Editorial: A Good Spread

The articles and short communications in this edition of the journal reflect the spread of skills and attributes that we all would like to see in all bioscience graduates. Literally and editorially we start with practical work, a continued Centre priority over the next year. Stafford et al.’s paper focuses on teaching experimental design — an essential concept for any science graduate to understand. Peter Speldewinde shares a refreshingly down-to-earth approach to teaching ecology, Booth et al., venture into Second Life and Walsh et al. blend case studies into the post-practical activity to help students get the most from the practical work. The conversations I have had with both academic staff and students over recent months reinforce my belief that practical work is an essential part of a science degree. There is, however, disquiet on both sides over the quality and relevance of the lab/field experience. Students tend to be dismissive of the laboratory report and recognise the variability in the quality of the equipment they get to use. In addition, comments made in the essays for the 2010 Student Award brought to my attention just how lost some first year students feel in practical classes. Equally many staff would like to do more with ‘their’ practicals but feel constrained by a diminishing unit of resource, institutional inertia, timetabling issues and at times the encroachment of generic skills provision. That said, given some time and freedom good things are still possible and it is encouraging to see such work published in Bioscience Education.

We all want our graduates to be successful and employed in jobs they find stimulating and rewarding. Saunders and Zuzel investigated student, graduate and employer views of employability skills. Some readers may not be surprised that recent graduates rated their abilities higher than their employers did, but overall students, graduates and employers were largely in accord with respect to the priority they gave to various skills. Although employability was not the focus, other articles in this issue consider skills valued by employers: Adams with raising students awareness of their creative potential via a web site; Pocock et al, with their work asking students to openly negotiate an individual’s contribution mark and Jeremy Wojdak sharing his ‘deceptive approach’ to develop students’ argumentation skills. The decline in numerical competency amongst undergraduates is of concern as I am sure those of you who teach statistics will testify. For those of you who do teach statistics then Ayres and Underwood share a neat little program in their short communication that may make your lot a little easier. The program is able to electronically mark quantitative or simple text questions and has been used successfully with classes of up to 200 students.

Issue 15 is completed with Bevitt et al.’s paper on student attendance and monitoring. Student monitoring is controversial for some, especially if linked to enforced attendance. How can you expect to develop independent, autonomous learners if you treat them like school children and take a register? However, Debbie and team’s approach is a supportive one; students see it as a sign the university cares rather than Big Brother is watching them. Failure to attend high stakes classes triggers a meeting and discussion i.e. dialogue. And isn’t establishing effective dialogue at the very heart of good teaching?

Stephen J Maw

Acting Editor-in-Chief
Centre for Bioscience, the Higher Education Academy
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT

s.j.maw@leeds.ac.uk