J. Beckman, I. Ferru, & E.A. Beckmann (2013), Softly, softly: Introducing research-led education into a successful first year course.

Short summary of the scope and focus in the article


This article describes the process of introducing a Research-Lead Education (RLE) approach and Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL) activities to the 1st year undergraduate course of Human Biology. The authors draw on familiar notions, such as the research-teaching nexus, threshold concepts, and scaffolding. Finally, the authors present some early results from analysing students’ evaluations for the course from 3 consecutive years, showing a significant improvement in perceived learning scores after the introduction of IBL.

Quote a statement that summarizes what the author claims they contribute to the field.


“We hypothesise that, by introducing IBL that encouraged much more peer and demonstrator engagement and feedback, we were creating richer peer relationships, and that our students acknowledged that this peer support provided them with effective feedback on their learning.”

In your own words, compare the results/arguments presented in the article with the authors’ claim(s) you identified in question


From the outset, the results/arguments presented in the article appear somewhat inline with the authors’ claims. The authors’ assume that the introduction of IBL fostered peer relationships and instructor engagement during the course, and that was in turn perceived by the students as “feedback that improved their learning.” In principle, this is a reasonable assumption, however no other Likert-scale question displayed a significant improvement, such as “Overall, I was satisfied with my learning experience in this course,” which remained at the same levels compared to that of the years before the introduction of IBL.

Is the argument that the authors provide solid enough based on the evidence and/or theoretical considerations to convince you of their claim(s)?


The authors provide an indication that IBL may improve learning experience in the 1st year course of Human Biology. They also build their work on the theoretical foundations of RLE, the research-teaching nexus, threshold concepts, and scaffolding, which have been found to drastically transform learning experience when applied and implemented during the course design process. However, the authors do not provide hard evidence to convince the reader that IBL worked well, and that it would work well in other courses beyond Human Biology.

What is missing in the article?


I believe what is missing from the article is a systematic evaluation of RLE and IBL over longer periods, across more courses and disciplines, and with the incorporation of some objective (e.g., student grades) and qualitative measures (e.g., student interviews).

What was most interesting for you?


After reading the paper I was fascinated by the fact that instructors do “go the extra mile” to improve the learning experience they provide to their students by incorporating teaching methods and tools I have only recently learnt about.

How does this article relate to your own teaching?


I believe the challenge that the authors as instructors face in teaching a 1st year course are more or less similar across the majority of disciplines: Such courses are often well established and thus hard to change, typically require teaching a great volume of content, and deal with large numbers of students from diverse backgrounds.

What can you learn from it?


First, I was able to relate with the authors: the challenges they face in teaching a 1st year undergraduate course are highly similar to those I have to tackle. Next, I was exposed to the way the authors applied knowledge that I have only recently obtained, such as the research-teaching nexus, threshold concepts, and scaffolding, to a concrete use case: a 1st year undergraduate course in Human Biology. Ultimately, their experience and reflections can serve as a roadmap in incorporating some of these RLE elements in my own teaching.