Analogies are often used in science, but students may not appreciate their significance, and so the analogies can be misunderstood or discounted. For this reason, educationalists often express concern about the use of analogies in teaching. Given the important place of analogies in the discourse of science, it is necessary that students are explicitly shown how they work, perhaps based on the structure-mapping theory we outline here. When using an analogy, the teacher should very clearly specify both its components and its limitations. Great care is required in developing an analogy to ensure that it is understood as intended and that misconceptions are minimized. This approach models the behavior of a scientist, which helps to develop student understanding of the practice of science.

Reducing the number of face-to-face laboratory sessions and supplementing with virtual/online alternatives are critical to managing the combined pressures of increasing first-year student numbers and decreasing university budgets. Most of the research studies about online practicals are hypothesis generating rather than hypothesis testing thus only providing initial support and direction for the generation of pedagogically sound online laboratory teaching. This pilot study investigated the effectiveness of using a combination of online and face-to-face practical sessions to enable students in a Microbiology unit, offered to students completing several health science courses, to connect discipline-specific theory and practical application. Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered using a paper-based questionnaire from 72 first-year students. Results showed that 65 percent of students preferred a combination of face-to-face and online sessions. Furthermore, determinants for engagement with online sessions varied with student gender.

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the current perspectives of feedback from first and second year undergraduate students enrolled in blended units of study which incorporated both face-to-face and online components. Students enrolled in a unit of study taught by the School of Health Sciences at the University of Tasmania were surveyed to broadly determine their perception of the feedback process. Responses from the 55% of the cohort who completed the survey indicated that students recognised a wide variety of feedback processes in both written and online formats. Results indicated that students did not always identify that feedback (particularly formative) could feed forward to enhance their learning. There was a strong student focus on the importance of summative assessment feedback. The analysis of survey responses identified four main themes which form the focus of the discussion; types of feedback, student role in seeking feedback, the usefulness of feedback to learning and, feedback perception and awareness of students. The outcomes of this study also highlighted the necessity to educate both teaching staff and students with respect to feedback processes within the learning and teaching paradigm in higher education.