The second phase of my November tour has taken me to Naples, for the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics 9th World Conference on Bioethics, Medical Ethics and Health Law. I hope to find time to reflect more fully on the conference in the next few days.
In the meantime, I’ve provided a link to the slides from my presentation on the work we’ve been doing over the past six years, in which second year Medical Biochemists (and Medics) produce short videos about different aspects of biomedical ethics.
I have mentioned the Headline Bioethics project here previously, including links to a poster I presented at the Leicester Teaching and Learning event (January 2013) and again at the Higher Education Academy STEM conference (April 2013).
A paper giving more details about the task was published last week in the journal Bioscience Education. The abstract states:
An exercise is described in which second year undergraduate bioscientists write a reflective commentary on the ethical implications of a recent biological/biomedical news story of their own choosing. As well as being of more real-world relevance than writing in a traditional essay format, the commentaries also have potential utility in helping the broader community understand the issues raised by the reported innovations. By making the best examples available online, the task therefore has the additional benefit of allowing the students to be genuine producers of resources.
This is not, incidentally, to be confused with the other activity I’ve been doing with a different cohort of second year students in which they produce short films about bioethics (the paper on that subject is forthcoming).
It seems that November is shaping up as a bit of a European tour for me. Trips later in the months to Naples and Edinburgh have been on the cards for a while, but my friend and colleague Salvador Macip and I ended up popped to Alzira, Spain on November 8th for 24 hours. This unusual behaviour was prompted by our success in winning the European Prize for the Popularization of Science.
This was the 19th year that the European Prize for the Popularization of Science has been awarded
At a recent student-staff committee meeting, a first year student rep noted that it was difficult to know what sort of things markers would be looking for in an essay (especially since many people had no cause to write essays at all during their A level science courses).
I was able to point him to the generic guidance we offer in the Undergraduate Handbook, issues to all new students. However, I also wondered whether we ought really to give more information (particularly when we likely give *markers* of the work quite a thorough checklist). So this year I’ve decided to send an email overtly pointing out the kind of things that gain or lose marks (see below). Critics might argue either that (a) this is undue spoon-feeding or (b) that it will make it harder for us to find criteria on which to comment. I would counter this by saying that ironing out of some of these issue should make it clearer for us to actually get into the *content* of the essay we are assessing and not end up so focused on the *production and process* that we barely get into discussion of the substance of the essay proper.
Anyhow, we’ll see how it goes.
Criteria markers may be judging:
- Has the essay got the correct title (not some vague approximation to it)?
- Does the essay have a proper introduction and conclusion?
- Are references cited in the text (using the Harvard system)? Is there a well-organised reference list at the end?
- Does the essay answer the question posed in the title?
- Is there a logical flow to what has been written (or is a random collection of points, albeit valid points)?
- Is the sentence construction good? Are there issues with paragraphing? Is the story “well told”?
- Has selective or partial coverage of the topic, inevitable in short essays, been justified in any way?
- Have other instructions been followed e.g. is the essay double-spaced? page numbers? word limit?
- Are there diagrams? Do they have: Figure number? Title? Legend (if applicable)? Are they referred to in the text? Are they neat and fit for purpose? If “imported” from a source are they cited?
- Is the title and/or legend “widowed” (on a different page) from the image?
- Is there inappropriate use of quotes?
- Is the essay clearly too long (or too short)?