems. Especially in the beginning, they experience problems with respect to the formulation of the research questions and the methodology to be applied.

In this stage, they may feel completely lost in the wealth of information they collect. Furthermore, a group size of four to six students might experience a temporary withdrawal of one member. Usually students do urge each other to be committed and share a fair part of the activities. For some students freedom is confronted by postponing some decisions, which later on leads to stress in order to keep the deadline. Students then realize the importance of time management skills. Some students find it difficult to adapt to the change in the role of the teacher from instructor to one of facilitator, learned peer, and advisor.

Therefore, we emphasized the different role of the teachers in the beginning of the course.In the second part of the course, students start to understand the problems and the ways to formulate hypotheses that can be tested experimentally and begin to like the freedom and responsibility they get. In this stage, they start to experience a sense of excitement of the research as they have the strong feeling of proposing their own research.

After the final jury presentation, students usually are excited about the learning path they went through. Evaluation by AlumniThe course aims at stimulating students to bridge the gap between textbook learning and doing research, and the teachers hope to raise students’ interest in pursuing a research career. To get some insight into the impact of this course on their career development, we asked about 30 alumni to respond on a questionnaire.

The results of this evaluation are presented in. Nearly all respondents thought the course influenced the choices they made after graduation.

According to alumni, the course certainly succeeded in bringing research into their perspective, by giving them a taste of it and showing that they had the potential to be researchers. What were the most important learning gains of this course for you?. The process of not merely coming up with a potential research topic, but to actually work out a plan to carry it out while having to take into consideration the interests of other groups as well as costs, feasibility, facilities/technical equipment.

Audio Books

In other words, a valuable ‘rehearsal’ in light of a future research career. I found it very interesting to see how one continuously has to question oneself while working on and designing a research plan. Every decision one makes needs to be grounded.

I believe what stuck with me most is that it isn't necessarily easy to find a “niche” in the field (something that I had never considered before the course and turned out to be useful during my master and now PhD so it was extremely helpful to be “confronted/taught” with this in undergraduate so that I was prepared when the day came I had to do this in my master program!!!!. Writing a research proposal forces you to see the whole picture within a scientific field, but also to focus on a specific research problem.

It helps you to think critically but also creatively.Did this course have additional value for your career thus far? Please elaborate. This course has definitely helped me in my career so far.

Most PhD students at a recent retreat I participated in had not yet written a single research proposal, whereas I have written several and even received funding from a private foundation to cover some of my research costs. This would have been a lot more difficult without the experience I gained at the Advanced Cell Biology course. Yes, as part of the selection procedure for the University of Oxford, I gave a presentation on the research proposal that resulted from this course, which helped me secure a spot on the program (MSc in Neuroscience).

Evaluation by the JuryIn addition to the student evaluations of the course, the jury members were asked to evaluate the course on five different aspects, as summarized in. As shown, novelty, readability, and the quality of the defense scored highly. The jury reported to be impressed with the way students defended their proposals and how they responded to the critical questions of the jury. Here, students showed that their knowledge of the subject was extensive and solid. The feasibility scored lower, and this is probably due to the inexperience of the students with the practical side of scientific research.

Jury ratings of the quality of theproposal on a 5-point scaleMSDNovelty4.20.8Feasibility3.20.9Readability4.30.7NWO standard a3.40.7Defense4.60.5Jury comments:The 10 jury members added their comments to their evaluation. A few typical jury comments are:I was overall very impressed with the level of expertise the students had built-up in a matter of mere weeks. The topic of the research proposals is part of my research field, and I know first hand how difficult it can be to fully grasp the issues that captivate the field.

The students actively pursued advice from world-leaders in the field (I, in fact, received various positive comments about this from foreign colleagues that were contacted by the students). Although, not surprisingly, feasibility would be an issue when submitting such proposals to a grant agency, the overall quality was good and the defense was impressive.The report was of high scientific quality and very well readable (perfect English). It is difficult to judge if the final report meets the criteria for an NWO grant application, since the students cannot include preliminary experimental data of their own, which is essential for a proper grant application. However, the questions raised and experiments proposed are certainly up to the level of a grant application. During the defense each student showed the ambition to defend not only his/her own input, but the program as a whole. It appeared that all participating students had reached the required high quality level of this course.It appears to me that a viable NWO proposal could have been extracted from virtually all proposals, but that some, perhaps the majority, “as is” lacked enough focus to present them as a proposal as such.These students performed at an impressive level. The way they responded to jury questions and the way in which they defended their proposal was excellent, often using very good arguments!

It is always difficult to qualify the level of understanding of students based on their presentations only, since they have ample time to prepare for the presentation of their proposal. However, one can qualify their level of understanding in a better way by focusing on how they respond to questions and how they behave in a scientific discussion, since they are not able to prepare for all possible questions they might have to answer. In this respect, their engagement, enthusiasm and level of understanding were impressive. The type of involvement they showed during their defense can only be reached after having read and thought a lot about a topic. That's what they apparently did!

.Part of thebook series (NFER) AbstractWorldwide, teachers are considered as the critical actor determining to a large extent the quality of education. In education, we observe a clear trend towards evidence-based teaching and learning approaches that build on available research evidence to ground educational practices. This trend seems not to be reflected in the way teacher education is being set up. Meta-analyses are critical as to the outcomes of teacher education. Dominant approaches also neglect new approaches towards teacher’s professional identity and do not respect the full complexity of the teaching and learning setting. The present article therefore centres on the urgent need to reconsider teacher training models that reflect a congruency with the way teachers are expected to teach (evidence-based) in their future practice. At the same time, it urges teachers to adopt a reflective practitioner approach and a “teacher as a researcher attitude” towards the efficiency and efficacy of their educational practices.

In line with the debate pursued with this article, we centre on the critical issue of “outcomes” of teacher education and how this affects macro-level and meso-level perspectives on teacher education. Cite this chapter as:Valcke M. (2013) “Evidence-Based Teaching, Evidence-Based Teacher Education” (Quality of Teachers and Quality of Teacher Education). In: Zhu X., Zeichner K. (eds) Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century.

New Frontiers of Educational Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. First Online 07 November 2013. DOI Publisher Name Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Print ISBN 978-3-642-36969-8. Online ISBN 978-3-642-36970-4.

Digital Textbooks

eBook Packages.