The Effectiveness of Collaborative Augmented Reality in Gross Anatomy Teaching: A Quantitative and Qualitative Pilot Study

In the context of gross anatomy education, novel augmented reality (AR) systems have the potential to serve as complementary pedagogical tools and facilitate interactive, student-centered learning. However, there is a lack of AR systems that enable multiple students to engage in collaborative, team-based learning environments. This article presents the results of a pilot study in which first-year medical students (n = 16) had the opportunity to work with such a collaborative AR system during a full-day gross anatomy seminar. Student performance in an anatomy knowledge test, conducted after an extensive group learning session, increased significantly compared to a pre-test in both the experimental group working with the collaborative AR system (P < 0.01) and in the control group working with traditional anatomy atlases and three-dimensional (3D) models (P < 0.01). However, no significant differences were found between the test results of both groups. While the experienced mental effort during the collaborative learning session was considered rather high (5.13 ± 2.45 on a seven-point Likert scale), both qualitative and quantitative feedback during a survey as well as the results of a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire (80.00 ± 13.90) outlined the potential of the collaborative AR system for increasing students' 3D understanding of topographic anatomy and its advantages over comparable AR systems for single-user experiences. Overall, these outcomes show that collaborative AR systems such as the one evaluated within this work stimulate interactive, student-centered learning in teams and have the potential to become an integral part of a modern, multi-modal anatomy curriculum.     

Precursors to the development of flexible expertise: Metacognitive self-evaluations as antecedences and consequences in adult learning

The current study investigates a conceptualization of flexible expertise as it relates to adult learning within the context of management and leadership training. Three research domains and their relation to metacognitive outcomes are integrated: 1) individual differences in abilities, personality, and mindsets, 2) deliberate practice and routine expertise, and 3) self-regulatory processes. The theoretical focus of the research is on the extent to which metacognitive self-evaluations around person- and management-specific concepts taught during training may act as precursors to flexible expertise. We asked 172 mid-level managers to provide evaluations of concept importance (antecedent), behavioral change (proximal consequence), and impact on job performance (distal consequence) resulting from knowledge acquired during the course of training. A series of hierarchical linear modeling analyses unveil a constellation of core personality characteristics, mindsets, and deliberative processing experiences that together interact to predict metacognitive self-evaluation of impactful training. Our results suggest support for our contention that flexible expertise is a context appropriate, balanced cluster of learning oriented, self-regulatory, and metacognitive processes that moderate and mediate the application of abilities and previously acquired knowledge to problem solution, future knowledge acquisition, and ultimately effective leadership.     

Central processing energetic factors mediate impaired motor control in ADHD combined subtype but not in ADHD inattentive subtype

Participants with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are often impaired in visuomotor tasks. However, little is known about the contribution of modal impairment in motor function relative to central processing deficits or whether different processes underlie the impairment in ADHD combined (ADHD-C) versus ADHD inattentive (ADHD-I) subtype. The present study analyzes performance on the Visual Motor Integration Test relative to less effortful motor tests as well as on measures of energetics. Both ADHD groups showed evidence of impaired motor function on both visual-motor integration (VMI) and the less effortful motor tests. The ADHD-C group performed below the ADHD-I group on VMI, but their performance correlated highly with the measures of the energetic pools of arousal and effort. Different mechanisms may underlie impaired fine motor skills in ADHD. Central processing deficits contribute significantly to the deficit of ADHD-C but do not explain the motor impairment in ADHD-I.     

Biology Education Research: Lessons and Future Directions

This feature draws on a 2012 National Research Council report to highlight some of the insights that discipline-based education research in general—and biology education research in particular—have provided into the challenges of undergraduate science education. It identifies strategies for overcoming those challenges and future directions for biology education research.Biologists have long been concerned about the quality of undergraduate biology education. Indeed, some biology education journals, such as the American Biology Teacher, have been in existence since the 1930s. Early contributors to these journals addressed broad questions about science learning, such as whether collaborative or individual learning was more effective and the value of conceptualization over memorization. Over time, however, biology faculty members have begun to study increasingly sophisticated questions about teaching and learning in the discipline. These scholars, often called biology education researchers, are part of a growing field of inquiry called discipline-based education research (DBER).DBER investigates both fundamental and applied aspects of teaching and learning in a given discipline; our emphasis here is on several science disciplines and engineering. The distinguishing feature of DBER is deep disciplinary knowledge of what constitutes expertise and expert-like understanding in a discipline. This knowledge has the potential to guide research focused on the most important concepts in a discipline and offers a framework for interpreting findings about students’ learning and understanding in that discipline. While DBER investigates teaching and learning in a given discipline, it is informed by and complementary to general research on human learning and cognition and can build on findings from K–12 science education research.DBER is emerging as a field of inquiry from programs of research that have developed somewhat independently in various disciplines in the sciences and engineering. Although biology education research (BER) has emerged more recently than similar efforts in physics, chemistry, or engineering education research, it is making contributions to the understanding of how students learn and gain expertise in biology. These contributions, together with those that DBER has made in physics and astronomy, chemistry, engineering, and the geosciences, are the focus of a 2012 report by the National Research Council (NRC, 2012 ).1 For biologists who are interested in education research, the report is a useful reference, because it offers the first comprehensive synthesis of the emerging body of BER and highlights the ways in which BER findings are similar to those in other disciplines. In this essay, we draw on the NRC report to highlight some of the insights that DBER in general and BER in particular have provided into effective instructional practices and undergraduate learning, and to point to some directions for the future. The views in this essay are ours as editors of the report and do not represent the official views of the Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of Discipline-Based Education Research; the NRC; or the National Science Foundation (NSF).     

Scientific Communication and the Nature of Science

Communication is an important part of scientific practice and, arguably, may be seen as constitutive to scientific knowledge. Yet, often scientific communication gets cursory treatment in science studies as well as in science education. In Nature of Science (NOS), for example, communication is rarely mentioned explicitly, even though, as will be argued in this paper, scientific communication could be treated as a central component of NOS. Like other forms of communication, scientific communication is socially and symbolically differentiated. Among other things, it encompasses technical language and grammar, lab communications, and peer reviews, all of which will be treated in this paper in an attempt to engage on an empirical and theoretical level with science as communication. Seeing science as a form of communicative action supplements the epistemological view of science that is standard to both NOS and the philosophy of science. Additions to the seven NOS aspects on Lederman’s (Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp. 831–879, 2007) list are put forward as well as preliminary thoughts on the inclusion of scientific communication into NOS instruction.     

Affordances and Constraints of Using the Socio-Political Debate for Authentic Summative Assessment

This article reports from an empirical study on the affordances and constraints for using staged socio-political debates for authentic summative assessment of scientific literacy. The article focuses on conditions for student participation and what purposes emerge in student interaction in a socio-political debate. As part of the research project, a socio-political debate was designed for assessing student competences of scientific literacy in classroom practices. The debate centred on a fictive case about a lake where a decline in the yield of fish had been established. The students were assigned the task of participating in the debate from appointed roles as different stakeholders. Data were collected with video recordings of the enacted student debates. Student participation was analysed with the theoretical framework of communities of practice. The results show that multiple conflicting purposes of the socio-political debate as an assessment task emerged. The emergent purposes were (1) putting scientific knowledge on display versus staying true to one's role, (2) putting scientific knowledge on display versus expressing social responsibility, (3) putting scientific knowledge on display versus winning the debate, and (4) using sources tactically versus using sources critically. As these purposes emerged in classroom practice, tensions between different ways of enacting participation in the debates became manifest. Based on these findings, this article discusses the affordances and constraints for using a socio-political debate for classroom-based assessment of scientific literacy and argumentation in terms of validity, reliability and affordability.     

Kompetenzmodellierung: Struktur,Konzepte und Forschungszugänge des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramms

The assessment and modeling of competencies plays a key role in optimizing educational processes and improving educational systems. The DFG priority program “Competence Models for Assessing Individual Learning Outcomes and Evaluating Educational Processes” which was founded in 2007, aims at promoting and coordinating the scientific efforts in this field across disciplines. The present article describes the structure, concepts and research approaches and sketches the current state of research of the priority program.